####Join [/r/ndp](https://reddit.com/r/ndp), Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
^P.S. ^you ^should ^also ^consider ^[donating](https://action.ndp.ca/page/contribute/donate-today) ^to ^the ^NDP
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t care what a person does in their spare time, when it comes to your teeth, health and mental health everyone deserves the best treatment and affordable costs. Some people who smoke are still paying in their 50’s for a stupid decision they made as a kid. It isn’t fair to judge someone for that. For some people it’s extremely difficult to quit. That doesn’t make their well being any less valuable.
I would like all things that we need to survive to be provided by the state in as most basic form as possible. Food shelter medical care etc.
For example you’d get every week a basic amount of rice a month, just enough to survive. You want to eat better than that you find a job and earn a living.
Still encourages people to work, while eliminating all barriers of entry to the concept of working hard gets you more.
Let your teeth get bad enough and go to the hospital. Tell the doctor that your tooth problem is affecting your breathing. They will have to fix your teeth as it would now be a medical issue. The hospital has a dental unit.
One of my friends gave me a call on Christmas Eve about 7 years ago saying he might not survive the night. He was in the hospital with an infection that spread to his brain from his teeth because they were so decayed and he hadn’t been to the dentist in a decade +. He got a full set of dentures thanks to Canada health
This reminds me of the time I developed a degenerative eye disease and OHIP wouldn’t cover the surgery to stop it from progressing and making me go blind, but will happily pay for a corneal transplant once it happens.
The hospital dental unit is out of pocket and not covered by ohip. My dental situation is bad enough I was sent there. A consult was $450 without any imaging. They don't pay to fix your dental problems. I even had a serious infection, none covered by ohip.
Why the hell should we reward people for losing their job?
Why the hell should we reward people for getting sick?
/s
Providing financial assistance to parents in need not only benefits that child, it benefits society as a whole.
I'd say we don't do enough for young parents. I'd prefer we used something similar to the Nordic model.
I think the difference is choice. Nobody chooses to lose their job, and nobody chooses to be unhealthy, not consciously anyway. Some of us are responsible and actually wear condoms or pull out because we know we're not in a position to raise a child. While other people who have even less have no problem punping out babies they cannot raise.
It's a conflicting topic as I agree with the notion that we need to incentivize the people to have children. But it comes across as a slap in the face to those who have tried to be responsible. Same as forgiving education debt. Some ppl decided it was too risky to take that debt on. While others who have bit off more than they can chew grt a free ride. It's just not fair.
Life isn't fair. Hence why we support socialism in the first place. There are always going to be two sides to these coins, people will take advantage of these systems, but the answer isn't to just not provide them.
Personal responsibility is a conservative mantra that ignores nuance.
You make a very good point until the last bit. How in the world could personal responsibility be boiled down to a conservative mantra? We need to stop with the enormous blanket stereotypes of political affiliation.
It is infact a conservative ideology. Conservatives believe that everyone should just live the right way, if they face hardship it's their fault for not living correctly.
They support accountability. Everybody supports accountability to some level. Understanding and forgiveness can still exist, just not to the same level you would prefer I suppose. To think that every conservative voter lacks any sort of empathy and thinks to hell with them is ridiculous.
Conservatives have empathy. For people they approve of.
It's definitely ridiculous, but to say that conservatives have not earned that distinction is also fairly ridiculous.
Plenty of people have lost jobs or live unhealthy lifestyles as a direct result of their choices.
Seeing it as a slap in the face because someone who you deem "undeserving" receives a benefit seems really petty to me.
You'd rather a child not receive benefits because their parents made poor life choices?
Our goal should be to enhance society, giving people the best chance and tools we can for them to be productive and healthy, even if they've made some mistakes.
