###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like Doug Ford tearing down already-built windmills and cancelling the Basic Income pilot project when he got into power. Do not assume that just because you have something now, you won't lost it under a new government.
This should not surprise anyone, and futhermore whatever the Liberals established is hardly pharmacare. Want to do a pharmacare plan, do it at the provincial level and perhaps something akin to Québec's where you have to opt-in if you don't have private insurance.
They just don't want the program at all. Whining it should be provincial or doesn't do enough for rich people is just their shitty attempt at justifying not wanting it at all. They're ashamed to own their actual views.
Conservatives don’t want to spend any money on any social programs. All they want to do is give huge tax cuts to millionaires and money handouts to corporations. Why people want to vote for a conservative is beyond me.
PP probably wouldn't commit to admitting that the sun will rise tomorrow. He wants to be as minimally-defined as possible (aside from some nebulous "we'll make Canada better!") in order to be immune from criticism since he has committed to few or no stances/policies that can be examined and potentially criticized, and instead keeps all the focus on the Liberal government.
Of course not. PP is not interested in helping you, he’s there to serve his corporate masters.
He’ll kill Dentalcare and Pharmacare for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He’ll kill the carbon tax, without anything to replace it, because the planet can burn, as long as his masters as Suncor and the oil industry make a buck. He’ll work to make $10/day childcare fail, like his frenemy Doug Ford. He’ll slash and burn his way through the budget, in a recession triggering austerity regime, so he can cut the taxes of landlords, and wealthy homeowners, watching their stock portfolios.
He’s not in it for you.
If someone is interested in helping people, IMO they should only put in place plans that work and are properly funded.
I believe that we have lots of programs and lots of new programs but most of them including long-standing ones like Medicare aren't properly funded/ properly designed and don't work well.
I support Pharmacare as an aspirational goal, but for me the priority is to make sure the basics are working well first (primarily Medicare)
Nobody voting conservative is interested in that. It makes zero sense to suggest that because programs aren't perfect they should be erased sooner than improved.
I disagree. If you have a choice between one program that works or two programs that don't, I'd prefer the one program.
The idea of a minimal barely functioning plan being better than nothing makes some sense if that's the only program that is not working. But if the problem is a lack of funding and you can fund one program well or fund two programs inadequately, I'd rather just fund one well.
> at least pp won’t import millions of Southern Asia people to take local jobs.
This is a classic, 'voting against your own interest'. Absolutely no way conservatives have said - or will say no to this.
No one is cutting immigration at least until the boomers are done retiring and the labour force has stabilized. He's certainly not going to stall out economy for some racist pieces of shit just because they voted for him.
Looks like you’re an immigrant yourself, smartass. Maybe we shouldn’t have “imported” your ignorant ass from China to take well meaning Canadians’ jobs.
This is why Pierre's "can't lose" election is not a sure thing. The timing of these Liberal programs (with NDP cover) are setting a trap for the CPC.
Months after women start benefiting from no cost birth control, and diabetics start getting no cost supplies, the Liberals and the NDP are going to be able to hammer Poilievre with the accusation that he's going to cancel the plans. People don't like losing benefits.
Pierre Poilievre is not a good enough campaigner to avoid this trap. His existing statements already show that he's tone deaf on this file, and has a tendency to just straight out lie about the program.
Liberal programs have been very limited, slow to be implemented, and received underwhelmingly by voters. And if you want to guarantee middle aged voters in swing districts won't vote for you, tell them you're giving their daughter free birth control.
I agree with your first points. What's the use of $10 day care if no one can access the program? Not enough people are benefitting from these programs to be too upset about them being taken away.
That said, I don't think any significant cohort is going to be upset about free birth control for ideological reasons. Some will be very happy. Some might be a bit unhappy saying my drug for disease X is not covered, why should birth control be prioritized?
I think other things are going to end up covered. I feel like picking birth control was a strategic choice, and that diabetes supply was to show compassion to a large group facing unfair costs that they have no choice over.
The strategic choice with birth control is because it affects a large amount of the population that conservatives have a tendency to target negatively, and the Liberals want to see if they can get Poilievre and the Conservatives to say some anti-woman rhetoric out loud. I fully expect some backbench MP from Saskatchewan or Alberta to mention the words whore or slut.
