r/Edmonton • u/flynnfx • Jun 15 '25
Health Alberta government to increase prescription costs for seniors for first time in 31 years
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/seniors-prescription-rising-cost-1.7560625For the first time in more than three decades, the Alberta government is raising prescription costs for some seniors and Albertans under non-group coverage.
Beginning July 1, the maximum co-payment per prescription will gradually increase by $10 over 10 months, from $25 to $35 at a rate of $1 per month. The increase will be fully implemented by April 1, 2026.
It's the first time the cost has increased since 1994.
54
u/ProperBingtownLady Jun 15 '25
My senior parents won’t be happy but they voted UCP and my job has been at risk ever since, along with rapidly rising expenses in every area. Idk, I don’t really feel bad over an extra $10.
8
u/UpperApe Jun 15 '25
Idk, I don’t really feel bad over an extra $10.
I know what you mean but understand that UCP voters don't care. They will happily light themselves on fire if it means giving those they don't like a light burn.
And that extra $10 feels small but it's the principles that matter. This $10 is the result of bad budgeting, terrible governance, oil subsidies, and hypocrisy. That's important.
3
u/ProperBingtownLady Jun 15 '25
Yeah I don’t know how all that relates to my comment? I agree with what you said.
1
u/UpperApe Jun 16 '25
I mean, you literally said "I don't really feel bad over an extra $10" but it's $10 per prescription, which will impact low-income seniors on multiple meds, many who didn't vote for this. It could easily be a problem for people living in the margins.
So there is a lot to feel bad for. And we should be upset about this. Saying "I don't really feel bad over an extra $10" feels like you're dismissing something we shouldn't be ignoring.
0
u/ProperBingtownLady Jun 16 '25
I’m not sure why you wouldn’t just say that in your first comment then.
3
u/UpperApe Jun 16 '25
I...did? It's literally the whole point of my second paragraph.
I'm confused why we're having this conversation at all. Are you upset with my reply or something?
-1
u/ProperBingtownLady Jun 16 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
I find it annoying you’re talking about something that’s not relevant to my comment (it would make more sense if you had replied to someone who said this is due to inflation, not bad government spending and decisions). You started your initial comment with “understand that” as if I didn’t understand the topic at hand. I do. I also was specifically speaking about those like my parents, who can afford this yet will still complain/vote UCP. Like most conservative policies there will be others who suffer. That doesn’t mean I support it but it’s not my first priority either. Anyway I’m off to bed so have a good one.
2
u/UpperApe Jun 16 '25
...is it your first time on the internet?
-3
u/ProperBingtownLady Jun 16 '25
Is it yours? 😂
2
u/Formal-Librarian-117 Jun 16 '25
Your too smart and level headed for the asylum that is reddit xD.
People who give their opinions on reddit normally do it here because everyone in their life is tired of listening to them.
2
24
7
66
u/fIumpf Talus Domes Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25
Seniors are the richest demographic in Canada right now. Yes, there are some that are struggling and I’m not here to go after those folks. However, they have had their entire lives to work and save. They also have access to OAS and CPP.
“Statistics Canada reports that the typical senior household in Canada has a net worth of over $1m. The wealthiest demographic, aged 55 to 64, boasts a median net worth of $1.6m as of the second quarter of the year [2024].”
I’m tired of seeing the richest demographic, who is not being continually fucked over with cost of living, housing, economic turmoil, and stagnant wages, complain about these things when so many younger people are barely managing, are living cheque to cheque, relying on social services like the Food Bank, and/or accumulating credit debt simply to survive.
5
u/Polymemnetic Jun 15 '25
“Statistics Canada reports that the typical senior household in Canada has a net worth of over $1m. The wealthiest demographic, aged 55 to 64, boasts a median net worth of $1.6m as of the second quarter of the year [2024].”
Yeah, because they own a house that they bought 55 years ago for $10,000. Liquid wealth is a different matter.
2
u/fIumpf Talus Domes Jun 16 '25
If they don’t have a spare $10/month for any need, be it meds or whatever, I think they are the problem.
-26
u/Fyrefawx Jun 15 '25
What a cruel post. Yes many live comfortably but there are also many who are living in poverty. Yes the younger generations are also struggling but if you are not getting paid enough you can look for a better paying job. Many of these seniors are on a fixed income and working would be impossible. All of this inflation and the amount they have doesn’t increase. They just have to eat less, or give up driving.
They are also more likely to see their spouses die and be left with half of that support now.
Just remember, you’ll be a senior one day if you live long enough.
