Speaker:

Welcome to Rabble Rants. I'm Santiago Hilo Quintero and alongside Jesse McLean, we're going to

Speaker:

unpack the stories that have us most riled up and challenge the narratives around them. Well,

Speaker:

the NDP and the Liberals made another big announcement this week, apparently. Pharmacare. Pharmacare

Speaker:

is what's in the news right now. I know a lot of people are really excited. It sounds very

Speaker:

promising. I think the most common comment people are making to me when I express my hesitations

Speaker:

is that they see it as a positive first step. And I will allow them that for the moment,

Speaker:

but let's get into at least what details we do know. Pharmacare was part of the agreement

Speaker:

with the liberals that the NDP made with them back in March of 2022 that in order for them

Speaker:

to get along and vote along and for the NDP to prop them up, Pharmacare had to be delivered.

Speaker:

And the original deadline was set for December 2023. They came to an agreement to push that

Speaker:

off until March. March 1st was the deadline. And so as we approached it, sure enough, they

Speaker:

made the announcement that two types of drugs will be covered, a wide range of diabetes medication

Speaker:

and possibly the monitoring devices required, as well as contraception. And that again, it's

Speaker:

a wide class of contraception that is supposed to be included. This legislation could be tabled

Speaker:

in the House of Commons as early as next week. Now in the interviews that Jagmeet has provided,

Speaker:

he says it clearly points to single payer system, which means rather than a hodgepodge of a whole

Speaker:

bunch of different entities, it would acquire the purchasing power of a single payer. However,

Speaker:

we don't know who that payer is. I think there's a lot of speculation that it might be Manulife.

Speaker:

But again, the legislation has not seen the light of day, not public day anyway. And the

Speaker:

liberals right now are refusing to comment on it until it's tabled. The NDP also admit that

Speaker:

there's some details that they're still working out, but no other drugs are gonna be included

Speaker:

in this. We know that. They are using the words universal, which would be different than the

Speaker:

dental care that they rolled out, sort of. earlier this year that is administered by Manualife.

Speaker:

Manualife, folks remember the reason I kind of have maybe disdain dripping when I mentioned

Speaker:

them is not just because they're a big insurance company, but also because they recently had

Speaker:

to walk back a policy change that was going to see everybody that fell under their insurance

Speaker:

would have to get over 200 medications specifically at Shopper's Drug Mart. that obviously didn't

Speaker:

go over very well. So it seems that Manual Life has definitely done a good job lobbying all

Speaker:

levels of government here in Canada. So I guess that's why we expect them to be responsible

Speaker:

for this. But like anything, I'm skeptical. I don't like announcements that lack in real

Speaker:

details. And like we've talked about on the show before, timing is everything. None of

Speaker:

the timing is ever not tied. to very specific political ends, political goals. You know,

Speaker:

there's a lot to unpack about what we do know about PharmaCare, but Santiago, I don't, are

Speaker:

you excited? Do you see this as a big momentous announcement? No, I don't have it in me to

Speaker:

be so generous, I don't think, and that might feel harsh, but the history of PharmaCare is

Speaker:

one that, or at least about the conversation of PharmaCare has been. incredibly frustrating

Speaker:

for me to witness. I mean, the liberals have been promising pharmacare on their end for

Speaker:

a very long time, you know, decades. I still remember a few years ago when, you know, NDP

Speaker:

MP Peter Julian introduced the Privates Members Bill to, what was it, an act to enact an act

Speaker:

for pharmacare, along those lines, which was just simply an act to get them to start the

Speaker:

process for pharmacare. right, not even an act to introduce pharmacare, just to begin the

Speaker:

process of developing a pharmacare act. And that was voted down by every single liberal

Speaker:

MP except for Adam Vaughan of Spenna Fort York at the time, former MP of Spenna Fort York,

Speaker:

who he abstained, but he was one of the most outspoken critics of it. He was playing all

Speaker:

of these political games with it. And I remember like it. It was just the most frustrating thing

Speaker:

to witness. But yeah, every single other liberal MP voted it down, just simply beginning the