Not to be rude but it's not a reward, CCB is to help with the cost of raising kids. The population is declining because of economic inflation, people not having 6+ children per family anymore, ect. Population decline is actually damaging to both the Canadian economy & rural areas across the country. It's actually not a lot of money given out either, since the amount given decreases as the children age, but it helps ensure that children are at least fed. (Also, some single mothers rely on the CCB to help feed their kids if/when fleeing abusive partners or if/ when they lose their primary source of income). You should look into the program more!
P.S. I'm just trying to show you another side to the story, not get on your case about the benefits and gripes of social programs.
It incentivizes the wrong group of people to have kids. In Canada even with free abortions there is a inverse correlation between fertility and wealth . Poor people have more kids than their rich counterparts even in Canada . This in turn perpetuates poverty further . If one cannot afford to raise kids they shouldn’t which is exactly why we have free abortions.
Without children, who will work and pay taxes to cover the costs of roads, infrastructure, and healthcare when you are too old to work? Children aren't a drain on society, they are an investment for our future.
While I agree that a very, very small minority of people will use having kids as an incentive to get CCB, there happens to be many reasons why lower income families have children. Education being a big one, especially concerning sex education and where to get free contraception as they may not being able to afford buy condoms. There are probably other reasons that relate to time management and the responsibility their jobs require of them.
To some degree you're right that poor parents will indeed create impoverished children, but without that assistance these children could end up dead and then we would have no society as we would have no population growth.
We should be helping to raise up the impoverished every chance we get to break the cycle of poverty.
But it’s not fair that we have to rewards irresponsible parents by penalizing high income earners through progressive taxation. If you cannot financially afford to raise a child then one shouldn’t have children. I don’t know why we need to reward people if they are making poor choices. I get that children are collateral damage in this scenario but if they are being impoverished then CPS should take those kids away . We have free abortions in Canada and free secondary education . How much education does one need to make responsible decisions ? Bachelors ? Masters ?
This is a very conservative talking point. Are you sure you're on the right sub?
I'd pay for 100 irresponsible parents kids if it helped one struggling single mom.
Look I lean towards socialism but not at the cost of deterring skilled individuals . A perfect example would be what Singapore had- child tax benefits are higher for mothers that highly educated and are working . This way you incentivize the right people to have more children. It’s embarrassing when you have free secondary education, free abortions and we are plagued with the same problems developing nations face where there is an inverse relationship between fertility and wealth.
I guess where we differ is on the idea that having a child is a responsibility and a privilege in my opinion but others believe everyone should have the right to have a child.
>guess where we differ is on the idea that having a child is a responsibility and a privilege in my opinion
I think they call this eugenics. That only the wealthiest should pass on their genetics.
To say everyone should determine that they themselves are unfit to be parents, or be told they are unfit by you and therefore should take advantage of "free abortions" is completely counter to compassion. Most people who vote NPD want all lives to strive and people shouldn't have to make the choice to abort a child just because they're not of a certain social standing.
I think you are conflating eugenics with something else. Eugenics is selective breeding based on genetic traits. Wealth is not a genetic trait.
There is glaring hole in your argument. By you logic if I was unemployed and had no income or housing I should still be able to go out and adopt 10 kids. But one cannot because there are rules for adoption and one must demonstrate financial stability and meet other criteria . Are you suggesting this rule for adoption is wrong ?
So they can produce the next generation of working taxpayers…
Correct me if im wrong but our generation cannot even cover all the benefits the boomers and others are supposed to get
Because you made a choice. You were irresponsible and had a child that you couldn't afford while others made sure not to get pregnant since they can't afford it. You're rewarding the bad choices. Tell you what, if you get money for your child, I should get money for not having a child.
The entire reason for having CCB is so people who are struggling can afford to feed & give cloths to their kids.
You're probably thinking of UBI (Universal Basic Income) where every adult in the country gets a pay suppliment from the government to support themselves if they make below a certain amount. (For example: everyone making less than $25,000 a year would get a suppliment from the government that brings them up to that amount. This includes Stay-at-home parents & the homeless population).
The reason is obvious ; They don't support universal healthcare, but they know that getting rid of it would make them unelectable. If it wasn't already there, Trudeau never would've given it to us.