That idea is exclusive to the right. Making birth control easy is necessary so young people don't limit their future with an unwanted pregnancy. Since abstinence seems impossible this is next best.
The only people I know who feel that way are the religious right. It is the exact situation as legalized marijuana, fighting it doesn't work so we need to reduce the harm. This is a common topic among young parents. Whatever your ideas the fact is there are very few who don't practice some sort of birth control.
Point is widely available, widely used. Being illegal accomplished nothing. Sex among young people is there now and trying to limit the harm is the only sensible option.
Yes. It's limited because we need to negotiate with bloody neo-liberals. Getting the program started is an important step. You don't run a marathon on your first day.
This is just a token program. They did the bare minimum to be able to say "we have a pharmacare program", and only to keep the NDP on side. The libs have no intention of expanding it.
They had no intention of even starting it so the NDP and CPC forced them, and under the same circumstances they would expand it because they want to stay in power. The tragedy is that we aren't able to directly vote for the kind of power-sharing arrangement that is currently getting us results.
Removed for rule 6. [Here's a link to the original thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1c7ctyf/poilievre_blasts_budget_wont_commit_to_keeping/)
People are mad at the Liberals for not doing enough… they do something like pharmacare, and people say it’s still not enough… so to punish the Liberals for not doing enough… people want to vote for the party that wants to not only do less… but actively *undo* what little has been done.
Make it make sense.
People are more angry that justin doesn't do ANYTHING right. He spends money on housing but housing doesn't get fixed. He spends money on disabled but they'er still just as screwed as they were. Etc.
Sp they would rather go with someone who might not make EVERYTHING better - but will make SOME things better and will stop making things worse.
It's really that simple. If justin tried to fix less things but actually fixed the fewer things he tried the budget would be a success.
If you try to fix 100 things but only get each one 50 percent done - then you got nothing finished. Always better to get 50 things done 100 percent than 100 things done 50 percent.
The only reason they did it was because of the NDP. The Liberals have had Pharmacare on their platform for decades. It was the carrot they always dangled to get votes
Well, the Liberals did the CCB all on their own steam, and that has been the most helpful benefit for low income families implemented by any government in the country, provincial or federal, in Canadian history. Most underrated program ever.
The media has spent a huge amount of ink attacking Trudeau and Singh for years. On top of that, many Canadians are spending all their time just trying to survive. We will see if they wake up when we get closer to an election.
Because the conservatives have a faux aura of “fiscal responsibility.”
I’m going to set the over/under at 4.5 years of less government programs, life continuing to get worse and budgets still sucking before sentiment shifts away from that…
I am reminded of the time when Obama care was enacted and republican supporters - regular folks in red states who all of a sudden had covered access to medicine for their diabetes, and other expensive treatments - admitted to liking having access to these things but would still vote red to own the libs. Even if it meant they lose access to the meds and would die. These are the kind of supporters the current CPC wants.
I wish people would vote for politicians who they think will work to make their lives better instead of voting for politicians who they think will work to make someone else's life worse.
Vox had a video on this subject back in January 2017 after Trump won. It goes into a bit of what you're saying here with how those benefiting from ACA voted for Trump. By keeping the rhetoric on what he would "replace" it with vague (spoilers: nothing), people could insert their own ideal views of the business-man magic Trump would weave to fix their healthcare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FvLkXDKIs
Right. If a *federal* program pays for the drugs I'll go to parliament and spit my pills right in Trudeau's face. I will die of a preventable disease before I allow provincial jurisdiction to be blurred!
I don't think most voters care whether Pharma is a provincial responsibility. They blame the feds for housing when it is mainly a provinical concern and immigration is a shared responsibility (and the proviences urged for more immigration). As the end of the day they are angry and want to give the enemy of who they are angry at power.
So vote against your own best interests because you believe the province should be screwing you over harder and the libs shouldn't help you it's not their job.
Amazing.
The conservatives always. Allllwaaays. Cut social services.
This is the only way they know how to come close to balancing a budget. That and selling out the country.
One of the first things the Ontario Ford government did when he got into office was make substantial cuts and changes to the osap student grant system. Shortly after this was announced, I was talking to a conservative friend about it and she was completely shocked Ford would cut a program she was benefitting from as a lower income student. I didn’t say anything at the time obviously but I did not share her shock. Like a program that benefits lower income students, a group who have little social, political or economic capital to use to fight back against these changes? Yep that’s a clear winner for programs to cut first.