Speaker:

process. They have been playing with the public about pharmacare for far too long and getting

Speaker:

away with it. Even though this is one of the most immensely popular policy points that is

Speaker:

there anybody out there who's actually opposing this? I mean, most conservatives that I talk

Speaker:

to are on board. with the idea of pharmacare. Well, to be fair, they're saying they haven't

Speaker:

seen anything. They can't comment and they don't trust these two. That these two often make

Speaker:

promises and then deliver anything but. Yeah, I mean, that's fair. Of course it's fair. Ask

Speaker:

anybody waiting for this Canadian disability benefit to appear. So it had legislation, it

Speaker:

had something that we were all supposed to cheer and get really excited about, but then it's

Speaker:

been absent from the budgets. and there's no inclination that it's going to be in the spring

Speaker:

budget either. Maybe we'll be surprised. But one of the things about the Pharmacare Act

Speaker:

here is although they could table the legislation next week or the week after, Jugmeet has conceded

Speaker:

that it's not, there's going to be no money for it in the spring budget. Meaning, this

Speaker:

government might not even stand until we actually get a rollout. So there is no rollout of this

Speaker:

medication. People with diabetes right now that aren't already covered can not count on getting

Speaker:

it at this point. This is not something to tell people that help is on its way, because if

Speaker:

there's no money in it right now, then it's not happening yet. Another big beef I have

Speaker:

with it is the framing it as it's some sort of announcement that there's a legislation

Speaker:

on the table and we're supposed to be grateful. This was a huge... This is supposed to be the

Speaker:

bare minimum. It's... One, definitely we could talk about all the drugs that need to be covered,

Speaker:

but it was one of the big ticket items in the Casa deal. It was one of the things NDP members

Speaker:

had to keep reminding themselves of, the reason that they had propped up this liberal government

Speaker:

who is now complicit in genocide and all kinds of inaction over massive amounts of crisis

Speaker:

that we've had. And they've had to hold on to that kernel of, well, we're going to get pharmacare

Speaker:

out of this. I'm not going to go back to the dental care because still that hasn't been

Speaker:

expanded beyond its tiny, tiny rollout of like octogenarians. And this feels the same. It

Speaker:

feels like a well timed announcement that they've made a deal that they already made. Because

Speaker:

check this out. Alastair McGregor tweets out that it took weeks of intense negotiations

Speaker:

to include these two drugs. What the fuck did the agreement? include then if it didn't include

Speaker:

any medication? It's pharmacare. And you're telling me you had to go toe to toe with the

Speaker:

liberals all this time since 2022 agreement to get them to include medication and pharmacare?

Speaker:

Was there ever any agreement or did they literally have to beg them for each and every item and

Speaker:

then try to celebrate the crumbs that they were thrown? Even a couple of days before this announcement,

Speaker:

The National Post reported that Jagmeet had kind of leaked out that the liberals weren't

Speaker:

considering diabetes medication. So are you telling me at some point they were going to

Speaker:

announce this as just contraception? They probably realized that would be a nightmare with the

Speaker:

conservatives and their toxic masculinity that would just not sell as pharmacare because it's

Speaker:

not. But at the same time, they admit that they sat down and only considered covering antibiotics,

Speaker:

cholesterol medication, blood pressure medication, and psychological medication such as antidepressants.

Speaker:

I wonder if that includes ADHD medication. Sorry selfish, but uh. It's not selfish. This is

Speaker:

what everybody's looking for to not have to pay for the drugs that they need that should

Speaker:

be included in this so-called universal healthcare. Those drugs that you just mentioned, those

Speaker:

aren't being included as of right now. They aren't. They only considered them and then

Speaker:

declined. And there has been no word from anyone who spoke about this as it being a first step.

Speaker:

Because at no point have they implied that these drugs that I've just mentioned are next. No,

Speaker:

no, no. They have emphasized that they did everything they could to simply get these two drugs in.

Speaker:

People need to remember that even the Canada Health Act and any other kind of legislation

Speaker:

that passes or barely passes or passes without any funding attached to it will quickly be

Speaker:

repealed. We'll quickly go by the wayside, particularly if it was some piecemeal shit that's easy to

Speaker:

retract. If you gave everybody the drugs that they needed, you could not take them away.

