A federal intrusion that disrupts coverage for three-quarters of the population, requires tax hikes and spending cuts, and leads to less drug access hardly seems like a political winner. But neither is silence on the other side of the debate.
A single-payer pharmacare scheme would disrupt coverage for the 77 per cent of the population generally satisfied with the status quo, argues Sean Speer. Photograph courtesy of Victor Casale
As we approach the 2019 federal election campaign, we seem to be moving towards to a major policy conflict between political parties on pharmacare and the federal role.
People. Policy. Politics. This is an exclusive subscriber-only story.
'Crises have a life cycle, and this one looks like it will be long and have different phases or chapters,' says Josh Greenberg, a specialist in communications and media coverage of outbreaks and infectious disease.
Opposition parties need enough lead time to pore over the legislation, to avoid a repeat of the late-night sitting that occurred when they were 'surprised' to learn that the government was seeking unlimited spending powers until December 2021, says Rachel Blaney.
In a time of great uncertainty and anxiety, Dr. Theresa Tam has emerged as a 'compelling' figure who has an ability to deliver information without dramatizing the stakes. 'She gives us straightforward, evidence-based