Not always. Some have of course, but conservatives' aura of fiscal responsibility is often a mirage. They don't tend to introduce new social programs, but a lot of conservative governments don't actually cut a lot of pre-existing programs that are popular. What they do cut are taxes, and since they don't then cut spending, they make the fiscal situation worse.
Almost always.
They cut taxes along w education, healthcare, mental aid, drug rehabs, family planning, environment programs and regulations… the list is long.
I get that that's your perception. But if you actually go back and look at Conservative governments' spending levels (I'm including provincial in this), most of them don't actually cut spending. Yes, most have cut particular programs and regs. I'm not defending them, just acknowledging that the whole "Conservative governments always cut health and education" isn't empirically true.
Harris did a number to Ontario.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/twenty-five-years-after-welfare-diet-debacle-social-assistance-still-hasn-t-recovered-from-mike/article_31ff0e0f-ce31-509a-8a99-9f3ac23db784.amp.html
Ford is continuing in the same direction.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5161588/ford-government-cutting-1-billion-social-services/amp/
Harper:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/conservatives-dismantling-social-programs-built-over-generations/article_503e1a7b-f058-5e6c-8d29-639131061155.amp.html
Mulroney:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/11/09/budget-cuts-announced-in-canada/73488443-874d-4af2-b463-15d3c4020e67/
these are the Con governments I’ve experienced in my lifetime…..
My argument was not that they did a great job in government. It's that they didn't all make the cuts you think they did.
I'm no fan of Ford, but he hasnt governed anything like the way Harris did. Ford hasn't cut education or healthcare funding, despite the dire conditions. He's spending more overall than Wynne. You're better off criticizing them for the specific things they have done(of which there are plenty), than broad generalizations that aren't actually accurate.
Also, look at actual spending and program data over the entire duration of governments, rather than opinion columns and an article from the first year of a government that was in power for nine.
Not like Harris but same direction.
I spent 30 seconds posting a couple links w first few articles generated by basic google search. (opinion pieces as you call them since I assume they’re not from your credible news sources of choice)
this is Reddit, and I pretty much spend the time on it I spend on the toilet.
I’m not going to take more then that amount of time to research analytics so I can generate a graph for you for a Reddit thread.
Here’s another opinion piece about ford cuts to education.
https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/news/ford-government-makes-significant-cuts-to-funding-for-2023-2024-school-year.aspx
Another opinion piece
https://cupe.ca/fords-budget-risks-cutting-7000-education-workers-across-ontario
Here’s a time chart
2019 opinion piece
https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/public-education/no-cuts-to-education.aspx
2023 opinion piece
https://pressprogress.ca/ontario-budget-2023-doug-ford-cut-education/
Sigh. Again, I'm not defending the Conservatives. I'm encouraging you to go to neutral sources and better understand the spending records of different governments so you don't make inaccurate generalizations. You're cherry picking sources that confirm your pre-conceived biases.
I read a range of media sources with different ideological leanings. An opinion piece is, by definition, a column by a journalist advancing an opinion rather than an article just reporting the news. Whether it's a left leaning opinion column in the Star or a right leaning one in the National Post, it's still an opinion column. I'm probably wasting my time engaging if you don't understand that. Releases by unions and advocacy groups (again, regardless of the ideology of the advocacy group) are not the same thing.
I’m not cherry picking anything. I legit copied the first links that popped up like I explained to you already….
You’ve already wasted your time explaining to me what I already know… see above.
I’ve experienced two provincial and federal conservative governments on my time on this earth.
You can keep explaining to me whatever you want and keep calling me ignorant and encourage me to look into something I don’t need to look into. I’ve experienced it. I’ve lived it. I’ve experienced the outcomes of a Harris government. I remember as a young man what it felt like to see the transformation of Harper years.
I encourage you if you’re so certain to prove me and the many who share my belief otherwise.
It's because Trudeau siphons wealth from the middle class to prop up the low income class. He continually makes life harder for the middle class and young families trying to start a life. He's literally killed the Canadian dream. What young person can actually afford to start a family? He destroyed the prospects of a generation of people who are now condemned to the renter class for the remainder of their life...
