Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A lot of reasons. Over different time periods various countries have peaks and valleys at different times, so it varies depending on the time frame. Recently, most of those countries had significantly bigger and more prolonged drops after 2008, so their recent more rapid growth is really just catching up to where they were before. Whereas Canada has seen more continual growth.

Changing demographics also play a role. Real GDP per worker has gone up by 6% in Canada in the last decade vs. 1.9% in Australia and 3.9% in the Netherlands. But Canada has lost more workers relative to its overall population in that span compared to those countries, so overall GDP per capita has lagged.

And GDP per capita really isn't a great measure in a lot of ways. For instance with your Ireland example, their GDP increased by about 26% in 2015. Was it some economic miracle where everyone got 26% richer in a year? No, it was because Apple re-domiciled their intellectual property to Ireland for tax purposes, increasing the GDP significantly overnight. But it was essentially a paper transaction; it's not like the average Irish citizen became richer because of that. And that applies to their GDP in general. Their favorable corporate tax structure ensures that a lot of businesses have headquarters there. That means a lot of money flows through, increasing the GDP, but it doesn't exactly end up in Irish hands to anywhere near the degree that the GDP would imply.

So while it's true that Canada is currently 15th in the OECD in GDP per capita, we are 6th in median income (which is what actually matters), behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, the US, and Austria. And to bring it back to Ireland, despite having a GDP per capita that's only about 42% as high as Ireland's, Canada's median income is 25% higher than Ireland's.

Do you have a source for that last paragraph? Would love to read it.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just don’t see how you have yourself convinced that improving healthcare is not going to improve healthcare. Your position makes absolutely no sense on this.

Pharmacare isn’t some luxury item that is just a take-it-or-leave-it kind of frivolity. It has a direct impact on healthcare, everything from wait times to the number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc that we need.

Saying “no thanks” to the things that actually prevent people from needing the hospital in favour of making hospitals bigger seems unjustifiable. Give me a good reason why it isn’t.

Do you have an actual source for this? I’m not disagreeing, but would like to read the source.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Do you have an actual source for this? I’m not disagreeing, but would like to read the source.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...al-report.html

8.3 For the health care system and health care providers

National pharmacare means prescribers can finally have confidence their patients will fill their prescriptions. Doctors and other prescribers no longer have to ask a patient whether she or he has private insurance, and then modify their prescription accordingly. Pharmacists, who are all too familiar with patients leaving pharmacies without their needed medicine once they see the bill, will know their clients are being well-served by our health care system. And as more and more prescription drugs are delivered outside hospital, the inequity of drugs being covered by public insurance in hospital but not out will end. Patients will get the medication they need to get better, to stay healthy or to manage a chronic condition.

Removing the cost barriers Canadians face when they have prescriptions to fill will make it easier for them to maintain their health, reducing the need for them to visit their doctors or be admitted to hospital. As previously noted, recent research found that removing out of pocket costs for the medications used to treat just three health problems—diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory conditions—would result in up to 220,000 fewer emergency room visits and 90,000 fewer hospital stays annually. This has the potential to save the health care system up to $1.2 billion a year—just for those three diseases.

[Zulu29]

Preventive medicine initiatives are costly, but it does save money down the road (in theory) and morally/ethically is the right thing to do.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is this, like, satire? I'm confused.

Alberta Conservatives have shown themselves to be anti-business and anti-stability for investment. This batch of Federal Conservatives is from the same cesspool of fetid bloviates as Smith, from the Manning School of ####faces. So, uhm, if this isn't satire, where are your expectations coming from, the '80's?

Nah, they'll do the very thing they don't like. They'll allow more Chinese money to come in.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Preventive medicine initiatives are costly, but it does save money down the road (in theory) and morally/ethically is the right thing to do.

I'm not sure you ever save money from preventative medicine, as dead people are far cheaper than ones in nursing homes. Even saved emergency room visits are cheaper than nursing homes. Preventing morbidity/mortality should never be rationalized solely by "money saved"

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not sure you ever save money from preventative medicine, as dead people are far cheaper than ones in nursing homes. Even saved emergency room visits are cheaper than nursing homes. Preventing morbidity/mortality should never be rationalized solely by "money saved"

