the plan that hoskins helped write in ontario was a patchwork, and that's what we should expect from the liberals on this. even so, this is an election ploy - they'll run on it because they know it's populist, but they don't like it, and they're going to try to backtrack on it after the election, and might not do it at all. this is now a libertarian party, at it's core.

the ndp might run on a universal system, but they've never held federal office, and it's unclear how seriously you can take them on it.

if we look at the history of how we got universal health care in canada, it happened in stages and was in the end largely driven by the liberals, who wanted to emulate the nhs in britain. the ndp were a push factor, but the tommy douglas story is actually largely a myth; the liberals wanted this, and they pushed for it, and we wouldn't have gotten it, otherwise. what the ndp actually wanted, and had in saskatchewan, looked more similar to obamacare than single-payer; it was the liberals that pushed the nhs model, which was churchillian in origin, and what we ended up with. in fact, even the conservatives of the time (who were old tories, a very different political idea than the post-thatcher neo-liberal market conservatives of today) supported it based on the churchillian argument - universal healthcare in canada is a rare example of something that the entire spectrum supported: it was liberal policy, based on a british tory model, and supported by the ndp.

the best way to get an effective system in place is probably to angle for a minority. what we want is for the liberals to need ndp support to pass the budget. then, you get a deal.

a majority of either type could very well lead to a lesser system, or a broken promise altogether.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-budget-2018-pharmacare-1.4555186