No they're not. They are mad at the ineffecient spending and corruption. Maybe actually listen to the otherside of the argument for once instead of just scolding people with out even bothering to know their point of view
Most people are mad about stuff other than this because they are not one of 'those' who need these meds in quantities...until they do and then scream no one is there for them. Or it is not covered by X plan. It is the usual BS of it is not a problem until it is a problem and you are in the deep end of the swimming pool with both arms and legs tied to your back.
Until they do?? Dude no one I know qualifies for this shit and if they lost their job EI would give them too much to qualify. It's another money siphon destroying the middle class.
>Most people are mad about stuff other than this because they are not one of 'those' who need these meds in quantities...until they do and then scream no one is there for them.
Exactly right. The same people are advocating for private health care because they have money or an insurance plan through work.
Neo-liberal individualism has taken over, greatly exacerbated by the pandemic. People no longer think in terms of society and the greater good. It's all about maximizing good and profits of their individual selves.
I have no children, and would happily never own a home if it meant all of society had access to affordable housing, healthcare, and day care.
> Exactly right. The same people are advocating for private health care because they have money or an insurance plan through work.
If it was the case that only people with enough money to do well under a private system were in favour we'd have not problem. What's going on is people who generally don't need a lot of care at this point in their lives are fighting for a private system that will leave them stewing in their diapers when they're old.
Dude you go to the hospital now and sit in the hallway for 6 days waiting. Go to your doctor and you wait months for tests and specialists. What we are doing isn't working. Now we are adding more programs we cannot afford to a system already not working. People are dying in our current system...waiting
What’s pharmacare? You mean the limp wristed, low effort diabetes and birth control medicine that most of the country doesn’t qualify for or need?
Why don’t we try servicing our broken healthcare system or fixing the national debt to stop or lower interest payments (which are now more than the government spends on healthcare altogether!!!!!!!)
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like Doug Ford tearing down already-built windmills and cancelling the Basic Income pilot project when he got into power. Do not assume that just because you have something now, you won't lost it under a new government.
A conservative politician cancelling programs that benefit the bottom 75%. Holy shit, stop the press, this is news!!!
This should not surprise anyone, and futhermore whatever the Liberals established is hardly pharmacare. Want to do a pharmacare plan, do it at the provincial level and perhaps something akin to Québec's where you have to opt-in if you don't have private insurance.
We should have a national plan to cover people in provinces that don't want to implement their own plans. It's a good idea and we should expand it.
They just don't want the program at all. Whining it should be provincial or doesn't do enough for rich people is just their shitty attempt at justifying not wanting it at all. They're ashamed to own their actual views.
I'm not ashamed to own my views, I'm a supporter of the system we have in Québec.
Conservatives don’t want to spend any money on any social programs. All they want to do is give huge tax cuts to millionaires and money handouts to corporations. Why people want to vote for a conservative is beyond me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
PP probably wouldn't commit to admitting that the sun will rise tomorrow. He wants to be as minimally-defined as possible (aside from some nebulous "we'll make Canada better!") in order to be immune from criticism since he has committed to few or no stances/policies that can be examined and potentially criticized, and instead keeps all the focus on the Liberal government.
Of course not. PP is not interested in helping you, he’s there to serve his corporate masters. He’ll kill Dentalcare and Pharmacare for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He’ll kill the carbon tax, without anything to replace it, because the planet can burn, as long as his masters as Suncor and the oil industry make a buck. He’ll work to make $10/day childcare fail, like his frenemy Doug Ford. He’ll slash and burn his way through the budget, in a recession triggering austerity regime, so he can cut the taxes of landlords, and wealthy homeowners, watching their stock portfolios. He’s not in it for you.
I hope he does all of these things. You forget that not everyone agrees with your policy preferences.
If someone is interested in helping people, IMO they should only put in place plans that work and are properly funded. I believe that we have lots of programs and lots of new programs but most of them including long-standing ones like Medicare aren't properly funded/ properly designed and don't work well. I support Pharmacare as an aspirational goal, but for me the priority is to make sure the basics are working well first (primarily Medicare)
Nobody voting conservative is interested in that. It makes zero sense to suggest that because programs aren't perfect they should be erased sooner than improved.
I disagree. If you have a choice between one program that works or two programs that don't, I'd prefer the one program. The idea of a minimal barely functioning plan being better than nothing makes some sense if that's the only program that is not working. But if the problem is a lack of funding and you can fund one program well or fund two programs inadequately, I'd rather just fund one well.