Speaker:

But if you're only giving people contraception that they need and now remember that's A lot

Speaker:

of folks in Ontario, BC, and soon to be Manitoba are already covered for contraception. And

Speaker:

so that is a lot easier to take away. I'm curious about when you say contraception. I'm curious

Speaker:

about what's included in that and what maybe isn't included in that, right? Because are

Speaker:

different various kinds of IUDs included in that, as an example? Is Plan B included in

Speaker:

that? What are we talking about when we say contraceptive? Yes, if you are listening to

Speaker:

drug meat saying all of those, it is a wide range of contraception. So to be fair, and

Speaker:

the same goes for diabetes, it's not just insulin. So they are attempting to cover the drugs that

Speaker:

are being covered as universally as possible. So Plan B is what some people call the morning

Speaker:

after pill. That is obviously very contentious with conservatives. And I don't think that

Speaker:

was specifically mentioned. I mean, right now we're at a moment where the conservatives have

Speaker:

the majority of provinces across the country save for places like BC which aren't doing

Speaker:

much better under an NDP government. But anyways, using that power they have been eroding healthcare

Speaker:

left and right. And this is what we get from the coalition of federal liberals and federal

Speaker:

NDPs. I mean, if you compare what the conservatives are taking away versus what we're getting here,

Speaker:

there's no way to spin this as the people are coming out in any way as a net gain. We're

Speaker:

losing more and more. We got a little, it's like four steps backwards, one step forward.

Speaker:

And we're supposed to take this as if that one step forward means we're moving forward. I

Speaker:

cannot possibly look at it that way. I can't. Pharmacare, first of all, is not this unusual

Speaker:

like utopian thing. It's pretty standard in many of the countries that have universal health

Speaker:

care. If anything, Canada is one of, if not the worst country that has so-called universal

Speaker:

health care when it comes to covering pharmaceuticals. It is a ridiculous system that we're currently

Speaker:

under and it is the most logical thing in the world to introduce pharma care. It will save

Speaker:

Canadians so much money. I mean, we talk about essential goods,

Speaker:

as something to profit off of is some of the most despicable, evil shit that I can think

Speaker:

of. These companies are fucking massive and you to, and, and to make matters worse, they

Speaker:

often rely on public money to beat for the development of this medication that they then go and sell

Speaker:

for enormous profits. So they're fine using the people's money, all they want to create

Speaker:

the medicine. Because there are people who are like, oh yeah, you know, they charge all this

Speaker:

much, but they need it for development. No, they fucking don't. And they shouldn't. And

Speaker:

we should be funding the development of medication, because that is one of the most logical things

Speaker:

to fund. It is an absolute good, but then making profit off of it, I can't imagine. I cannot

Speaker:

imagine how fucked up that is. So no, I'm not gonna give them their celebrations. I'm not.

Speaker:

not fucking enough. It's not. I don't know why people celebrate this shit. I'm serious. And

Speaker:

I understand the need for victories. This is not your victory. This is a backroom deal by

Speaker:

two politicians and they made it exactly what they wanted. That is not a victory we earned.

Speaker:

We can find victories in other places because you don't celebrate people doing their job

Speaker:

to the absolute bare minimum, especially when those folks are beyond being humble. You know,

Speaker:

they're standing up there telling you to thank them and how hard they worked for these crumps.

Speaker:

Why do you need to celebrate them? These are the powerful. They owe us so much fucking more

Speaker:

than this. And why are you content with a baby step? You see them sending $9 billion to Ukraine.