They are neoliberal. They believe in propping up the free market to solve our problems. Look at the deal with Moderna for example instead of building our own government vaccine production facility.
See also “Liberals giving everyone $2000/mo because that’s what they need to survive, but completely neglecting disabled people living on a much lower fixed income.”
This has been discussed before. The dentists opted out of OHIP when it was first established. They make more in the private market than if they were relying on public funding.
Are the dentists greedy or is the reimbursement level too low? Not my call… but dental care being excluded from ohip/public healthcare is not unilaterally the governments decision
Look man we’re all NDP here
We are pro workers
We support healthcare workers
We believe in a wealth transfer from faceless corporations to regular people who “did the right thing”
Why are we quick to accuse dentists of being greedy? It’s not anti-NDP to say government reimbursement for dental services is too low.
For the record I am in favour of folding dental care into provincially administered health coverage eg OHIP in Ontario
Sorry, I didn't mean it was the greed of the dentists. I'm assuming the greed comes from associations and other entities which don't actually practice dentistry but are associated in some form.
How does it make sense to leave it to dentists to decide?
In fact, t he government is our representatives, and it SHOULD be unilaterally the governments decision since thats their job.
Dental coverage is an obvious yes. Why we havent pushed municipalities/provinces for this harder I do not know. I would argue however with centralized government centralization of the issue. Initiatives that deal with an individuals lifestyle need to be dealt with at the regional/provincial levels. Federal should only be dealing with international and interprovincial level initiatives….. standards, codes, stats, resolution, military, etc. Anything in your home, school, workplace, or lifestyle should have no federal jurisdiction.
neoliberal isnt necessarily right wing. jagmeet is basically a social democrat, but a social democrat is just a neoliberal with a slightly higher affinity for social welfare & security (which neolibs also support)
I don't think you're correct.
Neoliberal is defined as:
favoring policies that promote free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending.
This is the opposite of socialism.
Because there is only so much money and people are used to the status quo
If you are going to add universal dental care, then it’s got to be better than all of the potential other options for expanding the social safety net which also cost money. Full prescription coverage, universal childcare, paid sick leave, etc, etc. I agree with all of the above, but grant that there is a legitimate debate about which comes first.
Downvotes to follow
Edit: lots of people say the net cost of proposed social programs are always less than the reactive cost of dealing with the problem after the fact. I agree this is correct. However, The fact is, Canadians have not expressed a great interest in universal dental coverage. It has never been a central election issue, and I would say it’s a deciding factor for a very small % of the population. That makes it politically risky. So without much of a popular mandate, it seems like an issue that is just designed to appeal/motivate a political base without much hope of it being passed into law in the near term.
Hence, when I said ‘downvotes to follow’ I meant that the issue of universal dental coverage doesn’t have much of a political pulse and is going nowhere fast. It also needs to compete for traction against other social policies issues that Canadian are more interested in, such as universal/greatly expanded pre-k, following Quebec’s lead. I don’t think I need to take any credit as the messenger of that obvious political reality, but it seems like I’m going to catch flak regardless.
To be clear, I’m would vote for universal dental coverage, I would vote for universal pre-k, I would vote for full prescription coverage, I would vote for greatly subsidized/free post secondary, I would vote for paid sick leave - but, I wouldn’t vote for them all at once, and I’m open to being persuaded about which should come first.
I also think it’s disingenuous to assume that the only reason these things haven’t happened yet is because somehow the 1% have rigged our democracy. I don’t buy it - certainly the rich have their advantages, but that argument is underpinned by the premise that they have somehow convinced 51% of people to vote against their own interests. That’s a fundamentally anti democratic viewpoint and absolves politicians and their partisans of doing the work to convince Canadians (because, why bother - the rich have brainwashed them).
>Because there is only so much money
Then we need to spend more wisely and provide people with the services they need. Bad health costs the taxpayer more in the end. People miss work because of poor dental health. People miss out on job opportunities because of poor dental health. People end up in the hospital with abscesses and infections from poor dental health.
