SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 323

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2024 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Mr. Jagmeet Singh
  • Jun/3/24 1:48:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, on that great question from my colleague, it is important to point out that although the Conservatives and the pharmaceutical industry will mention there is coverage that people have, many people have coverage that requires a co-pay or that has a cap on how much is covered, and they have to spend money out-of-pocket. Having access to free diabetes medication and devices means it would be entirely free; it would cover that medication. When we think about the cost, if someone does not take the medication they need, they end up having worse outcomes and end up in an emergency room, and that costs all of us. It is not only a saving for that person, not only a saving for Amber, but also an improvement to the overall health care system if people can stay healthy and can prevent illnesses.
146 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Mr. Mark Gerretsen
  • Jun/3/24 4:14:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the affordability aspect of it, I think, is really important. I do not think it really matters what one's economic background or economic status is, but if any Canadian were to go into a hospital and receive a bill afterward, any of us would be taken aback by that just because of the concept. I have friends who live in the United States. One gave birth recently and received a bill for $26,000. It is absolutely insane. The same logic has to apply to the medications we need. It is not even just about helping people with the costs; it is also about the investment. If we help people take care of themselves now, we are not going to have to pay as much when they end up in the hospital because they were not able to afford the medications they were prescribed. What the bill is really about, and what I tried to emphasize in my speech, is that there are varying levels of affordability right now. Some people, 20% or so, have absolutely no coverage. Some people have the platinum level of coverage where they do not have to pay anything. Then there is everybody else in between. Some people pay 60%, and some people pay 40%, 20%,10% or whatever it is depending on who is covering them. At the end of the day, in my opinion, the coverage needs to be universal, just like the coverage is universal when it comes to receiving health care from a physician or in a hospital.
260 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Jun/3/24 8:51:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did answer my colleague's question. The reality is that if companies try to gouge again and pass those costs on to consumers, the excess profit tax kicks in. That is why, during the Second World War, the excess profit tax that was put into place as a tool at that time did not ignite or engender any passing on of those costs to consumers. It is the same principle, so I did answer his question. My question for the member is this. Given Conservatives are refusing even to participate, as they are not in the House, and are refusing to talk about the issue of school lunches—
112 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 323 - Jun/3/24
Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)
  • Jun/3/24 8:55:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in all of the debate about excess profits for large grocery stores, I am really puzzled by this one fundamental question. That is, in the supply chain, there are costs added everywhere, with input costs added at every stage. Everybody along the supply chain is making money somewhere along the line. Why pick on the very last person in the supply chain? Why not look at all the others as well?
73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border