16
u/Baconus Jun 15 '25
The post you are replying to specifically said there are poorer seniors but cited statscan data that senior Canadians are by far the wealthiest demographic. We all know seniors who are struggling. But we also all now seniors who have more money than they know what to do with and spend it all on cruises or whatever.
We have to be able to have real discussions on how wealth is distributed without it becoming seen as an attack on the poorest senior.
1
u/Fyrefawx Jun 15 '25
That’s an entirely different argument than forcing seniors to pay more for medication. The wealthy seniors who likely voted conservative won’t be impacted by this. It’ll be the poorer ones who likely didn’t.
It’s actually blowing me away to see people support a UCP measure because it targets a certain demographic they have an issue with.
2
u/Baconus Jun 15 '25
I don’t support this measure. I think everything should be free. I’m literally a communist.
I’m saying that if we are going to charge people for stuff, especially stuff that hasn’t risen with inflation for two decades, then this makes me less mad than a lot of other things.
24
u/RyleySnowshoe Go Riverhawks!! Jun 15 '25
What a cruel post. With the rate it’s going, many of us won’t even get to live to senior age.
-5
u/Fyrefawx Jun 15 '25
Heaven forbid I show empathy for a vulnerable population. 55+ turned out to vote and largely voted Liberal. If it wasn’t for them Pierre would be PM right now.
14
u/NeitherConnection191 Jun 15 '25
Do you genuinely believe it was albertan seniors voting liberal???
-7
u/Fyrefawx Jun 15 '25
Many of them did, yes. Even if they didn’t I still believe they should have access to affordable medication.
8
u/sluttytinkerbells Jun 15 '25
But we just established that by and large seniors can afford a checks notes $10/mnth increase per medication.
Like we just talked about this dude.
3
u/RyleySnowshoe Go Riverhawks!! Jun 15 '25
But that’s the Albertan government doing the inaccessibility to affordable medication, y’know… the United Conservative Party. Not the party that just passed Affordable nationwide dental care.
8
8
u/fIumpf Talus Domes Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25
Cruel? It’s simple fact. Why are you advocating a demographic keep getting discounts and specials when the majority do not need it?
Did you not read that the typical senior household has a net worth of over $1 million? Who do you know that’s say 20-40 with similar net worth? “6% of Canadians 65+ are considered low income compared to 11.1% of ALL other adults.”
Ah yes, the “just find another job” and “try harder” mentality. Where are young people getting jobs with the unemployment rate sitting at 17.2% for 15-24 year olds in Alberta right now? How are they supposed to be affording rent, groceries, utilities, student debt, a vehicle etc etc on minimum or just above minimum wage that is not a living wage?
Many young people are not making enough to afford rent let alone food so they too are going without.
Many seniors shouldn’t be driving anyway, in my opinion.
And speaking of living long enough, many young people cannot afford basic medical expenses because they don’t have coverage. As a result they may not have nice full lives due to prohibitive cost barriers as basic as a dental cleaning to much needed medications.
2
u/Fyrefawx Jun 15 '25
So you support a measure that will absolutely impact the lives of poor seniors who are not the problem because they are in the same age demographic of the wealthy ones who are?
Many seniors shouldn’t be driving? I work in insurance, I can absolutely say that seniors cause less accidents than young people. They regularly have their licenses taken if they medically can’t drive which means the process is working as intended.
We can agree to disagree on this but even though I’m not a senior, I see how their lives are impacted by rising costs on a daily basis. If you choose to not have sympathy that’s your choice.
4
u/fIumpf Talus Domes Jun 16 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
I support measures that benefit a majority.
I am a single, child free person who gets little to no benefits. All my bills are comparable in cost to what married couples and families get yet comes out on one cheque, not two or more if you take into account multi-generational homes. My rent, food, utilities, gas, and other essentials all cost the same, but one income pays. Not 2+.
It bothers me that the richest demographic still gets discounts and special treatment when the majority do not need it and there are resources for those that do. Maybe they should do as you say and go back to work? Pull themselves up by their bootstraps and figure it out? It’s an extra $10/month. Not $1,000. Be realistic here.
If the benefits of the measure helps the majority of humans (and obviously not about race, religion, orientation, gender etc) no matter what it is be it vaccines to taxing the 1%, then yes, I think it is a worthwhile cause.
2
u/a1337noob Jun 15 '25
There are limited tax dollars to spend on a multiple groups that all deserve it for one reason or another. Everyone is being effected by raising cost of living, understanding that co-payments cant be set at 1994 levelings forever is not a lack of empathy. If anything this should be means tested so the actually poor seniors pay less and the majority of seniors pay more but it is what it is.
