Nav Persaud: I think the bill is a meaningful step forward.
It does squarely bring certain medicines within the publicly funded system. In that respect, there is a lot to be hopeful for in the bill.
It is easy to imagine that this bill could have been a step away from including medicines in our publicly funded system. Notably, the federal dental program does double down on this American-style, private/public mashup of insurance. I understand that similar proposals were contemplated for medication access. In the respect of including medicines in the publicly funded system, the bill is very strong.
Actually, it hasn’t happened yet, and we do need to think about why it hasn’t happened yet, when we are thinking about what might happen in the next year or 18 months. I think one of the main reasons we haven’t had pharmacare yet, despite broad public support that obviously crosses political lines and multiple government reports that have recommended pharmacare, is that there has been intense lobbying against it from private insurers and from the pharmaceutical industry.
I think some of the comments made when the bill was announced, maybe do signal that the government is still open to hearing from lobbyists, notably the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry that oppose pharmacare. It’s totally rational for these companies to oppose pharmacare because they are profiting from the current bloated system. Each dollar that pharmacare saves [is] maybe $1 in less revenue for them and pharmacare is expected to save billions.
“We need media that enlarges the sense of what’s possible.”
Naomi Klein, journalist and author
Want to support hope-fuelled journalism? Become a sustaining member.