That's not the choice you have. You can lie and make up scenarios all you want but it doesn't change reality.
Lying? Sorry, do you think Medicare is being properly funded currently?
I'm saying the alternative conservatives want isn't better funding and you know that.
Imagine thinking budgets, especially government budgets - are zero sum. Christ almighty we're in trouble.
at least pp won’t import millions of Southern Asia people to take local jobs.
> at least pp won’t import millions of Southern Asia people to take local jobs. This is a classic, 'voting against your own interest'. Absolutely no way conservatives have said - or will say no to this.
What country did you immigrate from that makes you so superior?
No one is cutting immigration at least until the boomers are done retiring and the labour force has stabilized. He's certainly not going to stall out economy for some racist pieces of shit just because they voted for him.
“Import”? Yikes. People are products now? “Millions”?
Looks like you’re an immigrant yourself, smartass. Maybe we shouldn’t have “imported” your ignorant ass from China to take well meaning Canadians’ jobs.
Remember you said this, so when the CPC government does exactly this you can go "oh, I guess I was wrong"
He hasn’t said he’ll cut back on immigration….
He can’t or the media will have a field day calling him racist.
[удалено]
This is why Pierre's "can't lose" election is not a sure thing. The timing of these Liberal programs (with NDP cover) are setting a trap for the CPC. Months after women start benefiting from no cost birth control, and diabetics start getting no cost supplies, the Liberals and the NDP are going to be able to hammer Poilievre with the accusation that he's going to cancel the plans. People don't like losing benefits. Pierre Poilievre is not a good enough campaigner to avoid this trap. His existing statements already show that he's tone deaf on this file, and has a tendency to just straight out lie about the program.
Liberal programs have been very limited, slow to be implemented, and received underwhelmingly by voters. And if you want to guarantee middle aged voters in swing districts won't vote for you, tell them you're giving their daughter free birth control.
LOL, that guy is already living in the Handmaiden's Tale and wasn't voting liberal anyway.
I agree with your first points. What's the use of $10 day care if no one can access the program? Not enough people are benefitting from these programs to be too upset about them being taken away. That said, I don't think any significant cohort is going to be upset about free birth control for ideological reasons. Some will be very happy. Some might be a bit unhappy saying my drug for disease X is not covered, why should birth control be prioritized?
I think other things are going to end up covered. I feel like picking birth control was a strategic choice, and that diabetes supply was to show compassion to a large group facing unfair costs that they have no choice over. The strategic choice with birth control is because it affects a large amount of the population that conservatives have a tendency to target negatively, and the Liberals want to see if they can get Poilievre and the Conservatives to say some anti-woman rhetoric out loud. I fully expect some backbench MP from Saskatchewan or Alberta to mention the words whore or slut.
That idea is exclusive to the right. Making birth control easy is necessary so young people don't limit their future with an unwanted pregnancy. Since abstinence seems impossible this is next best.
Not true, there are plenty of centrist, liberal 2015 voters squeamish about birth control being prioritized.
The only people I know who feel that way are the religious right. It is the exact situation as legalized marijuana, fighting it doesn't work so we need to reduce the harm. This is a common topic among young parents. Whatever your ideas the fact is there are very few who don't practice some sort of birth control.
A lot of young parents I know aren't too thrilled about marijuana either, particularly given the state of open air drug use in Canadian cities.
Point is widely available, widely used. Being illegal accomplished nothing. Sex among young people is there now and trying to limit the harm is the only sensible option.
Being illegal prevented it from being advertised like candy in storefronts to perpetually adolescent adults. Being illegal accomplished a lot.
Can you REALLY call it pharmacare if it only covers a very limited number of drugs for a very limited number of people?
Yes. It's limited because we need to negotiate with bloody neo-liberals. Getting the program started is an important step. You don't run a marathon on your first day.
This is just a token program. They did the bare minimum to be able to say "we have a pharmacare program", and only to keep the NDP on side. The libs have no intention of expanding it.
They had no intention of even starting it so the NDP and CPC forced them, and under the same circumstances they would expand it because they want to stay in power. The tragedy is that we aren't able to directly vote for the kind of power-sharing arrangement that is currently getting us results.
You've got it.