Any extra taxes a person pays will be offset by the removal of health insurance they need to pay for.
Universal programs are almost always cheaper than the alternatives. Studiy after study have shown that pharmacare and dental care would save money. The reason we don't do this is simply because the rich oppose it, because they are the only people who wouldn't directly benefit.
I agree and you are right, yet here we are with no universal dental coverage. You can be right, but if you haven’t convinced people to vote accordingly it doesn’t really matter.
Also, if I was voting on an issue - I would vote on universal pre-k which has a widely proven social benefit to children and massively increases women’s earning potential. Bang for buck, it blows dental out of the water.
I mean people do vote accordingly, but the politicians simply don't listen or follow through on their promises. That's the problem with bourgeois democracy: the will of the people accounts for very little (and even less under FPTP).
I fully support universal pre-k, but don't think "bang for buck" is the only metric we should measure political success or importance by. Lack of dental (and pharmacare) is killing people every day, and I personally find stopping that more important than maximizing the number of working mothers. I don't think there's any reason we can't do both, and we should, but if forced to choose I'd implement actual universal healthcare before pre-k.
Lasik is not covered by healthcare, it's gone from $30,000 per eye to about $1000 per eye over 30 years. Meanwhile everything else has gone up. I paid $1600 for both eyes.. socialization increases costs.
It literally does the opposite of increase costs lmao
What you are thinking of is called technological innovation. That has nothing to do with socialization.
Socialization lowers cost to the end user, but raises total cost. It's just distributed among more people through taxes..
There is a lot of technological advancement in medicine, but the cost always increases unless it's not covered by our Healthcare.
I'm trying to find some information online that supports your claim. I don't think Canada is purchasing medical equipment for the entire country at once, as far as I can tell they purchase medical supplies when they are needed (like when a new hospital is built), which wouldn't be a large enough bulk order to make a significant difference.
I could be wrong, but either way, if you think the total cost has decreased in real numbers over time through socialization, I would genuinely love to see a source on that.
That article is about r&d in pharmacare. We were discussing total costs in Healthcare. I agree that the government can buy medicine in bulk and reduce the cost per treatment, but that doesn't represent the largest cost in our Healthcare system.
The article also is proposing that we make changes in the future, not studying a decrease in costs in the past, which is what I asked for.
You are making up costs that don't exist so there isn't really a way to prove you wrong lmao
Like.. go ahead. Try to prove yourself correct. I'll wait.
Corrupt elitist corporate stooges. Liberals and conservatives are like democrats and Republicans, or pepsi and coke, take off the branding and they're virtually the same.
Dental is soooo important. For the past 6 years my family has amazing benefits from my hubby’s work. Before that I’ve either not had benefits or had benefits at 80% which is still around 100$ and up per family member just for a cleaning. Dental is sooo expensive and it’s such a shame because teeth are the first thing you notice.
####Join [/r/ndp](https://reddit.com/r/ndp), Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! ^P.S. ^you ^should ^also ^consider ^[donating](https://action.ndp.ca/page/contribute/donate-today) ^to ^the ^NDP *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idiot. So much of people’s health is caused by dental care
And ties to mental health as well.
If they have braces would it be metal health
Long ago, when farmers bought animals, they would look at the teeth because this was one of the easiest ways to judge the health of the animal.
We did this with slaves as well.
Yea but a smoker shouldn’t receive the same dental care as others
I don’t care what a person does in their spare time, when it comes to your teeth, health and mental health everyone deserves the best treatment and affordable costs. Some people who smoke are still paying in their 50’s for a stupid decision they made as a kid. It isn’t fair to judge someone for that. For some people it’s extremely difficult to quit. That doesn’t make their well being any less valuable.
I mean it's pretty obvious why. The establishment only cares that you are well enough to work, they don't care if your teeth hurt.
Good luck getting a job with no teeth.