Speaker:

You see them sending weapons to Israel. You see them cutting checks to Loblaws. You see

Speaker:

Manulife getting a cut. They are not gonna do this without profit. So there's profit built

Speaker:

into the system, the dental system. I imagine this pharmacare is gonna have mass amounts

Speaker:

of profit built into it. And so you know the money is there to do this properly, to make

Speaker:

sure that cholesterol, fucking antibiotics. You know people need antibiotics to stay alive

Speaker:

when they have infections, right? Like that is a life-saving medication, just like many

Speaker:

others. Just the psychological drugs as well. There's no reason to cherry-pick medications

Speaker:

and start off slowly. That is a fucking myth sold to you so you will be okay and celebrate

Speaker:

these bare, bare... Minimums that in the end aren't the transformative thing that these

Speaker:

people are selling it to and so rather than calling them on it in this moment So many people

Speaker:

are giving them that little bit right? They're giving them that media space They're giving

Speaker:

them that clout because they feel like it is a crumb and they're so desperate for crumbs

Speaker:

No now is the time to look them in the eye and say how could you especially true to right?

Speaker:

Especially the liberals who didn't even want to cover what any drugs after all these years

Speaker:

are promising it they were what? just going to cover the birth control pill? Was that the

Speaker:

plan? Look at them and say, how the fuck could you decide antibiotics weren't necessary for

Speaker:

people? And, you know, let's talk about the state of the Canadian economy for a second,

Speaker:

right? Because people talk a lot about the gig economy. You know what the gig economy doesn't

Speaker:

have? It doesn't have a healthcare plan. A lot of people working precarious work, part-time

Speaker:

work, contract work, things that don't carry with them benefits. Meaning they don't have

Speaker:

any coverage for medication. And the average Canadian already, I mean, this is old numbers.

Speaker:

I have no idea what it is now. I just know that it's worse. But like pre-pandemic numbers were

Speaker:

that the average Canadian doesn't have enough for a $200 emergency. My prescription medication

Speaker:

alone would cost me upwards of $300 a month. I do not know how people are expected to pay

Speaker:

for their medication right now. This is something that, like, if anybody had a... basic understanding

Speaker:

of how economics works. This is a fucking knife in the Canadian economy. Because having people

Speaker:

not be able to afford things, having to pay, but they have to, they have to buy their medicine.

Speaker:

So they're having to make serious sacrifices to be able to afford their medicine, which

Speaker:

then means that they have less spending money to go into the Canadian economy. That is horrible,

Speaker:

economically speaking. That is not how you create a healthy economy.

Speaker:

A universal pharmacare, it puts us in the position to one, if we're going the route of, you know,

Speaker:

single payer and stuff, we can negotiate the cheapest possible medication prices from these

Speaker:

companies, buying them in bulk. That's one potential option. And it's the reason at the moment why

Speaker:

Canadian healthcare is a fraction of the price that it is in the US, which is just an example

Speaker:

of how bad this can get if we let it spin out of control. But then the other thing is that

Speaker:

You know, when it comes to the patents, patents are not these ironclad things. Governments

Speaker:

can override patents if it's in the public's interest. We can just snatch that up and start

Speaker:

creating publicly funded generic versions of medications. And then we can set the price

Speaker:

to whatever it costs to make it. And really, You know, when we have right now, you know,

Speaker:

I think of like the LCBO as an example, we have these government run stores for alcohol. Why

Speaker:

the hell are we relying on private pharmacies like shoppers who is, you know, owned by who?

Speaker:

The Westons. Because of course it is. Why are we relying on private pharmacies? No, no, no

Speaker:

pharmacies. We should have public pharmacies. Why do we not have public pharmacies? I need

Speaker:

somebody to explain that to me. It's getting to the point where we're not even gonna have,

Speaker:

we don't have public family doctors. Much of our health care is privately delivered. Yeah,

Speaker:

it's like, you know, we look at all of this and then we look at what's being proposed here.

Speaker:

And you know what, I do celebrate. It's important that diabetes medication is covered, you know,

Speaker:

that is essential and it is something that is a consistent cause. And the alternative that

Speaker:

we could live in is in the States where remember that fucker, I forget his name, but like there

Speaker:

was this one guy who like bought up the patent for a diabetes medication and he increased

Speaker:

the price like crazy. Which by the way was created by a Canadian at the, Frederick Banting was

Speaker:

it? At the University of Toronto back in the day. And he sold the patent for a dollar because

Speaker:

he thought it was so important that nobody should be able to profit off of this. that it should

Speaker:

be in the public's interest. And it was created at U of T, I think it was publicly funded,

Speaker:

but my point being the founder of Insulin did not want this to be something that was profited

Speaker:

off of. I am capable of both celebrating something and criticizing something at the same time.