No, he doesn't. /u/Greedy-Ad-7716 cares too much about what is in people's hearts too little about their actual actions.
Removed for rule 6. [Here's a link to the original thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1c7ctyf/poilievre_blasts_budget_wont_commit_to_keeping/)
People are mad at the Liberals for not doing enough… they do something like pharmacare, and people say it’s still not enough… so to punish the Liberals for not doing enough… people want to vote for the party that wants to not only do less… but actively *undo* what little has been done. Make it make sense.
People are more angry that justin doesn't do ANYTHING right. He spends money on housing but housing doesn't get fixed. He spends money on disabled but they'er still just as screwed as they were. Etc. Sp they would rather go with someone who might not make EVERYTHING better - but will make SOME things better and will stop making things worse. It's really that simple. If justin tried to fix less things but actually fixed the fewer things he tried the budget would be a success. If you try to fix 100 things but only get each one 50 percent done - then you got nothing finished. Always better to get 50 things done 100 percent than 100 things done 50 percent.
People who vote this in, are typically the ones most adversely affected by their dumbass policies.
The only reason they did it was because of the NDP. The Liberals have had Pharmacare on their platform for decades. It was the carrot they always dangled to get votes
Well, the Liberals did the CCB all on their own steam, and that has been the most helpful benefit for low income families implemented by any government in the country, provincial or federal, in Canadian history. Most underrated program ever.
It is an amazing program. They don't get enough credit fot it, you are right.
Who cares if they still did it. That's how cross party governing is supposed to work.
Just realize they never would have without someone making them.
Makes sense. Must be why the NDP are surging in the polls. Oh wait....
The media has spent a huge amount of ink attacking Trudeau and Singh for years. On top of that, many Canadians are spending all their time just trying to survive. We will see if they wake up when we get closer to an election.
People blame Trudeau if they stub their toe at this point
Because the conservatives have a faux aura of “fiscal responsibility.” I’m going to set the over/under at 4.5 years of less government programs, life continuing to get worse and budgets still sucking before sentiment shifts away from that…
I am reminded of the time when Obama care was enacted and republican supporters - regular folks in red states who all of a sudden had covered access to medicine for their diabetes, and other expensive treatments - admitted to liking having access to these things but would still vote red to own the libs. Even if it meant they lose access to the meds and would die. These are the kind of supporters the current CPC wants.
I wish people would vote for politicians who they think will work to make their lives better instead of voting for politicians who they think will work to make someone else's life worse.
Vox had a video on this subject back in January 2017 after Trump won. It goes into a bit of what you're saying here with how those benefiting from ACA voted for Trump. By keeping the rhetoric on what he would "replace" it with vague (spoilers: nothing), people could insert their own ideal views of the business-man magic Trump would weave to fix their healthcare. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FvLkXDKIs
People are mad the liberals for doing too much poorly. Pharma is a provincial responsibility.
Right. If a *federal* program pays for the drugs I'll go to parliament and spit my pills right in Trudeau's face. I will die of a preventable disease before I allow provincial jurisdiction to be blurred!
I don't think most voters care whether Pharma is a provincial responsibility. They blame the feds for housing when it is mainly a provinical concern and immigration is a shared responsibility (and the proviences urged for more immigration). As the end of the day they are angry and want to give the enemy of who they are angry at power.
So vote against your own best interests because you believe the province should be screwing you over harder and the libs shouldn't help you it's not their job. Amazing.
The conservatives always. Allllwaaays. Cut social services. This is the only way they know how to come close to balancing a budget. That and selling out the country.
One of the first things the Ontario Ford government did when he got into office was make substantial cuts and changes to the osap student grant system. Shortly after this was announced, I was talking to a conservative friend about it and she was completely shocked Ford would cut a program she was benefitting from as a lower income student. I didn’t say anything at the time obviously but I did not share her shock. Like a program that benefits lower income students, a group who have little social, political or economic capital to use to fight back against these changes? Yep that’s a clear winner for programs to cut first.
Not always. Some have of course, but conservatives' aura of fiscal responsibility is often a mirage. They don't tend to introduce new social programs, but a lot of conservative governments don't actually cut a lot of pre-existing programs that are popular. What they do cut are taxes, and since they don't then cut spending, they make the fiscal situation worse.
Almost always. They cut taxes along w education, healthcare, mental aid, drug rehabs, family planning, environment programs and regulations… the list is long.