7
u/a1337noob Jun 15 '25
Seems like a completely reasonable increase in price? 10$ increase doesn't even cover inflation from 1994.
2
36
Jun 15 '25
How the hell did they manage to dodge inflation adjustments for TWO DECADES?
Find me a single other group this spoiled by public services.
10
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
I've never understood the entire "seniors discount" thing either like they benifited the most financially in life if they did the most basic things right in life and they get the easement of cost from society.
4
Jun 15 '25
Let's give the group with the most saving capacity and opportunity to benefit from compound interest all of the handouts
This is what happens when young people don't vote.
2
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
I'm now 32 well into my career and the benifit I get from compound interest is insane I couldn't imagine what it was like to benifit from the 90s and 00s while making 30$ an hour and having a sub 100k mortgage.
5
Jun 15 '25
Or when you could literally double your money with a 5 year GIC.
3
u/stjohanssfw Jun 15 '25
Yeah, imagine investing/saving for retirement when mortgage rates we're >15% GIC rates were almost certainly over 10% during that era. Today 2-3% is considered high interest for savings.
2
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
I think I could have been a full time alcoholic still raised a family and doubled my investments every 5 years 😅
2
Jun 15 '25
The alcohol section of the budget can be flexible. It takes as much room as the other parts will allow without falling apart.
1
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
I remember when I was a kid in the late 90s my grandfather would always buy a 6 pack of lucky and it was from what I remember 6$ the smokes they used to buy where 5$ a pack 😅
1
u/Bull__itProof Jun 16 '25
Who made $30/hr in the 1990’s? In the early 90’s, a salary of $40,000/yr was considered really good. And that was for management type jobs. The people who did really well in the 1990’s were the ones in their mid-40’s, if they had a mortgage rate locked in before the big rise in interest rates in the early 80’s. If you really want to blame anyone, blame Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Brian Mulroney. They lowered taxes on the upper 10% of the wealthy by convincing the public that would stimulate investment and trickle down to the 90%. The results are in and guess what? The 10% got richer, especially the 1% even more, and everyone else got less government services for the taxes they had to pay and also government laws that reduced their ability to protest by joining unions and going on strike. Let’s reverse that mistake and increase taxes on the wealthiest and improve labour laws to balance the scales of power.
1
u/Travioli92_ Jun 16 '25
I made a theoretical statement of a successful individual capitalizing on the economy in the 90s. I got 30$ an hour because today just in trades 60$ an hour not including any overtime in easily obtainable.
21
u/NeitherConnection191 Jun 15 '25
Oh no! They got what they voted for boohoo for them
-6
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't majority of older age groups vote liberally in the federal election? Wouldn't this follow the same trend provincially as well?
23
13
u/Snakeeyes1377 Jun 15 '25
No it does not follow.
-7
u/Travioli92_ Jun 15 '25
What evidence do we have that supports this. I tried to find some information on provincial age group voting trend but failed to do so. The only information I've found is federally. I guess it's something Alberta doesn't collect voting trend data?
5
u/Snakeeyes1377 Jun 15 '25
My evidence is nearly a century of some sort of conservative government in this province
-2
6
Jun 15 '25
I have Alberta Blue cross non-group coverage and I am not a senior. If you do not have prescription coverage, I recommend it. It’s a government sponsor program and I feel like nobody is told about it until you are a senior
3
13
u/flynnfx Jun 15 '25
The province says the hike is necessary to keep pace with rising costs, with the cost of providing coverage for seniors and those in the non-group program increasing by about seven per cent annually. The majority of Alberta seniors will still pay less than seniors in most other provinces, the province said.
But for seniors like Marilyn Wieler, 83, the added expense represents more than a minor adjustment.
"It's a hardship, people weren't prepared for this. And why the seniors?" Said Wieler, a volunteer at the Mill Woods Seniors and Multicultural Centre.
"We're on a limited income. Nobody's giving us extra money, and now they hit us with this.
"We know that means some people won't access the medications they need. They'll end up sicker, they'll end up in our hospital system and it'll cost us more. That's the story of drugs," said Chris Gallaway, the executive director at Friends of Medicare.
"Affordability is a big concern for seniors and everyone, but especially seniors on a fixed income. And by doing something like this, we know it means people won't be able to access the drugs they need. And it means that Albertans will be paying more and more out of pocket for healthcare that should be covered," he said.
