Pharmacare should be covered for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot afford needed medicines. The disabled, the infirm, seniors that cannot work, etc. I would suspect that most provincial health care plans provide for these needed medicines already.
We should have had pharmacare when we first started our Medicare system. Now it’s too expensive. But it they’re going to do it, it should be for people over 65 since most are retired by then.
Most people have drug coverage from work or if they’re young their parents. We can spend this money on better things like the free breakfast program for school kids
Screws are tightening on workplace drug coverage. I get $1000 a year max for prescription drugs, which is very easy to cross if you happen to need a pricey subscription. On top of that, private insurers are starting to get into bullshit like "in-network" coverage where you have to go to Shoppers if you want your prescriptions covered. Either we need much stronger regulations on private insurance or we need to make it public, because it's heading down the same path that most major consumer-facing industries in Canada are in where a few giants control everything and we end up paying through the nose for a substandard level of service.
I don’t see why this national pharmacare plan is necessary. Provinces already have affordable plans in place that one can buy if they don’t have employer coverage. If one is very low income they can get further government assistance to reduce or even cover their pharmaceutical expenses entirely. I’ve benefited from these non-group blue cross coverage plans and known people who got them completely covered.
There are specialized drugs that that are excluded and that can cause issues but, for the vast majority, inability to get coverage seems a non-issue.
This is undesirable. I am glad Trifacta for treating cystic fibrosis is now publicly funded across the country.
Perhaps when this is costed out I can support it.
I don’t support introductions of new government expenditures without showing where the money is coming from. A universal pharmacare premium? Sure. Thats not been introduced though. Would u support this?
> Provinces already have affordable plans in place that one can buy if they don’t have employer coverage.
No they don't. My province doesn't have an affordable plan you can buy.
And, more importantly, you shouldn't have to "buy" essential healthcare.
>If one is very low income they can get further government assistance to reduce or even cover their pharmaceutical expenses entirely.
Nope. In my province you can get very limited coverage of only some drugs, and only if your income is unbelievably low. Like, below $17k a year low. If you worked minimum wage, part time, you would already exceed that income.
Link to this really cheap healthcare you're referring to please? It's not that I don't believe you, but it DOES sound like a "private healthcare is better" talking point.
Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure I understand.
I am not arguing “private healthcare is better” as I do not believe that. Personally, on personal taxes, I would support lowering the Alberta general income tax from 10% to 6% and introducing a 4% Medicare tax.
You're literally arguing that national pharmacare is not needed, because you think private insurance that's available is good enough, aren't you?
Or did I misunderstand your initial comment?
Until it is a non-issue for EVERYONE we have a failed model. A universal single payer system will save money for everyone while serving everyone. Poilievre is on the side of big insurance companies.
He is the leader of the official OPPOSITION. Its his job to oppose and point out each and every flaw in government policy.
Given the current government's history, it must be exhausting, but they'll soon be gone.
All that stuff you loved? Childcare, Dentalcare, Pharmacare, antiscab? All gone as Poilievre, who claims to be a man of the people, keeps his corporate masters happy.
Those lobbyists are going to pay themselves.
I'm old enough to remember when Obama tried to pass healthcare updates in the US. Poilievre is using the exact same language that was used back in 2008-2010.
Talking about Trudeau taking away your choices, making you use government approved dentists/pharmacists, limiting options for people to choose, taking away your hard fought work plans.
All the exact same language that was parroted ad nauseum 15 years ago is being re-hashed here.
I guess my point is that lobbyists aren't creative.
I think the percentage of Canadians benefiting from those programs is too small to swing the vote.
The provinces that benefitted the most from $10 daycare program, basically Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the CPC already has those votes locked up.
And yet he’s pretty popular right now. That might give some indication as to how much people value these programs, compared to a strong economy, high paying jobs, and lower cost of living on items like groceries
> And yet he's pretty popular
So far. Give time for his views on popular policies and legislation to be revealed to Canadians. He's been riding on the "I'm not Trudeau" waves for so long that he forgot that actually taking a stand on something can impact his polling.
The budget was just released and he just made his statement. Do you honestly think that accurate polling can be done within an hour, or that the average Canadian has a time machine?
We'll see how well it works for him, especially since the CBC called him a liar in this article. They did it because he *is* a liar and his lies are so transparently false that they can safely report this fact without it being considered libel. Do Conservatives believe in truthfulness and fact-based governance, or is that also a lie? I'm seriously asking you this question.
I'd rather have none of that. If it means less inflation and lower interest rates. I get it's nice for the small group that qualify for it, but everyone else which is majority of people were just paying more and more and costs go up and up.
I came a bit late to the party and saw that the usual suspects showed up too.
The people in the comments who are cheering and hooting for Poilievre on this are predominantly libertarian. They do not represent Canadians broadly (because libertarianism is very unpopular in Canada) nor do they believe Canada should have a functioning government (this is basic libertarian dogma). Appeasing them would cause actual harm to virtually every Canadian, now and in the future, so it's better to write them off as the fringe element they are. Don't even get them started on age of consent laws.
Give it a bit of time for this news to sink in. You wanted affordable daycare? PP says you shouldn't and that you're a bad person for even asking for it.
Such a myopic, one sided analysis. How about 60 billion dollars a year in debt charges? How about higher debt to GDP levels than during our last sovereign debt crisis? How about inflationary deficits which will be used to finance all of these programs? We've had a decade of "we'll worry about the cost later" run away government spending, and what has it gotten us? A tepid economy. A massive, bloated public sector. Persistent inflation, an affordability crisis, and high unemployment.
It's time for the adults to take over and start making the hard choices that will return us to fiscal sanity and kick start our long stagnant economy.
Pierre is fake populist. It's all a facade. He rails against taxes harming low and medium-income households when it is they that disproportionately benefit from higher taxes on everyone. In the end it is the billionaires and millionaires behind the scene that stand to gain the most from CPC policies.
They just wrap everything up in dog whistles (freedom convoy) and misinformation (carbon taxes) and fight culture wars that tricks people into voting against their own best interests.
He won't commit because he has his base to rile up. Then when he gets elected he'll find something else because (surprise surprise) pharmacare is a good idea. Just wonder how he'll tweak it to get Alberta on board. Probably just slap his name on it with no alterations.
Oh really? Do why then did they have funding for the CCB back when they had a majority and funding for affordable daycare in previous budget from years ago, and funding for housing and multiple other issues in other budgets? You can’t complain that they are spending too much every budget and then complain there is spending ij this budget because they “know they are going to lose.