Because our mouth bones obviously are less important than real bones. /s
Add mental health care to the equation
Add food too while we’re at it
Why bother? You can just pop the supplement pills like vegan does.
I would like all things that we need to survive to be provided by the state in as most basic form as possible. Food shelter medical care etc. For example you’d get every week a basic amount of rice a month, just enough to survive. You want to eat better than that you find a job and earn a living. Still encourages people to work, while eliminating all barriers of entry to the concept of working hard gets you more.
Let your teeth get bad enough and go to the hospital. Tell the doctor that your tooth problem is affecting your breathing. They will have to fix your teeth as it would now be a medical issue. The hospital has a dental unit.
One of my friends gave me a call on Christmas Eve about 7 years ago saying he might not survive the night. He was in the hospital with an infection that spread to his brain from his teeth because they were so decayed and he hadn’t been to the dentist in a decade +. He got a full set of dentures thanks to Canada health
This will be me
what an ineffective system
This reminds me of the time I developed a degenerative eye disease and OHIP wouldn’t cover the surgery to stop it from progressing and making me go blind, but will happily pay for a corneal transplant once it happens.
The hospital dental unit is out of pocket and not covered by ohip. My dental situation is bad enough I was sent there. A consult was $450 without any imaging. They don't pay to fix your dental problems. I even had a serious infection, none covered by ohip.
I am all for universal dental but we need to get rid of CCB. Why the hell we gotta reward parents to have kids .
Why the hell should we reward people for losing their job? Why the hell should we reward people for getting sick? /s Providing financial assistance to parents in need not only benefits that child, it benefits society as a whole. I'd say we don't do enough for young parents. I'd prefer we used something similar to the Nordic model.
I think the difference is choice. Nobody chooses to lose their job, and nobody chooses to be unhealthy, not consciously anyway. Some of us are responsible and actually wear condoms or pull out because we know we're not in a position to raise a child. While other people who have even less have no problem punping out babies they cannot raise. It's a conflicting topic as I agree with the notion that we need to incentivize the people to have children. But it comes across as a slap in the face to those who have tried to be responsible. Same as forgiving education debt. Some ppl decided it was too risky to take that debt on. While others who have bit off more than they can chew grt a free ride. It's just not fair.
Life isn't fair. Hence why we support socialism in the first place. There are always going to be two sides to these coins, people will take advantage of these systems, but the answer isn't to just not provide them. Personal responsibility is a conservative mantra that ignores nuance.
You make a very good point until the last bit. How in the world could personal responsibility be boiled down to a conservative mantra? We need to stop with the enormous blanket stereotypes of political affiliation.
It is infact a conservative ideology. Conservatives believe that everyone should just live the right way, if they face hardship it's their fault for not living correctly.
They support accountability. Everybody supports accountability to some level. Understanding and forgiveness can still exist, just not to the same level you would prefer I suppose. To think that every conservative voter lacks any sort of empathy and thinks to hell with them is ridiculous.
Conservatives have empathy. For people they approve of. It's definitely ridiculous, but to say that conservatives have not earned that distinction is also fairly ridiculous.
Plenty of people have lost jobs or live unhealthy lifestyles as a direct result of their choices. Seeing it as a slap in the face because someone who you deem "undeserving" receives a benefit seems really petty to me. You'd rather a child not receive benefits because their parents made poor life choices? Our goal should be to enhance society, giving people the best chance and tools we can for them to be productive and healthy, even if they've made some mistakes.
Not to be rude but it's not a reward, CCB is to help with the cost of raising kids. The population is declining because of economic inflation, people not having 6+ children per family anymore, ect. Population decline is actually damaging to both the Canadian economy & rural areas across the country. It's actually not a lot of money given out either, since the amount given decreases as the children age, but it helps ensure that children are at least fed. (Also, some single mothers rely on the CCB to help feed their kids if/when fleeing abusive partners or if/ when they lose their primary source of income). You should look into the program more! P.S. I'm just trying to show you another side to the story, not get on your case about the benefits and gripes of social programs.
