# Do you support pharmacare and dental coverage?



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Seems many advanced nations offer some level of coverage for pharmacare and dental.

My mom thought she might need to take a second round of a particular cancer fighting drug, but it’s typically only covered once. Beyond that, you need to make a hardship case. She eventually didn’t need it, but she said she wasn’t going through the hassle of getting it approved.

seems this is something we should offer…..although I know we generally suck at spending health dollars wisely.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I’d probably add some level of vision care too.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Yes to all.

I'm really tired of all the excuses my insurance company gives to weasel its way out of reimbursing me. I really have to keep track of the units I'm using and to submit my claim to the secondary coverage just at the right moment. Even if I'm a day too early for the polishing at nine months or eye exam at two years, the coverage is rejected.

And this is for a person with coverage from my former employer's group coverage. Imagine a person who doesn't get group coverage, like gig workers or the unemployed.


----------



## MrsPartridge (May 15, 2016)

But do dentists support Universal Dental Care? When Ohip was brought in, the dentists didn't want any part of it. They don't want to make the little fees that Ohip will deem adequate for dental care. 

If the Dentists Guild (or the equivalent) doesn't want any part of the proposed Universal Dental Care, then isn't this all moot?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

They had dental care in Quebec years ago for children. At the time my mother was the office manager for a large dental practice. The uptake was not high from some reason. So much so that I believe the Province cancelled the program.

The various medical associations have been lobbying for pharmacare for years. Not much use having medical coverage if someone cannot afford to buy the prescriptions. So I like it....just depends how it structured and what it costs.

Ontario hospitals got a big surprise when they started bulk buying. As I recall on one generic they found the price in NZ for one was a whopping 80 less than Ontario hospitals were paying.

Pharma companies do not like it. So it must be a good idea!

Cannot imagine the dentists liking it one bit. Upsets their applecart so to speak.

Like all programs the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

The dentists didn't want anything to do with the little fees because they aren't enough to even cover the overhead. Also, if a person is fortunate enough to have dental benefits either from employers or extended health benefits once retired, I can't see them allowing coverage under a new federal program. No double dipping.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Most private EHB plans would be adjusted to incorporate the new pharmacare and/or dental care that would be part of the universal plan. Premiums for private plans would go down accordingly.

Don't expect universal pharmacare and dental care to cover much. Some limited annual amounts or percentages thereof. It won't be a holy grail by any means.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

When you talk about government run dental and vision care, what you are saying is you want these services and you want the wealthy to pay for them.

If everyone were to pay for their own coverage, the government could create an opt-in insurance program and be an insurance provider but that is not what is being discussed.

The public insurance is going to come at a similar cost to private insurance now. My wife and I have great coverage for $123/mo/prsn and it includes medication coverage. That's about $1.5K per year. The private insurance company has profit overhead but there is plenty of overhead in publicly run programs, also.

Are you going to cut other spending or are you going to bump up tax to pay for that? If you want to increase taxes, why not just let people buy private insurance? Obviously, the idea is the majority of people will get the service for extreme low cost or free while wealthy people cover the tab. While I am not 100% against this, I already do not take delight in covering healthcare cost for guest workers who send 60% of their earnings back to their home country. This is how guest workers are attracted but I am not interested in providing health care to the world. Among Canadians, sure, some will have to pay more and we have been fortunate so that is acceptable, to some degree.

The point is, "free" vision/dental/prescription service is going to hit me a whole lot harder than my private coverage today so don't count on my vote on nationalizing these services.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

Agreed. And I'm not too thrilled to be paying for dental services to upper middle class people making up to $90000 per year. And I'm a former dentist and feel this way. As for paying for it by cutting spending (this program in itself is a massive spending increase) or increasing taxes, the, duo of tweedle dee and tweedle dumb have no clue about fiscal management as it grows on trees and balances itself. And they just don't care.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Oh yes, it will cost you a lot more as a taxpayer (either directly or due to increased public debt) and especially if you are in any tax bracket above 20.5%. It will be especially costly if it is "free" rather than having a co-pay too.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

ian said:


> Like all programs the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.


Ian, your post had some good ideas. There are opportunities to improve efficiency.

I can have my teeth cleaned for $30 CAD, in Mexico. It is very affordable in other parts of the world, also.

My current dentist has an office in the nicest mirrored glass office tower in town. His office is amazing and the views are great while I'm there but what does that tell you?

Speaking of vision care, I can get a pair of progressive glasses for about $210 CAD in Mexico. That includes the optometrist work to create the prescription. My optometrist In Canada wanted $1250. It is a complex prescription, to be fair.

Decent glasses can be ordered online for $40~60 CAD. Glasses start much lower, from Chinese sources.

Surely there is a middle ground that will make these services somewhat affordable and still provide a nice living for the dental and vision care industry. Somebody is gouging heavily.


----------



## Juggernaut92 (Aug 9, 2020)

I would say that it sounds nice but it would most likely increase the tax people need to pay in order to fund it. The money has to come from somewhere.

For that reason I would say no.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

If we're making everything free, what about petcare ? My vet charges more to clean teeth than the dentist 🤣


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

ian said:


> They had dental care in Quebec years ago for children. At the time my mother was the office manager for a large dental practice. The uptake was not high from some reason. So much so that I believe the Province cancelled the program.


We still do, although I think it only covers exams and fillings. Preventive care (cleaning, sealant, etc) is not covered. I think it's a reasonable balance.


diharv said:


> Also, if a person is fortunate enough to have dental benefits either from employers or extended health benefits once retired, I can't see them allowing coverage under a new federal program. No double dipping.