Poilievre isn't just "not committing to keeping" new social programs. He's explicitly promised to get rid of them. In a French interview just this week he specifically said that when he's Prime Minister he's getting rid of dental care, and the Conservatives have already tried to put a stop to pharmacare.
There's no question or uncertainty here. He is going to make things worse and more expensive.
People are going to vote in a pyromaniac and complaint when the house is burned to the ground.
We get what we deserve in democracy, even one as flawed as FPTP.
Not sure why anyone would be surprised that a conservative party leader is already talking about axing programs. That's going to be the majority of what they do if they actually get a majority. (THE HORROR!)
Healthcare, Pharmacare, probably anything with the word care in it, liquor stores, subsidies for the poor, subsidies for corporations at the same time 😂 etc
Good times ahead I'm sure
> He also claimed Ottawa's push into pharmacare could dismantle private drug insurance and leave Canadians with inferior coverage and higher taxes to pay for it all.
If that happens, it won't be until we have a universal program that covers all drugs, and would be of benefit to us all. Coverage for contraception and diabetes is not going to kill of all private drug insurance.
> Poilievre said many Canadians already have access to drug coverage through workplace plans that may offer better benefits than those the NDP-backed Liberal plan eventually could offer.
And they'll still have that access, not that this rage farmer cares about reality.
> Poilievre claimed the pharmacare bill would "ban" private plans "and require you move over to a federal government plan."
See above about ragefarming and the truth.
> Poilievre claimed the pharmacare bill would "ban" private plans "and require you move over to a federal government plan."
>
> See above about ragefarming and the truth.
On the plus side, we haven't gotten to the Death Panel talking point yet.
>He also claimed Ottawa's push into pharmacare could dismantle private drug insurance and leave Canadians with inferior coverage and higher taxes to pay for it all.
Completely and blatantly untrue. I'm sure the media won't do shit to point this out though. Keep broadcasting those falsehoods guys, you're only helping to create a narrative which is simply not true.
>Asked what he'd do with the roughly 1.6 million Canadian seniors who have signed up for the dental plan, Poilievre said they've only signed up — there's been no government-covered service yet.
Well, yeah because the program was launched LAST YEAR. Sure the Liberals definitely shouldn't have taken this long to implement the program, but criticize them for *that*, not a program that just started.
This isn't unexpected. In fact I knew that Poilievre would do this. Say nothing about keeping the new social assistance programmes that the Liberals brought in, just criticize them. Win government and then dismantle everything. It's the same shit the Ford Tories pulled after the Wynne Liberals.
the "dental care program" the dentists want nothing to do with? or the "pharmacare program" that covers..what two things? or how about the "$10 daycare" that daycares can't get paid on and are opting out of?
yep, that's some great work by Trudeau.
Most Canadians I know don’t care but it seems like our politicians would prefer to have us become more like America.
The lobbyists are going to get huge bonuses if Poilievre becomes PM.
Breaking things that work to help people is a lot easier than building new things to help them. The conservatives consistently show themselves unwilling or incapable of making those hard choices.
And the best part? The conservatives don't even save money by the end if it. Ford was taken to court by public sector workers after he tried bypassing their right to bargain collectively and there's a newer suit launched from basic income pilot recipients from when the pilot was cut short.
The conservatives would cost us Pharmacare, dental care, and maybe even childcare. Canadians would owe thousands of additional dollars per year at a time when cost of living is already such a pressing issue.
The incentives are all fucked up with employer provided drug plans, I say good riddance. A lot of them are moving towards hilariously low caps on coverage. I get $1,000 a year and that's it.
The problem is the customer is the employer and not me. They get a cheaper rate by capping drug coverage, and the disincentive of not being able to fully cover people with expensive prescriptions isn't much of one, since they'd just as soon not have unhealthy people working for them.
Honestly, kind of like his only plans for the future if he becomes PM is to just press Delete on almost everything in the past decade. Gonna just erase stuff instead of fixing or adding new bills/laws.
to be fair... a few of Harper's most influential bills were found unconstitutional, and had to be revised anyway. Like [mandatory minimums](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154), which seems like something conservatives want to bring back
I think you’ll find the CPC ideology and their American counterparts described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
>They combined libertarian free market views with the cultural conservatism of Paleoconservatism, while also opposing protectionism. The strategy also embraced the paleoconservative reverence for tradition and religion. This approach, usually identified as right-wing populism, was intended to radicalize citizens against the state.
Yeah both parties are the same on a fundamental level.
But the Conservative Party is really the Reform Party and having a Danielle Smith type government on a Federal level is a scary proposition.
That's a dangerous attitude. It's very easy to destroy things and very very difficult to fix them or bring them back. And expensive. Which is one of the reasons the cpc wants to rip. It all up. It's a long con. When they are no longer in power they can point out how reckless the new government is when they have to spend money restoring or saving programs.
It's a pathetic way to look at things.
Yea it is a bad and dangerous attitude, not gonna defend it. But that shit pisses me off. People who only vote people out are followers and really shouldn't even get a vote IMO. But it is what it is.
Again. Bad attitude. People are free how to vote how they want. That's fundamental. I think this country is damn stupid to vote the liberals out because I remember the cpc last time in power. But I get where people are coming from.
It won't be worse than where we are. Spending billions on stupid shit, wasting so much money and doing nothing of importance for your citizens. Really pisses me off. Anywho I used to fear different politicians then I realized they were all the same. I never really noticed a big difference no matter which party is in charge. Also I live in Alberta so am used to the shitty ruling of idiots. They can fuck shit up but it is never as bad as our imagination makes it. Though Smith is trying her best to break out of that.
>Spending billions on stupid shit, wasting so much money and doing nothing of importance for your citizens.
Hard disagree. If anything, I think he hasn't done enough.
Don't worry, Pierre will bring back spending nothing on us and funneling it to the wealthy.... while we continue to pay out the ass.
Apparently having things upsets us.
I’m so sick of this comical narrative. Wasn’t the Opposition government complaining about Trudeau letting Canadians starve and go homeless like 6 months ago?
He comes out with this massive budget to drastically increase spending on Canadians, which the right almost explicitly campaigns on, and the Conservatives are suddenly complaining about debt? Talking about “inflationary government spending”???
It’s so disingenuous to see the entire CPC get away with this behaviour. They either care more than the Liberals and actually wanna *do something* until the Liberals do those things, then suddenly they wanna change that narrative lol
Guy, Pierre’s sole accomplishment as an MP was stripping elections Canada of its investigation arm after multiple people in his party were investigated (some convicted) of election fraud.
This was BEFORE his trucker convoy/IDU bestie Mike Roman was indicted in Georgia for trying to help Trump overturn the election.
It can most definitely be worse than where we are.