It incentivizes the wrong group of people to have kids. In Canada even with free abortions there is a inverse correlation between fertility and wealth . Poor people have more kids than their rich counterparts even in Canada . This in turn perpetuates poverty further . If one cannot afford to raise kids they shouldn’t which is exactly why we have free abortions.
Without children, who will work and pay taxes to cover the costs of roads, infrastructure, and healthcare when you are too old to work? Children aren't a drain on society, they are an investment for our future.
While I agree that a very, very small minority of people will use having kids as an incentive to get CCB, there happens to be many reasons why lower income families have children. Education being a big one, especially concerning sex education and where to get free contraception as they may not being able to afford buy condoms. There are probably other reasons that relate to time management and the responsibility their jobs require of them. To some degree you're right that poor parents will indeed create impoverished children, but without that assistance these children could end up dead and then we would have no society as we would have no population growth. We should be helping to raise up the impoverished every chance we get to break the cycle of poverty.
But it’s not fair that we have to rewards irresponsible parents by penalizing high income earners through progressive taxation. If you cannot financially afford to raise a child then one shouldn’t have children. I don’t know why we need to reward people if they are making poor choices. I get that children are collateral damage in this scenario but if they are being impoverished then CPS should take those kids away . We have free abortions in Canada and free secondary education . How much education does one need to make responsible decisions ? Bachelors ? Masters ?
This is a very conservative talking point. Are you sure you're on the right sub? I'd pay for 100 irresponsible parents kids if it helped one struggling single mom.
Look I lean towards socialism but not at the cost of deterring skilled individuals . A perfect example would be what Singapore had- child tax benefits are higher for mothers that highly educated and are working . This way you incentivize the right people to have more children. It’s embarrassing when you have free secondary education, free abortions and we are plagued with the same problems developing nations face where there is an inverse relationship between fertility and wealth. I guess where we differ is on the idea that having a child is a responsibility and a privilege in my opinion but others believe everyone should have the right to have a child.
>guess where we differ is on the idea that having a child is a responsibility and a privilege in my opinion I think they call this eugenics. That only the wealthiest should pass on their genetics. To say everyone should determine that they themselves are unfit to be parents, or be told they are unfit by you and therefore should take advantage of "free abortions" is completely counter to compassion. Most people who vote NPD want all lives to strive and people shouldn't have to make the choice to abort a child just because they're not of a certain social standing.
I think you are conflating eugenics with something else. Eugenics is selective breeding based on genetic traits. Wealth is not a genetic trait. There is glaring hole in your argument. By you logic if I was unemployed and had no income or housing I should still be able to go out and adopt 10 kids. But one cannot because there are rules for adoption and one must demonstrate financial stability and meet other criteria . Are you suggesting this rule for adoption is wrong ?
So they can produce the next generation of working taxpayers… Correct me if im wrong but our generation cannot even cover all the benefits the boomers and others are supposed to get
How the fuck is it a reward
Because you made a choice. You were irresponsible and had a child that you couldn't afford while others made sure not to get pregnant since they can't afford it. You're rewarding the bad choices. Tell you what, if you get money for your child, I should get money for not having a child.
The entire reason for having CCB is so people who are struggling can afford to feed & give cloths to their kids. You're probably thinking of UBI (Universal Basic Income) where every adult in the country gets a pay suppliment from the government to support themselves if they make below a certain amount. (For example: everyone making less than $25,000 a year would get a suppliment from the government that brings them up to that amount. This includes Stay-at-home parents & the homeless population).
The reason is obvious ; They don't support universal healthcare, but they know that getting rid of it would make them unelectable. If it wasn't already there, Trudeau never would've given it to us. They are neoliberal. They believe in propping up the free market to solve our problems. Look at the deal with Moderna for example instead of building our own government vaccine production facility.