Man... the number of times those folks with unmanaged/badly managed complex health issues come in to your local ED or even end up as inpatients is immense before they end up dead. Very few folks die quickly from badly managed chronic conditions, they just suffer along and consume a lot of health care. Not necessarily the case that free prescriptions are going to result in them taking better care of themselves as sometimes its hard to just get them to take the drugs even when you give them out for free, but it's something - huge factor in overcrowded hospitals and ED dpts right now are badly managed chronic conditions and unavailability of long term care beds

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Man... the number of times those folks with unmanaged/badly managed complex health issues come in to your local ED or even end up as inpatients is immense before they end up dead. Very few folks die quickly from badly managed chronic conditions, they just suffer along and consume a lot of health care. Not necessarily the case that free prescriptions are going to result in them taking better care of themselves as sometimes its hard to just get them to take the drugs even when you give them out for free, but it's something - huge factor in overcrowded hospitals and ED dpts right now are badly managed chronic conditions and unavailability of long term care beds

A person living in full care for 10 years far wipes away all of the ER visits and admissions. I'm not suggesting these things don't matter, I'm suggesting that using "money saved" is wrong and it will not save you money, which is entirely not the point of healthcare

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

A person living in full care for 10 years far wipes away all of the ER visits and admissions. I'm not suggesting these things don't matter, I'm suggesting that using "money saved" is wrong and it will not save you money, which is entirely not the point of healthcare

Did you miss the rest of my post saying it’s morally and ethically the right thing to do?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not sure you ever save money from preventative medicine, as dead people are far cheaper than ones in nursing homes. Even saved emergency room visits are cheaper than nursing homes. Preventing morbidity/mortality should never be rationalized solely by "money saved"

Meh, if that's what it takes to convince Conservatives to do the right thing, we should go ahead and use that line. Lying is the path to success in politics, we may as well use that one since rationality and compassion clearly are not important. Time to stop pretending voters actually care about the truth. Tell 'em what they want to hear.

[Azure]

Ontario hasn't 'opted in' because there is literally nothing to 'opt into'

The Liberals’ and NDP’s “deal on pharmacare,” as CBC News described it, was big news all week. It was a condition of the NDP maintaining its supply-and-confidence agreement with the government (or at least, party leader Jagmeet Singh said it was) so it had major political ramifications (if we assume Singh was actually serious about withdrawing support, which we certainly should not).

“Canada’s pharmacare bill has officially been introduced in Parliament,” Global News announced.

“Deal on pharmacare bill has been reached with Liberals ahead of March deadline, NDP says,” was the Canadian Press headline.

Folks, there is no pharmacare to dismantle. There isn’t even a deal on pharmacare to dismantle — or to walk away from, to abandon or to otherwise disrespect. Almost literally nothing has happened to underpin this news cycle.

What we have is Bill C-64, “An act respecting pharmacare.” Excluding preamble and title page, it is four-and-a-half pages long (two-and-a-quarter really, since it’s bilingual), and it most certainly does not bind the government to implementing a national pharmacare program — which it can’t do on its own anyway, health care being provincial jurisdiction and two of the country’s larger jurisdictions (Quebec, which already provides prescription drug coverage, and Alberta) having already indicated they’re not interested.

Paragraph three sets out the purpose of the bill, which is “to guide efforts to improve … the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs … in collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.”

Here’s what the bill says: “The Minister may, if the Minister has entered into an agreement with a province or territory to do so, make payments to the province or territory in order to increase any existing public pharmacare coverage … for specific prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes.”

If that sounds like something less than a done deal to you, your instincts are good. Anything predicated on an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces is very much worth doubting until the moment it demonstrably, verifiably exists. And yet provinces are already under at least implicit pressure from media to declare themselves in or out. “While Ontario is not ‘writing off anything’ in national pharmacare talks,” Global News reported, “the government is taking a wait and see approach before deciding to opt in.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the...harmacare-deal

lol. BUT AT LEAST WE HAVE SOMETHING AMIRITE FOLKS!

[PepsiFree]

Guys, it’s been a week and an opinion columnist for the National Post is wondering why Pharmacare isn’t fully built out and written into law yet. Pls pAnIc…..!!

If anyone bothers to read the Bill, it sets out a timeline for when certain aspects need to be accomplished.

We’re talking about a huge undertaking and already Conservative hand puppets are calling it “nothing” because the first step isn’t “everything.” Dumb.

[Fuzz]

He seems like the type of person who would see footings poured for a hospital and say "how can we ever expect THIS to save a life? What a joke!"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

He seems like the type of person who would see footings poured for a hospital and say "how can we ever expect THIS to save a life? What a joke!"