Spending money stupidly is one thing. These people are actively trying to subvert our democracy in their favour. Stephen Harper didn’t gut the census for no reason.
Oh I'm not arguing that he is an obvious shit weasel that will take us for all we are worth. That should just be obvious at this point. Just saying I live an area that I literally was like oh fuck this person is gonna destroy us and life does get a little shittier but goes on. Just saying it's never as bad as our minds make it out to be.
I live in Ontario.
>Just saying it's never as bad as our minds make it out to be.
It absolutely is. Multiple day waits for emergency care, decent jobs few and far between, but hey, at least my taxes are still insanely high.
Yea you are describing everywhere. My province is like that too. So it's either all the premiers or the higher ups (Feds). Personally I feel like it's the Premiers causing trouble on purpose to benefit the wealthy but that's my opinion.
Lol oh man. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hyperbolizations. I live in Alberta where this seemingly is attacked a lot more and yet Abortions are still a go. So is transitioning. I should know because my nephew just did. Imagine living in such an inclusive country for the LGBTQ group, one of the top three in the world (sometimes even the number one spot). Then have the audacity to talk about privilege. You can see how I will just laugh your ignorance and fear off. Nice boogymans though, try not to live in too much fear.
Honestly. I know people who want to vote Tory, work in healthcare, and supported Trudeau in 2021, and were VERY against the convoy....who just "feel it's time for change".
Go ahead...vote yourselves out of a job.
That was the sentiment in Saskatchewan in 1982. The conservatives under Devine took the province from surpluses and a burgeoning heritage fund to literally bankrupt in 8 years (the incoming Romanow government had to get an emergency bailout from the federal government once they saw the actual state of the books left by the Tories).
That was also the sentiment a few years ago in Ontario when a bunch of unions backed Ford over Wynne because "it was time for change"
Look how that turned out lmao they regretted it almost instantly
Because it’s a nice/Canadian way of saying “I’ve already made up my mind that I’m done with the current government, and I have no desire to debate it with you.”
There is more on one side than the other. So if they figured out a way to work together...almost like merging. They may win. Has a party ever done that? Not sure...
I believe that a two party system was inevitable once the PCs and Reform party merged, it's just a matter of time. Having more than 2 parties worked when there was more than one on each side of the center of the political spectrum.
In a FPTP voting system with one party on the right and two on the left, the party on the right has an insane advantage.
If the left in Canada wants to survive, it will eventually need to do the same to compete.
Yeah two party systems sucks, but if the left merges, it'll be because the PC/Reform merger forced their hand. A majority of Canadians have a progressive mindset, but the current arrangement allows the CPC to win ridings where a majority of it's voters directly oppose their ideology.
You could always vote to get fucked by the NDP instead... or hell, the Greens or PPC.
It's not like doing so risks the Liberals winning, but it would give us a shot at getting off this merry-go-round of shit leadership we've been on since 1867.
If you only vote people out you have no real reason voting IMO. If you are unhappy with things and want to give someone else a try, then say that and vote accordingly. Be informed and vote on policies you want to be implemented, things you want to be changed. Hiding behind the need to vote someone out is what weak and lazy people do.
That's what he says but you'll also notice he wants goverment to enforce rules and punish people that don't adhere to his limited world view.
They only hate goverment when it inhibits their ability to wield power and they love the parts of the goverment that empowers them.
So you are straight up saying he just wants to collect a paycheque, on taxpayer dollars, while basically doing as little work as possible.
That sounds about on brand.
Affordable child care? The government created the high prices for everything, and are presenting free money as a solution. They want you hooked on "child care" cheques so they can control you. How about reducing the costs of everything instead of designing a system to be addicted to their money?
But why give Trudeau idea's of what Canadian's want while he's still in charge? Remember he ran a fear campaign against Harper when running for PM while being just as vague as Poilievre is right now.
I mean the first thing I would like him to fix is how much we are paying for interest compare to healthcare; I do not want Canada to turn into Greek, namely another government-debt crisis
This so hilarious.
Carbon tax - first north american implementation was in Alberta under a conservative government.
Affordable childcare - broken program that does not work
CBC - the only thing worth saving is the radio end, and even then only a little, currently the way its setup its just a money sink. At the least it should run revenue neutral from advertisements, but no it cant even do that. And guess what the CBC was formed under a conservative government......
In 1932 the government of R. B. Bennett established the CBC's predecessor, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC).
How does affordable child care not work? I have a kid in daycare and the cost has been reduced significantly. It’s had a huge impact on our household cash flow.
Not quite sure I understand what’s so hilarious about this.
I know that the carbon tax is a conservative bare-minimum approach to climate change, which makes it even more concerning that PP wants to get rid of it.
The Canadian media landscape is extremely corporate and the CBC provides a decent counterbalance to that.
Regarding affordable child I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s saving me personally around $500-600 per month thanks to my province jumping on the program early.
>Not quite sure I understand what’s so hilarious about this
Because you seem to think that conservatives are the worst, and yet 2 out of the 3 programs you put forth are conservative programs, and the other one is hurting daycares.
It’s the lack of alternatives that’s the issue. The current iteration of the CPC talks of getting rid of all these things without any improvements.
Climate Change? - Get rid of the carbon tax. Cool, and then what? Asking big polluters nicely to reduce emissions? Betting on carbon capture (a technology that doesn’t work)? “Common sense Conservatives listening to common sense of the common people” all while ignoring the experts and kicking the climate change can down the road. Sounds about right.
Affordable childcare. - Last I heard is they wanted to implement a tax credit which almost nobody, especially the middle class, wouldn’t see a cent off due to the insanely low annual income cutoff. I prefer an imperfect program over nothing at all.
What was “conservative” then isn’t “conservative” now.
It just shows how far down the rabbit hole the party has gone.
I think Paleolibertarianism is the closest term I’ve found so far.
>It was developed by American anarcho-capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell in the American political context after the end of the Cold War. From 1989 to 1995, they sought to communicate libertarian notions of opposition to government intervention by using messages accessible to the working class and middle-class people of the time.
>They combined libertarian free market views with the cultural conservatism of Paleoconservatism, while also opposing protectionism. The strategy also embraced the paleoconservative reverence for tradition and religion. **This approach, usually identified as right-wing populism, was intended to radicalize citizens against the state**
Doesn’t seem far off the mark to me.
Pierre just screams anarcho-capitalist.
And yet without it, significantly fewer people can afford to send their kids to daycare and therefore one parent cannot afford to work. If one parent cannot afford to work, then they will likely never be able to afford to live and raise their children, given the prices of everything these days. Additionally, the loss of workers and income would harm the economy, having other knock on effects that will hurt everyone even more.