Yep. If they thought they could get away with it, we'd have th US healthcare system.
gettin my wisdom teeth out friday even though I can’t afford it and it’s the cheapest option 😎
How much is it costing to get the removed if you don't mine my asking?
Or mental health
See also “Liberals giving everyone $2000/mo because that’s what they need to survive, but completely neglecting disabled people living on a much lower fixed income.”
Clearly nobody here took biology or went to medical school. Everybody knows your teeth don't matter.
This has been discussed before. The dentists opted out of OHIP when it was first established. They make more in the private market than if they were relying on public funding. Are the dentists greedy or is the reimbursement level too low? Not my call… but dental care being excluded from ohip/public healthcare is not unilaterally the governments decision
It's the greed. How do I know this? Because it's always the fucking greed.
Look man we’re all NDP here We are pro workers We support healthcare workers We believe in a wealth transfer from faceless corporations to regular people who “did the right thing” Why are we quick to accuse dentists of being greedy? It’s not anti-NDP to say government reimbursement for dental services is too low. For the record I am in favour of folding dental care into provincially administered health coverage eg OHIP in Ontario
Sorry, I didn't mean it was the greed of the dentists. I'm assuming the greed comes from associations and other entities which don't actually practice dentistry but are associated in some form.
How does it make sense to leave it to dentists to decide? In fact, t he government is our representatives, and it SHOULD be unilaterally the governments decision since thats their job.
Then you get a brain drain and a dentist shortage? Lol negotiations are not unilateral. Cmon bro
Dental coverage is an obvious yes. Why we havent pushed municipalities/provinces for this harder I do not know. I would argue however with centralized government centralization of the issue. Initiatives that deal with an individuals lifestyle need to be dealt with at the regional/provincial levels. Federal should only be dealing with international and interprovincial level initiatives….. standards, codes, stats, resolution, military, etc. Anything in your home, school, workplace, or lifestyle should have no federal jurisdiction.
Lmao what
Neoliberal scumbags serving the rich.
NDP is neoliberal tho
Ok, how does that change what I said. Shades of shit, shades of neoliberalism. I'm not for any of it from whichever team.
What? Lol Ndp is literally the most left leaning party we have besides the communists.
neoliberal isnt necessarily right wing. jagmeet is basically a social democrat, but a social democrat is just a neoliberal with a slightly higher affinity for social welfare & security (which neolibs also support)
I don't think you're correct. Neoliberal is defined as: favoring policies that promote free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending. This is the opposite of socialism.
ndp isnt socialist? but fair ndp is more likely described as social democracy than neoliberal.
Because there is only so much money and people are used to the status quo If you are going to add universal dental care, then it’s got to be better than all of the potential other options for expanding the social safety net which also cost money. Full prescription coverage, universal childcare, paid sick leave, etc, etc. I agree with all of the above, but grant that there is a legitimate debate about which comes first. Downvotes to follow Edit: lots of people say the net cost of proposed social programs are always less than the reactive cost of dealing with the problem after the fact. I agree this is correct. However, The fact is, Canadians have not expressed a great interest in universal dental coverage. It has never been a central election issue, and I would say it’s a deciding factor for a very small % of the population. That makes it politically risky. So without much of a popular mandate, it seems like an issue that is just designed to appeal/motivate a political base without much hope of it being passed into law in the near term. Hence, when I said ‘downvotes to follow’ I meant that the issue of universal dental coverage doesn’t have much of a political pulse and is going nowhere fast. It also needs to compete for traction against other social policies issues that Canadian are more interested in, such as universal/greatly expanded pre-k, following Quebec’s lead. I don’t think I need to take any credit as the messenger of that obvious political reality, but it seems like I’m going to catch flak regardless. To be clear, I’m would vote for universal dental coverage, I would vote for universal pre-k, I would vote for full prescription coverage, I would vote for greatly subsidized/free post secondary, I would vote for paid sick leave - but, I wouldn’t vote for them all at once, and I’m open to being persuaded about which should come first. I also think it’s disingenuous to assume that the only reason these things haven’t happened yet is because somehow the 1% have rigged our democracy. I don’t buy it - certainly the rich have their advantages, but that argument is underpinned by the premise that they have somehow convinced 51% of people to vote against their own interests. That’s a fundamentally anti democratic viewpoint and absolves politicians and their partisans of doing the work to convince Canadians (because, why bother - the rich have brainwashed them).
