Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I don't know, but as I said covering two of the most prevalent and preventable burdens on the social and healthcare systems seems like a damn good start.

Poopooing this feels like its only being done for the sake of it. This is a good thing that has the potential to get better as it expands.

Nah, this is dumb and is literally just a political ploy to gain more votes.

They also know that the CPs are likely to get elected, and have manipulated this entire thing not to benefit Canadians, but to benefit themselves.

How about coming out with a plan that covers everything and make it so the CPs can defund it next election?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Wormius

And the CPC plan is….?

Hopefully work with provinces to provide more funding to upgrade our healthcare system by acquiring more doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. along with shortening waiting times, as a first priority. Then when our country gets back to work, and we manage to get our economy back in shape, consider pharmacare.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Hopefully work with provinces to provide more funding to upgrade our healthcare system by acquiring more doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. along with shortening waiting times, as a first priority. Then when our country gets back to work, and we manage to get our economy back in shape, consider pharmacare.

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.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I don't know, but as I said covering two of the most prevalent and preventable burdens on the social and healthcare systems seems like a damn good start.

Poopooing this feels like its only being done for the sake of it. This is a good thing that has the potential to get better as it expands.

Rightwingers aren't very bright these days... lol

[flamesfever]

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.

Eighty percent (80%) of our population are already covered for pharmacare. I believe the remaining 20% can be covered in a much less financially onerous way than providing free drugs to everyone, and being paid out of the public purse.

I guess I don't see the degree of health benefits in providing free drugs to the 20% as you do. A high portion of the 20% are younger, healthy people who don't really require all that many drugs.

Also, have you accounted for the disruption to the private insurance companies that presently provide the pharmacare funding?

I guess I am more concerned in the funding of our present healthcare situation. I have suffered from cancer, and I know about the agonizing period when you wait for treatment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Eighty percent (80%) of our population are already covered for pharmacare. I believe the remaining 20% can be covered in a much less financially onerous way than providing free drugs to everyone, and being paid out of the public purse.

I guess I don't see the degree of health benefits in providing free drugs to the 20% as you do. A high portion of the 20% are younger, healthy people who don't really require all that many drugs.

Also, have you accounted for the disruption to the private insurance companies that presently provide the pharmacare funding?

I guess I am more concerned in the funding of our present healthcare situation. I have suffered from cancer, and I know about the agonizing period when you wait for treatment.

80% are covered to what extent? Again how is 20% of the population a negligible amount? If we added 20% more doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc we’d be in far better shape. 20% is huge when we’re talking about this kind of scale.

What disruption to the private insurance companies? Why would that even be a concern?

Again, funding preventative healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t fund the present healthcare situation. That’s a false dichotomy. Give the vast amount of money flowing through the government, why do you believe the choice has to be between these two things? Wouldn’t you argue, if you cared about everything you say you care about, that the government should be focused on both?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nah, this is dumb and is literally just a political ploy to gain more votes.

They also know that the CPs are likely to get elected, and have manipulated this entire thing not to benefit Canadians, but to benefit themselves.

How about coming out with a plan that covers everything and make it so the CPs can defund it next election?

If the policy isn't broad enough to effect a suitable amount of Canadians, how much are they really going to move the dial re: votership? And as a person that I'm sure has been concerned about this government's wastefulness, shouldn't you be encouraged that they are implementing this by rolling it out on a smaller scale?

This is a pretty logical way of introducing this kind of program. Even if they are doing this purely for political gain they somehow managed to stumble into a policy that, despite what you think, is going to positively effect the lives of many, many Canadians. Except Albertans, apparently, and that's likely because the people in power in this province look at it through the same partisan lens you do.

[woob]

Yes, 79% have access to some kind of coverage for prescription, but the level of that coverage can vary. This plan is in it's infancy, but is proving 100 percent coverage for a couple key and important items (birth control, and diabetes medication). That, to me, is a net benefit for those who may not have high coverage plans.

[Wormius]

So if you only need to cover the costs of the 20% or whatever then there’s a conversation to be had then with how to allocate remaining funds. But provinces kiboshing it because of some nose-spite-face ideological garbage is stupid.

[rubecube]

Guys, unless it covers everything and immediately, we might as well have no coverage at all. Conservative logic at its finest.

