Re: "Prescription for savings: how the feds can make pharmacare work for households and employers," (The Hill Times, Feb. 4). In response to David MacDonald and Toby Sanger, the authors forget to account for the significant savings that would be achieved because of the improved health outcomes of Canadians. There would be fewer people off work if they could get the medicine they need when they need it. People would likely be sick for shorter periods. There would be less chance that a minor ailment would escalate to a major health problem requiring hospitalization and other more expensive treatments. Maybe if people didn't have to worry about balancing the costs of medicine with the costs of rent or food there would be less domestic violence, less crime, and fewer mental health problems. All of these social ills are very costly to all levels of government. I agree that a wealth tax and a progressive income tax on the top end is necessary, not just to pay for pharmacare but for many other social programs. A national pharmacare program is a prime example of how investment by the government at strategic social benefit targets can save everyone, citizens, business, and government, money over the longer term. And, it's not just about the money. Better health means a better quality of life, happiness, connecting with others, and all those other intangible, non-monetized values that are so often left behind in calculating the costs of government programs. It's entirely likely that a national, universal pharmacare program would result in cost savings overall if you count all the variables. If the government fails to deliver on this promise because they're afraid to raise taxes on the wealthy and the corporations, or they're afraid of the impact on Big Pharma, then they are failing every other Canadian and leading us down the road to even more income and social inequality. We've been talking about this for decades. Get on with it. Katie Oppen Ottawa, Ont.