Speaker:

We are not one dimensional people here. I am not okay looking at like what the options are,

Speaker:

what the possibilities are. I'm not okay. with the progress being made because they, decades,

Speaker:

it's been decades of listening to this. When exactly are we going to get actual PharmaCare?

Speaker:

Piyapoliev is looking like he's going to win the next election for the conservatives. The

Speaker:

liberals are polling horribly right now. When, like what exactly do they expect is going to

Speaker:

happen? I feel like the diabetes medication is in there to help secure it. to a degree

Speaker:

because you'd have to look like a real heartless fuck at that point to remove people's medication

Speaker:

if eventually it does end up in the budget. But one thing that I should have mentioned,

Speaker:

two things really, to be fair to the NDP, even though it makes me cringe to do it. Surely

Speaker:

this would not be tabled next week if it wasn't for the NDP and if it wasn't for the deal.

Speaker:

Because I think between the generations of promises for pharmacare that's failed through the liberals.

Speaker:

The fact they didn't even mention it in their last election, almost like they had given up

Speaker:

on promising it. And then knowing that they fought tooth and nail to not even have diabetes

Speaker:

medication in there tells you that you wouldn't have anything really if it wouldn't have been

Speaker:

for the NDP pushing this particular thing. And diabetes medication and contraception are unique

Speaker:

in that, not unique, but for poor folks. They are very important. Diabetes is far more prevalent

Speaker:

amongst low income people. It's also more prevalent in racialized communities. Contraception is

Speaker:

also very important to poor people. It impacts people a lot, unwanted pregnancies. Not having

Speaker:

access to abortion or contraception is a barrier in Canada, even though we have the rights.

Speaker:

It does become. financial barrier to folks. So these two types of drugs will definitely,

Speaker:

definitely make a positive impact in our communities. Diabetes is extremely common in Indigenous

Speaker:

communities in Canada. Like it's a massive, massive issue in rural Indigenous communities.

Speaker:

And like there's no doubt that is desperately, desperately needed there. Just wanted to mention

Speaker:

because a lot of people do not know just how big of an issue that is. It's a... I mean,

Speaker:

people are out here losing their limbs constantly in flying communities because of diabetes.

Speaker:

And they have necks and they don't have doctors in these communities. And it's a big issue.

Speaker:

No, yeah, there has to... It has to be said. There's definitely some pluses. But if we aren't

Speaker:

holding our politicians' feet to the fire and demanding more, that's all you're ever going

Speaker:

to get. Quite frankly. In this moment in time, the NDP, I'm speaking from what I would do,

Speaker:

I guess, but I would want to see an NDP that was willing to burn everything to the ground

Speaker:

if they were not going to get a true PharmaCare. There's no argument in saying that this is

Speaker:

not possible because, as I said, it is an absolute benefit to the Canadian economy. It literally

Speaker:

is people's lives here. I would want to see the NDP say...

Speaker:

We go to an election and we see how you do against Pierre Polyev. Because your polling is in the

Speaker:

fucking mud. Pierre Polyev is polling at beyond majority numbers. Let's see if you want to

Speaker:

go into an election right now. We're getting PharmaCare. The people deserve PharmaCare.

Speaker:

There is no negotiation. That's what I would want to see. Because that's how important of

Speaker:

an issue this is. That is a wrap on another episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank

Speaker:

you for joining us. Also a very big thank you to the producer of our show, Santiago Halu-Quintero.

Speaker:

Blueprints of Disruption is an independent production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on

Speaker:

Twitter at BPEofDisruption. If you'd like to help us continue disrupting the status quo,

Speaker:

please share our content. And if you have the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only

Speaker:

does our support come from the progressive community, so does our content. So reach out to us and

Speaker:

let us know what or who we should be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.