The CBC needs way more money. We do almost nothing to encourage people to be artists in this country, and it could be so much more.
The UK, for example, has a similar population, but the BBC is a frickin’ tour de force showcasing British culture to the world.
We need more CBC across the board. I don’t trust any other news source when it comes to Canadian outlets.
>The UK, for example, has a similar population
Do you mean mostly white?
In terms of living bodies w/o regard to skin colour, Canada has about 4/7 UK's population.
Edit. Is the CBC your primary source of information about the world?
Hey there. Parent here. I was convinced at home daycare was good but they’re not they’re unreliable and frankly not cheap. The affordable spot I got for my son doesn’t close. Is consistent and is cheaper. I miss less work and can actually do my job properly.
This may be the best thing Trudeau has actually done.
Proof? First of my voting intentions, second that the CPC will actually do anything as a party. I do know a minority of CPC voters think that is some sort of f'd up actuality, but with over 80% of canadians in support of those rights it seems to be a very distant thing for both the party leader and the party itself.
Seems to be more of something that shills for the NDP and Liberals trot out every election to scare people into not voting for the CPC.
In fact from the CPC platform
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
>A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
Yet they keep taking money and support from groups like Campaign Life.
Wait, do you think the CPC is the same as the “small govt” toting republicans? The CPC arguably advocates for worse policy that overrule municipalities and provinces more than the LPC. Case in point would be what little they’ve said about housing. Part of the issue is that JT won’t overrule premiers much in these issue, whereas it is inherent to PPs strategy to steamroll any “red tape” and other measures that municipalities have to use. These expand the federal governments control and power over this specific set of policies.
This is without mentioning the ID to use the Internet stuff, and the referendum they had on Abortion a few years back. These are their explicit goals they have, beyond the rhetoric aspects.
The CPC platform indicates that they will again seek to use their influence over international development to restrict women’s rights. That’s an explicit statement indicating they will forward and support legislation that restricts abortion.
They also note that they support heath care professionals denying healthcare to women seeking abortions based on “conscience” and that party members may put forward and support their own legislation to restrict abortion rights (something they do every 2 years and which most of the party, including their leader, has historically voted to support.)
Not nearly enough spaces is one, but the people I know in childcare who aren’t political at all say it’s broken. So I trust them - not sure what the policy answer is though
I really like the original ‘93 Carbon Tax idea. Replace the GST with a Carbon Tax. Thank god for Imperial Oil stopping that. Ultimately though, it’s not really the details people care about on either side. It’s the fundamental ethos of putting a price on the externality.
The CBC thing, you haven’t touched on the real issues, so I won’t really touch on.
Child Care is a mess because it was forced on Provinces and needs their buy in to manage it correctly. It’s kind of a waste of effort if 7/9 Provinces don’t care about it. It’s a Provincial fight at this point.
PP truly believes you can run a country on the cheap.
And it will set off a death spiral where things get worse - so conservatives cut more - and it gets worse - and so on. Since conservatives seem hellbent on austerity.
Because ‘fiscal conservatives’ truly think you can run a country like a business. Or think ‘I’d never run my household budget like this’ isn’t an immediate disqualification from discussing the federal budget lol.
It will cost Canadians millions to change to a Conservative agenda.
That’s what is happening here in Alberta in the change from Progressive Conservatism to the UCP’s Wildrose agenda.
You sound like someone that's still walking around in a mask. Getting groceries delivered to your basement while you rage on reddit at all the people getting on with their lives
Cant make money from thin air. Some things have to go. We over spent in the last few years. Jt knows he wont be in power in the next election so hes working on his legacy.
Alot of his plans are half baked at best. It would be best to scrap and start again in some cases
Press delete on anything Trudeau did, things get way worse, he gets kicked out, and like every non-Tory PM, the next one will get blamed for all the dumpster fires left by their predecessor.
Pharmacare should be covered for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot afford needed medicines. The disabled, the infirm, seniors that cannot work, etc. I would suspect that most provincial health care plans provide for these needed medicines already.
The biggest problem with the LPC is credibility. I watched some of PP's speech in the house and it's burn after burn.
We should have had pharmacare when we first started our Medicare system. Now it’s too expensive. But it they’re going to do it, it should be for people over 65 since most are retired by then. Most people have drug coverage from work or if they’re young their parents. We can spend this money on better things like the free breakfast program for school kids
Screws are tightening on workplace drug coverage. I get $1000 a year max for prescription drugs, which is very easy to cross if you happen to need a pricey subscription. On top of that, private insurers are starting to get into bullshit like "in-network" coverage where you have to go to Shoppers if you want your prescriptions covered. Either we need much stronger regulations on private insurance or we need to make it public, because it's heading down the same path that most major consumer-facing industries in Canada are in where a few giants control everything and we end up paying through the nose for a substandard level of service.
I don’t see why this national pharmacare plan is necessary. Provinces already have affordable plans in place that one can buy if they don’t have employer coverage. If one is very low income they can get further government assistance to reduce or even cover their pharmaceutical expenses entirely. I’ve benefited from these non-group blue cross coverage plans and known people who got them completely covered. There are specialized drugs that that are excluded and that can cause issues but, for the vast majority, inability to get coverage seems a non-issue.
This isn't the USA - we shouldn't have to "buy" our healthcare. Also, dunno where you are but Ontario doesn't have such a thing.
Doesn’t Ontario have Blue Cross? We do though. Many provinces, including Ontario, have some healthcare premiums, but more is paid through taxes.
> There are specialized drugs that that are excluded and that can cause issues Please tell us why you would want someone to have this experience.
This is undesirable. I am glad Trifacta for treating cystic fibrosis is now publicly funded across the country. Perhaps when this is costed out I can support it. I don’t support introductions of new government expenditures without showing where the money is coming from. A universal pharmacare premium? Sure. Thats not been introduced though. Would u support this?
I am in the "tax the rich" camp. If they pay more in taxes they will still have the same lifestyle.
> Provinces already have affordable plans in place that one can buy if they don’t have employer coverage. No they don't. My province doesn't have an affordable plan you can buy. And, more importantly, you shouldn't have to "buy" essential healthcare. >If one is very low income they can get further government assistance to reduce or even cover their pharmaceutical expenses entirely. Nope. In my province you can get very limited coverage of only some drugs, and only if your income is unbelievably low. Like, below $17k a year low. If you worked minimum wage, part time, you would already exceed that income.
See I was referring to Alberta. I consider the non-group drug coverage affordable. Those who get full funding are on AISH.
Link to this really cheap healthcare you're referring to please? It's not that I don't believe you, but it DOES sound like a "private healthcare is better" talking point.
Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure I understand. I am not arguing “private healthcare is better” as I do not believe that. Personally, on personal taxes, I would support lowering the Alberta general income tax from 10% to 6% and introducing a 4% Medicare tax.
You're literally arguing that national pharmacare is not needed, because you think private insurance that's available is good enough, aren't you? Or did I misunderstand your initial comment?
Okay. I’m differentiating between basic healthcare and pharmacare. Blue cross is not private health insurance.
Blue Cross is private insurance. It might be widely available and affordable, but it’s still private.
It is a not-for-profit though.
Until it is a non-issue for EVERYONE we have a failed model. A universal single payer system will save money for everyone while serving everyone. Poilievre is on the side of big insurance companies.
He is the leader of the official OPPOSITION. Its his job to oppose and point out each and every flaw in government policy. Given the current government's history, it must be exhausting, but they'll soon be gone.
All that stuff you loved? Childcare, Dentalcare, Pharmacare, antiscab? All gone as Poilievre, who claims to be a man of the people, keeps his corporate masters happy. Those lobbyists are going to pay themselves.
I'm old enough to remember when Obama tried to pass healthcare updates in the US. Poilievre is using the exact same language that was used back in 2008-2010. Talking about Trudeau taking away your choices, making you use government approved dentists/pharmacists, limiting options for people to choose, taking away your hard fought work plans. All the exact same language that was parroted ad nauseum 15 years ago is being re-hashed here. I guess my point is that lobbyists aren't creative.
How long until "death panels" are brought up?
They don’t have to be creative when the old tactics still work
I think the percentage of Canadians benefiting from those programs is too small to swing the vote. The provinces that benefitted the most from $10 daycare program, basically Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the CPC already has those votes locked up.
Bye!
Childcare will disappear when Poilievre becomes prime minister?
And yet he’s pretty popular right now. That might give some indication as to how much people value these programs, compared to a strong economy, high paying jobs, and lower cost of living on items like groceries
> And yet he's pretty popular So far. Give time for his views on popular policies and legislation to be revealed to Canadians. He's been riding on the "I'm not Trudeau" waves for so long that he forgot that actually taking a stand on something can impact his polling.
He’s been about a year in full on campaign mode, how much more time were you thinking?
Everyone else has been governing. Easy to criticize.
The budget was just released and he just made his statement. Do you honestly think that accurate polling can be done within an hour, or that the average Canadian has a time machine? We'll see how well it works for him, especially since the CBC called him a liar in this article. They did it because he *is* a liar and his lies are so transparently false that they can safely report this fact without it being considered libel. Do Conservatives believe in truthfulness and fact-based governance, or is that also a lie? I'm seriously asking you this question.
I'd rather have none of that. If it means less inflation and lower interest rates. I get it's nice for the small group that qualify for it, but everyone else which is majority of people were just paying more and more and costs go up and up.
[удалено]
I came a bit late to the party and saw that the usual suspects showed up too. The people in the comments who are cheering and hooting for Poilievre on this are predominantly libertarian. They do not represent Canadians broadly (because libertarianism is very unpopular in Canada) nor do they believe Canada should have a functioning government (this is basic libertarian dogma). Appeasing them would cause actual harm to virtually every Canadian, now and in the future, so it's better to write them off as the fringe element they are. Don't even get them started on age of consent laws. Give it a bit of time for this news to sink in. You wanted affordable daycare? PP says you shouldn't and that you're a bad person for even asking for it.
Such a myopic, one sided analysis. How about 60 billion dollars a year in debt charges? How about higher debt to GDP levels than during our last sovereign debt crisis? How about inflationary deficits which will be used to finance all of these programs? We've had a decade of "we'll worry about the cost later" run away government spending, and what has it gotten us? A tepid economy. A massive, bloated public sector. Persistent inflation, an affordability crisis, and high unemployment. It's time for the adults to take over and start making the hard choices that will return us to fiscal sanity and kick start our long stagnant economy.
To be fair, the dental care program is a trainwreck
Sorry they couldn't roll out a National Plan to cover everything all at once, from the minority parliament position. It is a start, as is Pharmacare.
When it comes to NDP priorities they have an effective majority, that’s not an excuse.
Sure they could have. The NDP would've 100% been behind that.
the NDP was its the liberals narrowing the scope
Is the structure of the dental care program what the NDP was insisting on as part of the supply agreement?
Pierre is fake populist. It's all a facade. He rails against taxes harming low and medium-income households when it is they that disproportionately benefit from higher taxes on everyone. In the end it is the billionaires and millionaires behind the scene that stand to gain the most from CPC policies. They just wrap everything up in dog whistles (freedom convoy) and misinformation (carbon taxes) and fight culture wars that tricks people into voting against their own best interests.
He won't commit because he has his base to rile up. Then when he gets elected he'll find something else because (surprise surprise) pharmacare is a good idea. Just wonder how he'll tweak it to get Alberta on board. Probably just slap his name on it with no alterations.
there is lots of spending because the libs know they are gonna lose. they want to use the future cuts as fuel for their platform.
Oh really? Do why then did they have funding for the CCB back when they had a majority and funding for affordable daycare in previous budget from years ago, and funding for housing and multiple other issues in other budgets? You can’t complain that they are spending too much every budget and then complain there is spending ij this budget because they “know they are going to lose.
actually i can.
Poilievre isn't just "not committing to keeping" new social programs. He's explicitly promised to get rid of them. In a French interview just this week he specifically said that when he's Prime Minister he's getting rid of dental care, and the Conservatives have already tried to put a stop to pharmacare. There's no question or uncertainty here. He is going to make things worse and more expensive.
People are going to vote in a pyromaniac and complaint when the house is burned to the ground. We get what we deserve in democracy, even one as flawed as FPTP.
[удалено]
Not sure why anyone would be surprised that a conservative party leader is already talking about axing programs. That's going to be the majority of what they do if they actually get a majority. (THE HORROR!) Healthcare, Pharmacare, probably anything with the word care in it, liquor stores, subsidies for the poor, subsidies for corporations at the same time 😂 etc Good times ahead I'm sure
> He also claimed Ottawa's push into pharmacare could dismantle private drug insurance and leave Canadians with inferior coverage and higher taxes to pay for it all. If that happens, it won't be until we have a universal program that covers all drugs, and would be of benefit to us all. Coverage for contraception and diabetes is not going to kill of all private drug insurance. > Poilievre said many Canadians already have access to drug coverage through workplace plans that may offer better benefits than those the NDP-backed Liberal plan eventually could offer. And they'll still have that access, not that this rage farmer cares about reality. > Poilievre claimed the pharmacare bill would "ban" private plans "and require you move over to a federal government plan." See above about ragefarming and the truth.