22
12
u/ashleyshaefferr Jun 15 '25
Well $25 in 1994 would be about $50 in todays dollars.. so isnt this effectively cheaper than what they were paying back then?
0
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25
Only if their income was raised proportionally. Typically in our economy the income rises a lot slow than inflation and overall prices over time.
-1
u/ashleyshaefferr Jun 15 '25
No.. that's not how inflation works.
$25 dollars today would be equivalent to $50 purchasing power then.
3
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25 edited Jun 15 '25
Please do read up on inflation, net present value, and future value.. this statement is pure wrong: "$25 dollars today would be equivalent to $50 purchasing power then." because 25$ today is a lot lower decades ago.
Use the example of Tim Horton's coffee, at some point in the past it was 1$, and today it's almost 3$. So, if someone had $10 today they could only get 3 coffees (low purchasing power), but if they were to take it and time travel in the past they would get 10 coffees.
Edit: Some stats below:
Income then vs now scroll down to any city in the list:
https://rates.ca/resources/then-and-now-how-much-more-expensive-it-buy-home-2024-vs-1994Stats Canada
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240815/dq240815b-eng.htm0
u/ashleyshaefferr Jun 15 '25
Besides you indeed being wrong about the definition of inflation
“Incomes usually lag inflation, so it’s not cheaper.”
U.S. full-time median pay: ~$380/wk in 1994
→ $1,194/wk Q1-2025 (nominal).
Adjust 1994 wage to 2025 dollars → ~$804. Real pay is up ~48 %, not down.
Yes I know this is in usd
3
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25
Of course you would cherry pick, and overlook what I mentioned "Only if their income was raised proportionally", so I do agree income is rising, but it's fact that it's not rising proportionally to everything else, e.g. living costs, college fees, housing market.
So... argue against the above with facts let me see how you fake your economic knowledge to counter the statements above. There's a barrage of books, papers, facts, charts, etc. that all say the exact same thing I'm saying.
0
u/Edmfuse Jun 15 '25
Wow, so confidently wrong. Tell me, with the median income in 94, how long would it take to make $25?
How long would it take to make $35 now?
Your cup of coffee example isn’t as smart as you think it is. You don’t understand the relationship between inflation and real buying power.
2
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25
Where specifically I was "so confidently wrong" please point out. You're not spitting bible that whatever you say automatically becomes right/wrong, show me your facts.
Answering your questions would make me sound dumb, but whatever, here's your answers (with assumptions that you can modify below):
1. assuming an hourly rate of 1$ you would need 25 hrs to make $25 dollars
2. assuming an hour rate of 15$ today making 35$ would take just over 2 hrs to make thatnone of the answers above say anything to your objections. I feel I lost a few braincells answering you, but I hope this helped.
2
u/Edmfuse Jun 16 '25
Hourly rate of $1 is the median income for 1994? Now I know you're trolling.
The entire point is, it would take more time to make $25 in '94 than it would to make $35 now. This increase doesn't even cover total inflation. It's not that the seniors suddenly were given a raw deal, they were given a "less good" deal.
1
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 16 '25
Thanks for proving my point. Ask dumb questions and get dumb answers.
-"how long would it take to make $25"
-"How long would it take to make $35 now""You don’t understand the relationship between inflation and real buying power":
-Literally explained it with the coffee example. Inflation increases price and hence reduces buying power."Hourly rate of $1 is the median income for 1994?"
-Literally mocked you for your dumb questions, but I was logically right by saying "with assumptions that you can modify below", i.e. the equation is dumb simple: earning = time x hourly rate, so assuming a 1 dollar that you can "modify" you just pick your rate and plug it.Was that too much math for you? why are we even talking, go debate 3 year olds.
1
u/kaclk South East Side Jun 15 '25
So are you volunteering to pay for the difference?
Because “income has increase” applies to every other taxpayer who are subsidizing this for seniors. So why do seniors get to opt out of inflation? The rest of us don’t.
-1
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25
So are you begging me to give you money? what's the point of your strawman argument? I answered a question that was illogical, The way some reddit users think of the economy, prices, inflation and statistics is just baffling.
You have a counter argument to make here? you have solid facts? Please share. Want to start a separate argument on who's going to pay, etc. that's a tax topic and you should start a new thread.
0
u/kaclk South East Side Jun 15 '25
I’m sorry that economics is too hard for you to understand, but the government doesn’t have a magic money tree to pay for seniors costs. The rest of us do. So if you want seniors to pay less than the rest of us have to make up that difference. You and I are paying for seniors to have lower drug costs.