Even worse. It’s like the scene from Zoolander.

“I give you… the Derek Zoolander Centre for Kids Who Can’t Read Good!”

*reveals a model of the building*

“What is this, a center for ANTS?”

“…what?”

“How can we teach children to read if they can’t even fit inside the building?”

“Derek it’s just a sm…”

“I DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOUR EXCUSES! The centre has to be at least… three times bigger than this!”

The National Post opinion column stays winning with the best and brightest Zoolander impersonators.

[Looch City]

Canadian healthcare as we know it is basically over. We're worse than the states now.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Canadian healthcare as we know it is basically over. We're worse than the states now.

I dunno man. I have 2 kids, both of whom were delivered via c-section. 6 weeks after my first my wife had emergency gall bladder surgery.

My medical debt from those three major operations and hospital says is $0.

My brother's been diagnosed with MS. The entire course leading to diagnosis, the tests, the MRIs, etc has left him with a medical debt of $0.

Worse than the States? Only if you're a millionaire. If you have a standard medical plan (if you have one at all) in the US, Canada is still better.

Perfect?

No.

I think we need to restructure the entire system.

We need every ER to also have a walking clinic where you have one reception and when tragedy then lower teirs go to a Nurse Practitioner in the clinic keeping the doctors in the EMERGENCY room.

We need a system for simple prescription refills, something pharmacists likely can do. Your anxiety meds are up, why does your doctor have to say "yeah another dose"?

More virtual and telehealth services.

Expand medical school seats.

Make it easier for doctors to get accredited when they move to Canada. If all the doctors are successfully jumping through the hoops from countries X, Y, and Z fast track those doctors.

It's nit going to happen over night but the you go to your family doctor for EVERYTHING model isn't working, especially when you don't have a family doctor.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I dunno man.

Looch's City's posts are usually facetious and sarcastic.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I dunno man. I have 2 kids, both of whom were delivered via c-section. 6 weeks after my first my wife had emergency gall bladder surgery.

My medical debt from those three major operations and hospital says is $0.

My brother's been diagnosed with MS. The entire course leading to diagnosis, the tests, the MRIs, etc has left him with a medical debt of $0.

Worse than the States? Only if you're a millionaire. If you have a standard medical plan (if you have one at all) in the US, Canada is still better.

Perfect?

No.

I think we need to restructure the entire system.

We need every ER to also have a walking clinic where you have one reception and when tragedy then lower teirs go to a Nurse Practitioner in the clinic keeping the doctors in the EMERGENCY room.

We need a system for simple prescription refills, something pharmacists likely can do. Your anxiety meds are up, why does your doctor have to say "yeah another dose"?

More virtual and telehealth services.

Expand medical school seats.

Make it easier for doctors to get accredited when they move to Canada. If all the doctors are successfully jumping through the hoops from countries X, Y, and Z fast track those doctors.

It's nit going to happen over night but the you go to your family doctor for EVERYTHING model isn't working, especially when you don't have a family doctor.

Well you can't go to your family doctor for everything and that's a piece of the issue. Everyone knows that if you actually need to get things done, you're basically heading to the ER or maybe urgent care. Like something happens, you're really sick or really hurt...the ER is likely the place for you because you know you need to have something done or whatever. Maybe you hit a walk-in clinic, but if you're going to need diagnostic equipment a lot of those facilities don't have it.

And this is the issue with why ERs are so insanely busy and have these enormous wait times. They get everyone for every problem. "Why is that guy here, it's not really an emergency!" Probably true, but where is he supposed to go at say 8:30pm?

[Firebot]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...y-breaches-at/

NDP is complicit with impeding examination of national security breaches.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ebec-1.7132823

Canada's government will bypass Quebec's own immigration cap despite a signed agreement. That's pretty bold considering Quebec / Montreal is one of the last bastions left for Liberals. I can't see that be very popular in Quebec.

Most of Montreal seats are still a safe Liberal hold, guess we will see how this looks in a month or so. Guillbault looks like he may lose his seat already, this probably solidifies the loss.

https://338canada.com/map.htm

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...on-aliens.html

These are just complete unforced errors at this point and it feels that pure ideology is the only thing that is steering Liberals now knowing full well they are on a timer.

[CaptainCrunch]

We knew as soon as Singh got his "Framework for pharmacare program what Trudeau was going to demand from him.


I wouldn't be surprised if the NDP start obstructing where they can on ArriveCan investigations as well.