[Azure]

The spin here is hilarious, especially given the desperate attempt at politics that this 'plan' is and the fact that the both the Liberals and the NDP are by all accounts not in power next election. At this point Liberals might not even be the official opposition.

To work for years on this and to seemingly back up the Liberals against the wall, and then end up offering a 'plan' that doesn't even deal with the two leading causes of death in Canada is a flat out failure in terms of long-term policy.

[Looch City]

Canada as we know it is basically over.

THIS is the final straw!! Banana Republic of Canada.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Azure

The spin here is hilarious, especially given the desperate attempt at politics that this 'plan' is and the fact that the both the Liberals and the NDP are by all accounts not in power next election. At this point Liberals might not even be the official opposition.

To work for years on this and to seemingly back up the Liberals against the wall, and then end up offering a 'plan' that doesn't even deal with the two leading causes of death in Canada is a flat out failure in terms of long-term policy.

Government in power, puts in plan/law/tax despite possibly not being in power come next election. News at 11. The inhumanity.

Also, coming up at 11:05 - Government in power does some politicking!

[Monahammer]

Parliament can't even pass acts to implement the last budget promises. This is a campaign promise at this point.

[Doctorfever]

Where would a person look to find the actual “plan”?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

The spin here is hilarious, especially given the desperate attempt at politics that this 'plan' is and the fact that the both the Liberals and the NDP are by all accounts not in power next election. At this point Liberals might not even be the official opposition.

To work for years on this and to seemingly back up the Liberals against the wall, and then end up offering a 'plan' that doesn't even deal with the two leading causes of death in Canada is a flat out failure in terms of long-term policy.

Boy are you in for a surprise! kik You think Ontario will give the PM to a deplorable freedumber like Pouty Pierre when it time for the election.

All the Libs have to do is run a few attack ads in Toronto on how PP and Danielle Smith are one in the same and that the Cons will take away the CPP and poof! there goes the election.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Where would a person look to find the actual “plan”?

Details haven't been released yet.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I don't know, but as I said covering two of the most prevalent and preventable burdens on the social and healthcare systems seems like a damn good start.

Poopooing this feels like its only being done for the sake of it. This is a good thing that has the potential to get better as it expands.

Is this really doing much though compared to what we have today?

https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...ec38b9a7f.html

BC and Manitoba already have free contraceptives pharmacare. BC also has most diabetes supplies covered including insulin. Alberta, Ontario has diabetes medication covered for 65 and older as well as some other programs.

This mainly expanding on what a number of provinces already have implemented and provides the framework for single payer sourcing in the future should it get expanded on.

It's a huge far cry from Singh's promise last year and what I understood Singh and the NDP was fighting for as part of this confidence-and-supply agreement.

https://www.ndp.ca/news/jagmeet-sing...re-legislation

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-...bill-1.6439036

It feels like a take it or leave it deal by the Liberals that was grudgingly accepted by the NDP at the last hour, otherwise Singh would have had to draw yet another line in the sand. Both parties clearly wanted to save face and neither want to go to elections knowing Conservatives will take over. According to Freeland it seems like the cost in this iteration will be budgeted at around 800 million.

And I'm totally for pharmacare and single payer source (single payer source to get the best deal most definitely would make sense for a true fiscal conservative as well) and still see this as a positive. While a start is a start, this looks nothing like what NDP was clamoring for with this deal they signed with the Liberals. A few of the usuals are predictably rationalizing this, but a few days ago the feeling was more one of jubilation. It's a clear setback of expectations which Singh is giving a political answer for (just vote NDP if you want more).

[GirlySports]

Singh's hands are tied though. His is the only party that believes in this. The Liberals don't want this and have negotiated the bare minimum to keep the coalition alive. Singh is left with this, which is better than nothing at all. It's almost like athletes going to arbitration and this is the outcome.

[Monahammer]

I kind of disagree- not with the take that this is not what he promised, but with the concept that this is simply better than nothing at all.

IMO it's a low water mark, but once you create the pharmacare system it will be increasingly difficult to kill it in the future. And adding new drugs or more coverage to an existing program is easier to push than standing up a whole new system, and could also create "winning" policy moments later that could fuel voter turn out.

It's not fully fledged drug coverage for all canadians, but it's a start.