I like the sound of that. Pharmacare seems like an obviously good policy.

Are there any decent arguments against it?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

New Democrats have resoundingly urged their party to stand firm on negotiating pharmacare, even if it means ending their political agreement with the Liberals.

But it signals that the NDP caucus would have the backing of the party's membership to walk away from the arrangement if the Liberals won't agree to a public, universal, single-payer system.

The Liberal minority government relies on New Democrats' votes to pass legislation through a formal agreement that both parties signed.

In addition to pushing for legislation on pharmacare, Davies is continuing to negotiate the expanded rollout of dental care for low-income Canadians.

Under the NDP-Liberal deal, both parties committed to providing government-subsidized dental coverage for children under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors over 65 by the end of 2023.

Instead of cutting cheques as it did when the plan first began covering children under 12, Davies said an enrolment program would launch offering dental coverage through the insurance company Sun Life in December.

The original article contains 649 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!