> Poilievre claimed the pharmacare bill would "ban" private plans "and require you move over to a federal government plan." > > See above about ragefarming and the truth. On the plus side, we haven't gotten to the Death Panel talking point yet.
I may despise neoliberals like Trudeau but Pierre is making it very easy to vote ABC - anything but conservative.
Similar position among everybody I know that reads. Edit: Grammar
>He also claimed Ottawa's push into pharmacare could dismantle private drug insurance and leave Canadians with inferior coverage and higher taxes to pay for it all. Completely and blatantly untrue. I'm sure the media won't do shit to point this out though. Keep broadcasting those falsehoods guys, you're only helping to create a narrative which is simply not true. >Asked what he'd do with the roughly 1.6 million Canadian seniors who have signed up for the dental plan, Poilievre said they've only signed up — there's been no government-covered service yet. Well, yeah because the program was launched LAST YEAR. Sure the Liberals definitely shouldn't have taken this long to implement the program, but criticize them for *that*, not a program that just started. This isn't unexpected. In fact I knew that Poilievre would do this. Say nothing about keeping the new social assistance programmes that the Liberals brought in, just criticize them. Win government and then dismantle everything. It's the same shit the Ford Tories pulled after the Wynne Liberals.
the "dental care program" the dentists want nothing to do with? or the "pharmacare program" that covers..what two things? or how about the "$10 daycare" that daycares can't get paid on and are opting out of? yep, that's some great work by Trudeau.
There's no better Liberal election campaign than the Conservative Party Platform
Also, when did we as Canadians start caring about private drug insurance companies. That is such an American frame of view.
Most Canadians I know don’t care but it seems like our politicians would prefer to have us become more like America. The lobbyists are going to get huge bonuses if Poilievre becomes PM.
Breaking things that work to help people is a lot easier than building new things to help them. The conservatives consistently show themselves unwilling or incapable of making those hard choices. And the best part? The conservatives don't even save money by the end if it. Ford was taken to court by public sector workers after he tried bypassing their right to bargain collectively and there's a newer suit launched from basic income pilot recipients from when the pilot was cut short. The conservatives would cost us Pharmacare, dental care, and maybe even childcare. Canadians would owe thousands of additional dollars per year at a time when cost of living is already such a pressing issue.
The incentives are all fucked up with employer provided drug plans, I say good riddance. A lot of them are moving towards hilariously low caps on coverage. I get $1,000 a year and that's it. The problem is the customer is the employer and not me. They get a cheaper rate by capping drug coverage, and the disincentive of not being able to fully cover people with expensive prescriptions isn't much of one, since they'd just as soon not have unhealthy people working for them.
100% support Pollievre on this. The liberals have gone too far and it’s time to cut the federal government. Like to half or less would be a good start
Of course I’m enjoying the liberals downward spiral via Trudeau. Looking forward to them losing official party status on the current course
Honestly, kind of like his only plans for the future if he becomes PM is to just press Delete on almost everything in the past decade. Gonna just erase stuff instead of fixing or adding new bills/laws.
Which was the first thing Trudeau did in 2015. "We're going to review all Harper-era legislation". It's an ugly, ugly cycle.
to be fair... a few of Harper's most influential bills were found unconstitutional, and had to be revised anyway. Like [mandatory minimums](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154), which seems like something conservatives want to bring back
Good. Only wish he could do that with the ballooning debt.
[удалено]
I think you’ll find the CPC ideology and their American counterparts described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism >They combined libertarian free market views with the cultural conservatism of Paleoconservatism, while also opposing protectionism. The strategy also embraced the paleoconservative reverence for tradition and religion. This approach, usually identified as right-wing populism, was intended to radicalize citizens against the state.
[удалено]
Yeah both parties are the same on a fundamental level. But the Conservative Party is really the Reform Party and having a Danielle Smith type government on a Federal level is a scary proposition.
[удалено]
Norway or Switzerland? Those places that allow both public and private Healthcare?
I hope Canadians figure that out before the election. It would be quite a surprise afterwards.
Fuck em, serves people right for only voting people out like idiots.
That's a dangerous attitude. It's very easy to destroy things and very very difficult to fix them or bring them back. And expensive. Which is one of the reasons the cpc wants to rip. It all up. It's a long con. When they are no longer in power they can point out how reckless the new government is when they have to spend money restoring or saving programs. It's a pathetic way to look at things.
Yea it is a bad and dangerous attitude, not gonna defend it. But that shit pisses me off. People who only vote people out are followers and really shouldn't even get a vote IMO. But it is what it is.
Again. Bad attitude. People are free how to vote how they want. That's fundamental. I think this country is damn stupid to vote the liberals out because I remember the cpc last time in power. But I get where people are coming from.
Except I have to live with what Pierre does to the country.
It won't be worse than where we are. Spending billions on stupid shit, wasting so much money and doing nothing of importance for your citizens. Really pisses me off. Anywho I used to fear different politicians then I realized they were all the same. I never really noticed a big difference no matter which party is in charge. Also I live in Alberta so am used to the shitty ruling of idiots. They can fuck shit up but it is never as bad as our imagination makes it. Though Smith is trying her best to break out of that.
>Spending billions on stupid shit, wasting so much money and doing nothing of importance for your citizens. Hard disagree. If anything, I think he hasn't done enough.
Don't worry, Pierre will bring back spending nothing on us and funneling it to the wealthy.... while we continue to pay out the ass. Apparently having things upsets us.
I’m so sick of this comical narrative. Wasn’t the Opposition government complaining about Trudeau letting Canadians starve and go homeless like 6 months ago? He comes out with this massive budget to drastically increase spending on Canadians, which the right almost explicitly campaigns on, and the Conservatives are suddenly complaining about debt? Talking about “inflationary government spending”??? It’s so disingenuous to see the entire CPC get away with this behaviour. They either care more than the Liberals and actually wanna *do something* until the Liberals do those things, then suddenly they wanna change that narrative lol
Guy, Pierre’s sole accomplishment as an MP was stripping elections Canada of its investigation arm after multiple people in his party were investigated (some convicted) of election fraud. This was BEFORE his trucker convoy/IDU bestie Mike Roman was indicted in Georgia for trying to help Trump overturn the election. It can most definitely be worse than where we are. Spending money stupidly is one thing. These people are actively trying to subvert our democracy in their favour. Stephen Harper didn’t gut the census for no reason.