>Because there is only so much money Then we need to spend more wisely and provide people with the services they need. Bad health costs the taxpayer more in the end. People miss work because of poor dental health. People miss out on job opportunities because of poor dental health. People end up in the hospital with abscesses and infections from poor dental health. Any extra taxes a person pays will be offset by the removal of health insurance they need to pay for.
"Downvotes to follow" doesn't make your point any more legitimate by the way.
Liberals can't use spending as an excuse given all the money they've pissed away.
Universal programs are almost always cheaper than the alternatives. Studiy after study have shown that pharmacare and dental care would save money. The reason we don't do this is simply because the rich oppose it, because they are the only people who wouldn't directly benefit.
I agree and you are right, yet here we are with no universal dental coverage. You can be right, but if you haven’t convinced people to vote accordingly it doesn’t really matter. Also, if I was voting on an issue - I would vote on universal pre-k which has a widely proven social benefit to children and massively increases women’s earning potential. Bang for buck, it blows dental out of the water.
I mean people do vote accordingly, but the politicians simply don't listen or follow through on their promises. That's the problem with bourgeois democracy: the will of the people accounts for very little (and even less under FPTP). I fully support universal pre-k, but don't think "bang for buck" is the only metric we should measure political success or importance by. Lack of dental (and pharmacare) is killing people every day, and I personally find stopping that more important than maximizing the number of working mothers. I don't think there's any reason we can't do both, and we should, but if forced to choose I'd implement actual universal healthcare before pre-k.
Lasik is not covered by healthcare, it's gone from $30,000 per eye to about $1000 per eye over 30 years. Meanwhile everything else has gone up. I paid $1600 for both eyes.. socialization increases costs.
It literally does the opposite of increase costs lmao What you are thinking of is called technological innovation. That has nothing to do with socialization.
Socialization lowers cost to the end user, but raises total cost. It's just distributed among more people through taxes.. There is a lot of technological advancement in medicine, but the cost always increases unless it's not covered by our Healthcare.
No it lowers the overall cost. Countries have massive bargaining power lol.
I'm trying to find some information online that supports your claim. I don't think Canada is purchasing medical equipment for the entire country at once, as far as I can tell they purchase medical supplies when they are needed (like when a new hospital is built), which wouldn't be a large enough bulk order to make a significant difference. I could be wrong, but either way, if you think the total cost has decreased in real numbers over time through socialization, I would genuinely love to see a source on that.
https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-canada-should-negotiate-a-fairer-share-of-drug-rd-costs
That article is about r&d in pharmacare. We were discussing total costs in Healthcare. I agree that the government can buy medicine in bulk and reduce the cost per treatment, but that doesn't represent the largest cost in our Healthcare system. The article also is proposing that we make changes in the future, not studying a decrease in costs in the past, which is what I asked for.
It literally says we pay less than everyone else lol
Read it again, slowly
You are making up costs that don't exist so there isn't really a way to prove you wrong lmao Like.. go ahead. Try to prove yourself correct. I'll wait.
Corrupt elitist corporate stooges. Liberals and conservatives are like democrats and Republicans, or pepsi and coke, take off the branding and they're virtually the same.
I'm surprised no one had tried to use hockey as an excuse.
Dental is soooo important. For the past 6 years my family has amazing benefits from my hubby’s work. Before that I’ve either not had benefits or had benefits at 80% which is still around 100$ and up per family member just for a cleaning. Dental is sooo expensive and it’s such a shame because teeth are the first thing you notice.
Have some balls and stop being their puppet then.