Here the government still pays for the free stuff and the private insurance pays for what is not covered. Honestly, basic dental care for children is not that expensive. This model might not work as well for adults.

Our medication program is different. If you have private insurance, it replaces the public program. If you don't, getting the public one is mandatory. We pay it when we do our taxes, about 650$ last year.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

TomB16 said:


> The public insurance is going to come at a similar cost to private insurance now.


That is true, but with the basics covered by a universal program, one would expect the cost of private insurance to drop since their risk is lower. Universality is key to keep low risk folks from opting out all the time and skewing the risks.

Personally I think it will be okay. My main worry is that the principles of universality will have knock on effects on the absolute availability of services. The medical system is so constrained that to get many services you're better off going to Switzerland or the US where you can just pay to have some treatment. If I will start to have to wait 12 months for a new glasses prescription, I don't think I will be keen.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

It should have always been covered, so yeah I support the idea in principle. I'm not sure now is the best time to start with the record deficits we're running, but what do I know. Who cares about another few billion $ at this point, right?

I hope there are some protections to stop dentists from over-billing. My dentist started billing about 50% more when I started using my employer's group insurance plan.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

nathan79 said:


> My dentist started billing about 50% more when I started using my employer's group insurance plan.


Mine too. They starting coming up with things to do based on what my plan would pay for. "You can come in every 4 months instead of every 6!" they announced at one point, after looking up my coverage.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

There is no holy grail, so no, I don't support it. Most people should pay their own way and stop riding on the backs of others. I don't have insurance, so I budget accordingly. Yes it's annoying when you have multiple problems......


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

[CRANKY_OLD_MAN]
About 15 years ago, I was hanging out with some boating friends in Arizona who were talking about maintenance costs. One guy said he thought insurance should cover annual service. Even back then, he was paying over $2K to have his boat serviced every year. That seems cheap now, for a twin stern drive MTX.

Much to my horror, every other boater started nodding their head and exclaiming support for the idea. My gawd.

I made a very small effort explain to them the insurance company is going to take that cost, add on their overhead and profit, then bill them at the higher rate. The response was, "What do you mean? I already pay $7K per year for insurance? It will be free!"

I get socialized healthcare, and like it. I could understand socialized dental procedures, if they are really expensive. I do not understand socializing recurring costs like dental checkups, cleanings, eye exams, etc.

This entire discussion is founded on the fact that only 1% of people can set aside 75 bucks each month for incidental costs. Perhaps grade schools need a class called, "How to have money in your pocket by not spending it all the moment you get it."
[/CRANKY_OLD_MAN]


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I’d probably add some level of vision care too.


Liberals cut this when they took power in Ontario.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Seems many advanced nations offer some level of coverage for pharmacare and dental.


Ontario already covers dental for kids, heavily discounts vision as well to a certain age.

One problem with Ontarios pharmacare plan as it stands is that it will cover if you're on welfare, but not once you get a job, if you have an expensive prescription, it's a poverty trap.

I support this, however, as healthcare is a provincial responsibility, the federal government has no role here.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> [CRANKY_OLD_MAN]I get socialized healthcare, and like it. I could understand socialized dental procedures, if they are really expensive. I do not understand socializing recurring costs like dental checkups, cleanings, eye exams, etc.[/CRANKY_OLD_MAN]


It makes little sense to cover expensive procedures but not cover basic checkups and cleanings to prevent many of those problems from occurring in the first place. You think you're saving money but really you're creating more expensive problems down the road. Would you rather pay for someone's dental filling or wait until they need a root canal?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

How many of you people in favour if dental coverage are prepared to pay $1500 per year of additional tax and how many of you only want it if someone else will carry the financial cost?


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

Read a comment on CBC NEWS that said much thinner and lighter wallets under this new coalition going forward will decrease back issues and pain. Win-win.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> How many of you people in favour if dental coverage are prepared to pay $1500 per year of additional tax


yes



TomB16 said:


> and how many of you only want it if someone else will carry the financial cost?


and yes

I have long believed we should model ourselves after the Scandinavian countries. They have done a great job in using their resource revenue to generate legacy funds, provide high level of education, health coverage etc. These countries often score high on the world happiness index as well. They do have a high cost of living but they also seem to have a healthier and more satisfied population.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> How many of you people in favour if dental coverage are prepared to pay $1500 per year of additional tax and how many of you only want it if someone else will carry the financial cost?


Well seeing as that's less than my current drug and dental coverage, seems like a deal.
However I think it will go forward like healthcare, were we don't have enough services to go around.


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

I agree with children dental coverage under 10 yo with a means test for the family, including separated parents. And a cap for fees.

Pharma are already has means tests and seems to be working.

Childcare needs more restrictions than currently required.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan2000 said:


> Pharma are already has means tests and seems to be working.


Maybe the new programs (Ontario Trillium program) are better, but I know in the past the pharma program was a really bad poverty trap.

I'm okay with these systems, but I don't want the dysfunction in our current health care system to expand to other fields. I also want to make sure we don't create more poverty traps. 
I think poverty traps are evil.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Universal Basic Income...........coming to a government near you.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Universal Basic Income...........coming to a government near you.


Universal Basic Income.......... welcome to the welfare trap.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Universal Basic Income...........coming to a government near you.


They can't even figure out how to cut taxes to a living wage, I can't imagine they'll be able to figure out how to raise the money for UBI.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Universal Basic Income...........coming to a government near you.


only if you work for it.


----------

