Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I hate to attempt to steer this away from the burdens/not burdens argument, but here goes...
I give credit to the Wildrose for taking issue with this and I agree. It's just that it seems so disingenuous coming from them; they're the party of survival of the fittest, private healthcare for those who can afford it and reducing spending because "we just can't afford it". I have heard hundreds of times from Wildrose supporters that per capita spending is too high, and now they seemingly want to increase spending?
Last week on the reinstated sex-change funding Danielle Smith noted there are a lot of services not covered under AHC including dentistry, chiropractic, insulin pumps, etc. Thats great; but the Wildrose has no plans to cover these things either. Its just grandstanding.
I would assume that this is the type of politicizing that longsuffering was referring to earlier. No party is in favour of providing poor food to people; it's just silly to try to insinuate otherwise. The part that rubs me the wrong way here though is that the Wildrose has no plan to fix this either, other than spend some money. As soon as the PCs commit to that they'll cry about them spending too much. It's infantile really.
|
Well since they arent in power...they have absolutely no way to affect the change other than to put pressure on the Progressives to do something about it...i mean that IS their job afterall.
So to call it politicizing or grandstanding is just stupid and disingenuous, as if the roles were reversed niether one of you would make a peep about it and i fact would be all over the WP about it.
Its so transparent...give it a rest.
So to the topic at hand....do you agree something should be done about it by the governing body overseeing this as it is occurring or not?