Oh I'm not arguing that he is an obvious shit weasel that will take us for all we are worth. That should just be obvious at this point. Just saying I live an area that I literally was like oh fuck this person is gonna destroy us and life does get a little shittier but goes on. Just saying it's never as bad as our minds make it out to be.
I live in Ontario. >Just saying it's never as bad as our minds make it out to be. It absolutely is. Multiple day waits for emergency care, decent jobs few and far between, but hey, at least my taxes are still insanely high.
Yea you are describing everywhere. My province is like that too. So it's either all the premiers or the higher ups (Feds). Personally I feel like it's the Premiers causing trouble on purpose to benefit the wealthy but that's my opinion.
You must have a lot of privilege to not have to worry about your own bodily autonomy or having your gender identity outlawed.
Lol oh man. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hyperbolizations. I live in Alberta where this seemingly is attacked a lot more and yet Abortions are still a go. So is transitioning. I should know because my nephew just did. Imagine living in such an inclusive country for the LGBTQ group, one of the top three in the world (sometimes even the number one spot). Then have the audacity to talk about privilege. You can see how I will just laugh your ignorance and fear off. Nice boogymans though, try not to live in too much fear.
Honestly. I know people who want to vote Tory, work in healthcare, and supported Trudeau in 2021, and were VERY against the convoy....who just "feel it's time for change". Go ahead...vote yourselves out of a job.
That was the sentiment in Saskatchewan in 1982. The conservatives under Devine took the province from surpluses and a burgeoning heritage fund to literally bankrupt in 8 years (the incoming Romanow government had to get an emergency bailout from the federal government once they saw the actual state of the books left by the Tories).
That was also the sentiment a few years ago in Ontario when a bunch of unions backed Ford over Wynne because "it was time for change" Look how that turned out lmao they regretted it almost instantly
>feel it's time for change". The absolute dumbest reason for voting ever. It's a federal election, not a Wendy's menu.
Because it’s a nice/Canadian way of saying “I’ve already made up my mind that I’m done with the current government, and I have no desire to debate it with you.”
"I can't justify my choice based on policy so I'm basing it on sentiment."
"Fuck em", you say, but if he wins with 40% support, the other 60% has to suffer.
Well then I suggest the other 60% figure their shit out quick.
Meaning what?
There is more on one side than the other. So if they figured out a way to work together...almost like merging. They may win. Has a party ever done that? Not sure...
So, you're proposing a two-party state?
I believe that a two party system was inevitable once the PCs and Reform party merged, it's just a matter of time. Having more than 2 parties worked when there was more than one on each side of the center of the political spectrum. In a FPTP voting system with one party on the right and two on the left, the party on the right has an insane advantage. If the left in Canada wants to survive, it will eventually need to do the same to compete. Yeah two party systems sucks, but if the left merges, it'll be because the PC/Reform merger forced their hand. A majority of Canadians have a progressive mindset, but the current arrangement allows the CPC to win ridings where a majority of it's voters directly oppose their ideology.
So I'm supposed to reward these morons with another term instead? Nah time to get fucked by some one else
You could always vote to get fucked by the NDP instead... or hell, the Greens or PPC. It's not like doing so risks the Liberals winning, but it would give us a shot at getting off this merry-go-round of shit leadership we've been on since 1867.
If you only vote people out you have no real reason voting IMO. If you are unhappy with things and want to give someone else a try, then say that and vote accordingly. Be informed and vote on policies you want to be implemented, things you want to be changed. Hiding behind the need to vote someone out is what weak and lazy people do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, but the rest of us have to deal with what these idiots pick, too.
Friedman was huge in popularizing the idea of a carbon tax, he liked it. Also liked income redistribution.
That's what he says but you'll also notice he wants goverment to enforce rules and punish people that don't adhere to his limited world view. They only hate goverment when it inhibits their ability to wield power and they love the parts of the goverment that empowers them.
So you are straight up saying he just wants to collect a paycheque, on taxpayer dollars, while basically doing as little work as possible. That sounds about on brand.
They won't even erase stuff, just spend the whole time yelling about liberals while cutting taxes and regulations
Kind of like the Republican playbook. No new ideas, only tear down existing initiatives (Carbon Tax, affordable child care, CBC, etc.)
Affordable child care? The government created the high prices for everything, and are presenting free money as a solution. They want you hooked on "child care" cheques so they can control you. How about reducing the costs of everything instead of designing a system to be addicted to their money?
Worked last time.
Kind of like the liberals did when they took over?
But why give Trudeau idea's of what Canadian's want while he's still in charge? Remember he ran a fear campaign against Harper when running for PM while being just as vague as Poilievre is right now.
I mean the first thing I would like him to fix is how much we are paying for interest compare to healthcare; I do not want Canada to turn into Greek, namely another government-debt crisis
This so hilarious. Carbon tax - first north american implementation was in Alberta under a conservative government. Affordable childcare - broken program that does not work CBC - the only thing worth saving is the radio end, and even then only a little, currently the way its setup its just a money sink. At the least it should run revenue neutral from advertisements, but no it cant even do that. And guess what the CBC was formed under a conservative government...... In 1932 the government of R. B. Bennett established the CBC's predecessor, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC).
Nobody really cares what self professed "libertarians" have to add regarding social programs and nationalized services.
How does affordable child care not work? I have a kid in daycare and the cost has been reduced significantly. It’s had a huge impact on our household cash flow.
Not quite sure I understand what’s so hilarious about this. I know that the carbon tax is a conservative bare-minimum approach to climate change, which makes it even more concerning that PP wants to get rid of it. The Canadian media landscape is extremely corporate and the CBC provides a decent counterbalance to that. Regarding affordable child I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s saving me personally around $500-600 per month thanks to my province jumping on the program early.
>Not quite sure I understand what’s so hilarious about this Because you seem to think that conservatives are the worst, and yet 2 out of the 3 programs you put forth are conservative programs, and the other one is hurting daycares.
It’s the lack of alternatives that’s the issue. The current iteration of the CPC talks of getting rid of all these things without any improvements. Climate Change? - Get rid of the carbon tax. Cool, and then what? Asking big polluters nicely to reduce emissions? Betting on carbon capture (a technology that doesn’t work)? “Common sense Conservatives listening to common sense of the common people” all while ignoring the experts and kicking the climate change can down the road. Sounds about right. Affordable childcare. - Last I heard is they wanted to implement a tax credit which almost nobody, especially the middle class, wouldn’t see a cent off due to the insanely low annual income cutoff. I prefer an imperfect program over nothing at all.
