The Editor,
Re. “Support changes to pharmacare, too” (Letters, The Tri-City News, March 23) and “MSP rule will cost” (Letters, March 16).
In her letter, Amy Lubik stated: “Why not offset the payroll tax with pharmacare?” The letter goes on to say that the city of Vancouver would save $3 million a year if we had national pharmacare, according to a civic governance report, and that municipalities currently pay at least a part of their employees’ private health care costs.
Why not present a “savings plan” to all Canadian civic employers and have them reduce all employee benefits to only what public pharmacare would cover, with any savings going to the employer to reduce their payroll tax?
However great or small the employer savings may be, and whatever losses to employees may occur, just think of the great example you are setting for national pharmacare.
The parliamentary budget officer estimated an additional cost of $7.3 billion to the public for a national pharmacare program.
I’ll pin my hopes on a federal pharmacare strategy that focuses on the 10% of our population that can’t afford their medication.
F. Nietzel, Port Coquitlam