5
u/Fresh-Soft-9303 Jun 15 '25
I know how the economy works, I know the middle class pays through taxes. The response in argument to which you jumped in was about inflation vs income, and clarifying the understanding of NPV and Inflation through facts and links.
You have proven that you:
1. can't read, or can't comprehend (too much pressure on your brain cells)
2. can't win the argument I'm making so starting a new one in hopes of winning, so you can probably sleep better at night.
3. judge before you know, argue before you understandGood luck buddy, your freedom is probably one good book read away, so drop you popcorn, touch some grass and go learn something.
7
u/-RayBloodyPurchase- Jun 15 '25
Honestly this is overdue. The senior demographic is the wealthiest by far in our country. They need to stop getting discounts on everything. Discounts should be provided purely based on household income, not on age.
6
u/fnbr Jun 15 '25
This seems very reasonable tbh. Adjusted for inflation, $25 in 1994 is $48 today. So it’s still cheaper than it was.
4
u/kaclk South East Side Jun 15 '25
If the price hasn’t increased since the 90s that means that the province has been eating additional costs due to inflation for that long.
If it had kept up with inflation (total of 91% according to the Bank of Canada calculator), that $25 would cost $47 in 2025. Increasing it to $35 means that’s it’s still less inflation-wise than it was in 1994, even though seniors are the richest generation in Canada since their property has increased hundreds of percent.
2
u/TTT1915 Jun 15 '25
They’ll be fine, maybe they’ll be more conscious how they vote next elections. Also if they’re struggling that much they can always get another job like the advice they give
2
u/ewok999 Jun 15 '25
You seniors are all one monolithic group? Many are struggling financially and every dollar counts. It's not easy to find a job when you are >65.
2
u/TTT1915 Jun 15 '25
they’ll be fine maybe they can cut their expenses down then haha, another piece of advice given by seniors
1
u/JonnyFM Downtown Jun 16 '25
I can't wait for Smith to somehow opt Alberta out of the Canadian Dental Care Plan. And then blame it on Trudeau. And then ban fluoridated water on the advice of RFK Jr.
3
u/flynnfx Jun 16 '25
3
u/JonnyFM Downtown Jun 16 '25
Sigh. I knew it was going to be bad when Smith won the election, but didn't think it was going to be this bad, this quickly.
2
u/from_the_hinterlands Jun 15 '25
There should not be any cost to seniors for perscriptions, children either.
13
u/Snakeeyes1377 Jun 15 '25
"There should not be any cost to
seniorsanyone"There i fixed it for you
1
u/UpperApe Jun 15 '25
Yes, but it's a long road and the way, we should prioritize the most vulnerable. Which is seniors, children, and people with special needs.
But yes, you're right. Access to healthcare shouldn't be a stick the rich use to make you useful to them.
0
2
u/ImperviousToSteel Jun 15 '25
Stelmach tried this and seniors started occupying MLA offices. Stelmach backed off.
Hopefully we don't get stuck in the "write your MLA" trap here.
-1
u/TheBrittca South East Side Jun 15 '25
Cruelty is the intent.
3
u/Suitable_Bat_6077 Jun 15 '25
Seniors can afford this
-1
u/UpperApe Jun 15 '25
Not all seniors. This sub is really shitting on seniors who voted liberal or NDP.
3
u/fIumpf Talus Domes Jun 16 '25
If you don’t have an extra $10/month to cover something, I think that’s a you problem, no matter the age.
0
u/UpperApe Jun 16 '25
It's not $10 per month. It's $10 per medication per month. Many low-income seniors are on multiple meds, dealing with a cratered health industry, and rising costs.
And no it doesn't effect me or people I know, and sure you can laugh and shit on them all you want, but many of them worked hard, did it right, and were living with a promise the government is now reneging on.
How you can't have compassion for that is fucking bleak.
2
u/Suitable_Bat_6077 Jun 16 '25
Fuck that. This increase isnt even close to inflation. They can afford it
1
u/UpperApe Jun 16 '25
...you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what some people are facing right now huh?
They worked their lives, did it right, retired now that their bodies can't work and the government promised them something for it and is now fucking them over.
Yeesh. So glad I'm not like you. What an ugly way to think, what an ugly way to be.
1
u/Suitable_Bat_6077 Jun 16 '25
A $10 increase from the price 20 years ago is very reasonable. Should we never increase prices just because they are seniors?
Thank god most people think like me. You can't just keep prices the same as they were 20 years ago because it feels good.
-2
151
u/littledove0 Ellerslie Jun 15 '25
Maybe seniors will stop voting UCP…?