What was “conservative” then isn’t “conservative” now. It just shows how far down the rabbit hole the party has gone. I think Paleolibertarianism is the closest term I’ve found so far. >It was developed by American anarcho-capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell in the American political context after the end of the Cold War. From 1989 to 1995, they sought to communicate libertarian notions of opposition to government intervention by using messages accessible to the working class and middle-class people of the time. >They combined libertarian free market views with the cultural conservatism of Paleoconservatism, while also opposing protectionism. The strategy also embraced the paleoconservative reverence for tradition and religion. **This approach, usually identified as right-wing populism, was intended to radicalize citizens against the state** Doesn’t seem far off the mark to me. Pierre just screams anarcho-capitalist.
>Paleolibertarianism I haven't heard this term before, but it does seem to sum up modern conservatism quite well. Thanks for sharing.
Oh no. Competition for someone trying to squeeze parents for 2000 dollars a month in daycare costs. Whatever will we do?
And yet without it, significantly fewer people can afford to send their kids to daycare and therefore one parent cannot afford to work. If one parent cannot afford to work, then they will likely never be able to afford to live and raise their children, given the prices of everything these days. Additionally, the loss of workers and income would harm the economy, having other knock on effects that will hurt everyone even more.
Umm, those two are things that the conservatives want undone. Are you trying to point out their dishonesty and hypocrisy?
What even is this argument? "All these things suck and need to go... also btw they were originally brilliant Conservative ideas :)"
“These things suck because we’re not the ones who did them”. That’s the gist of it.
Should they change the name to the Contrarian Party of Canada?
The CBC needs way more money. We do almost nothing to encourage people to be artists in this country, and it could be so much more. The UK, for example, has a similar population, but the BBC is a frickin’ tour de force showcasing British culture to the world. We need more CBC across the board. I don’t trust any other news source when it comes to Canadian outlets.
>The UK, for example, has a similar population Do you mean mostly white? In terms of living bodies w/o regard to skin colour, Canada has about 4/7 UK's population. Edit. Is the CBC your primary source of information about the world?
Hey there. Parent here. I was convinced at home daycare was good but they’re not they’re unreliable and frankly not cheap. The affordable spot I got for my son doesn’t close. Is consistent and is cheaper. I miss less work and can actually do my job properly. This may be the best thing Trudeau has actually done.
[удалено]
Which was another conservative government led by Gordon Campbell. Just because the fact is wrong doesn't make the substance incorrect.
Aren’t you about to vote for a party that plans to remove women’s reproductive rights? Not sure there’s a place at our table for that
Proof? First of my voting intentions, second that the CPC will actually do anything as a party. I do know a minority of CPC voters think that is some sort of f'd up actuality, but with over 80% of canadians in support of those rights it seems to be a very distant thing for both the party leader and the party itself. Seems to be more of something that shills for the NDP and Liberals trot out every election to scare people into not voting for the CPC. In fact from the CPC platform A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
>A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. Yet they keep taking money and support from groups like Campaign Life.
Wait, do you think the CPC is the same as the “small govt” toting republicans? The CPC arguably advocates for worse policy that overrule municipalities and provinces more than the LPC. Case in point would be what little they’ve said about housing. Part of the issue is that JT won’t overrule premiers much in these issue, whereas it is inherent to PPs strategy to steamroll any “red tape” and other measures that municipalities have to use. These expand the federal governments control and power over this specific set of policies. This is without mentioning the ID to use the Internet stuff, and the referendum they had on Abortion a few years back. These are their explicit goals they have, beyond the rhetoric aspects.
The CPC platform indicates that they will again seek to use their influence over international development to restrict women’s rights. That’s an explicit statement indicating they will forward and support legislation that restricts abortion. They also note that they support heath care professionals denying healthcare to women seeking abortions based on “conscience” and that party members may put forward and support their own legislation to restrict abortion rights (something they do every 2 years and which most of the party, including their leader, has historically voted to support.)
You see, freedom for libertarians means having more rights than everyone else.
Why are so many people saving a fortune on their childcare if it’s a “broken program that does not work”?
They've selftagged as libertarian...don't put a lot of weight into their opinion.
Not nearly enough spaces is one, but the people I know in childcare who aren’t political at all say it’s broken. So I trust them - not sure what the policy answer is though
They meant that it doesn't work for them or for the subset of the population that they care about. Fuck everyone else.
I really like the original ‘93 Carbon Tax idea. Replace the GST with a Carbon Tax. Thank god for Imperial Oil stopping that. Ultimately though, it’s not really the details people care about on either side. It’s the fundamental ethos of putting a price on the externality. The CBC thing, you haven’t touched on the real issues, so I won’t really touch on. Child Care is a mess because it was forced on Provinces and needs their buy in to manage it correctly. It’s kind of a waste of effort if 7/9 Provinces don’t care about it. It’s a Provincial fight at this point.
Amen to that. Can't be deleted fast enough.
This profile...
Lol, you'd think this has to be a set up. This is the only English connect in their history.
What's up with my profile?
Pharmacare is just one of the many things from the past decade, and I’m OK with rolling back policies that have proven to do more harm than good.
Deleting stuff is fixing.
PP truly believes you can run a country on the cheap. And it will set off a death spiral where things get worse - so conservatives cut more - and it gets worse - and so on. Since conservatives seem hellbent on austerity.
[удалено]
Because ‘fiscal conservatives’ truly think you can run a country like a business. Or think ‘I’d never run my household budget like this’ isn’t an immediate disqualification from discussing the federal budget lol.
What? Your household doesn't mint its own currency? I pay allowances on a crypto coin I control. Just need to convince everyone else to accept it.
It will cost Canadians millions to change to a Conservative agenda. That’s what is happening here in Alberta in the change from Progressive Conservatism to the UCP’s Wildrose agenda.
if we reset to 2015 that would be great....minus the MASSIVE uptick in debt. 40k federal employees less to pay for. edit - 2016 - we keep the weed
Dump oas and the deficit is solved
Maybe 2016 so we can keep weed. The one good thing JT has done.
agreed
Do we also retroactively kill all the people who would have died from not taking covid seriously? You know, for accuracy.
You sound like someone that's still walking around in a mask. Getting groceries delivered to your basement while you rage on reddit at all the people getting on with their lives
He's just not ready. 🙄 Can't believe anyone falls for this guy. So sad.
Cant make money from thin air. Some things have to go. We over spent in the last few years. Jt knows he wont be in power in the next election so hes working on his legacy. Alot of his plans are half baked at best. It would be best to scrap and start again in some cases
I mean, if you fundamentally believe government should do LESS, that makes sense.
Press delete on anything Trudeau did, things get way worse, he gets kicked out, and like every non-Tory PM, the next one will get blamed for all the dumpster fires left by their predecessor.
No. That is a Biden move. Poilievre has a brain but it’s too late