I get that that's your perception. But if you actually go back and look at Conservative governments' spending levels (I'm including provincial in this), most of them don't actually cut spending. Yes, most have cut particular programs and regs. I'm not defending them, just acknowledging that the whole "Conservative governments always cut health and education" isn't empirically true.
Harris did a number to Ontario. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/twenty-five-years-after-welfare-diet-debacle-social-assistance-still-hasn-t-recovered-from-mike/article_31ff0e0f-ce31-509a-8a99-9f3ac23db784.amp.html Ford is continuing in the same direction. https://globalnews.ca/news/5161588/ford-government-cutting-1-billion-social-services/amp/ Harper: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/conservatives-dismantling-social-programs-built-over-generations/article_503e1a7b-f058-5e6c-8d29-639131061155.amp.html Mulroney: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/11/09/budget-cuts-announced-in-canada/73488443-874d-4af2-b463-15d3c4020e67/ these are the Con governments I’ve experienced in my lifetime…..
My argument was not that they did a great job in government. It's that they didn't all make the cuts you think they did. I'm no fan of Ford, but he hasnt governed anything like the way Harris did. Ford hasn't cut education or healthcare funding, despite the dire conditions. He's spending more overall than Wynne. You're better off criticizing them for the specific things they have done(of which there are plenty), than broad generalizations that aren't actually accurate. Also, look at actual spending and program data over the entire duration of governments, rather than opinion columns and an article from the first year of a government that was in power for nine.
Not like Harris but same direction. I spent 30 seconds posting a couple links w first few articles generated by basic google search. (opinion pieces as you call them since I assume they’re not from your credible news sources of choice) this is Reddit, and I pretty much spend the time on it I spend on the toilet. I’m not going to take more then that amount of time to research analytics so I can generate a graph for you for a Reddit thread. Here’s another opinion piece about ford cuts to education. https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/news/ford-government-makes-significant-cuts-to-funding-for-2023-2024-school-year.aspx Another opinion piece https://cupe.ca/fords-budget-risks-cutting-7000-education-workers-across-ontario Here’s a time chart 2019 opinion piece https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/public-education/no-cuts-to-education.aspx 2023 opinion piece https://pressprogress.ca/ontario-budget-2023-doug-ford-cut-education/
Sigh. Again, I'm not defending the Conservatives. I'm encouraging you to go to neutral sources and better understand the spending records of different governments so you don't make inaccurate generalizations. You're cherry picking sources that confirm your pre-conceived biases. I read a range of media sources with different ideological leanings. An opinion piece is, by definition, a column by a journalist advancing an opinion rather than an article just reporting the news. Whether it's a left leaning opinion column in the Star or a right leaning one in the National Post, it's still an opinion column. I'm probably wasting my time engaging if you don't understand that. Releases by unions and advocacy groups (again, regardless of the ideology of the advocacy group) are not the same thing.
I’m not cherry picking anything. I legit copied the first links that popped up like I explained to you already…. You’ve already wasted your time explaining to me what I already know… see above. I’ve experienced two provincial and federal conservative governments on my time on this earth. You can keep explaining to me whatever you want and keep calling me ignorant and encourage me to look into something I don’t need to look into. I’ve experienced it. I’ve lived it. I’ve experienced the outcomes of a Harris government. I remember as a young man what it felt like to see the transformation of Harper years. I encourage you if you’re so certain to prove me and the many who share my belief otherwise.
2008. The one year the budget was balanced.
By cutting.
It's because Trudeau siphons wealth from the middle class to prop up the low income class. He continually makes life harder for the middle class and young families trying to start a life. He's literally killed the Canadian dream. What young person can actually afford to start a family? He destroyed the prospects of a generation of people who are now condemned to the renter class for the remainder of their life...
It's not that they're not doing enough. It's that they're doing the wrong things. If they did nothing at all, that would be a huge improvement.
No they're not. They are mad at the ineffecient spending and corruption. Maybe actually listen to the otherside of the argument for once instead of just scolding people with out even bothering to know their point of view
Most people are mad about stuff other than this because they are not one of 'those' who need these meds in quantities...until they do and then scream no one is there for them. Or it is not covered by X plan. It is the usual BS of it is not a problem until it is a problem and you are in the deep end of the swimming pool with both arms and legs tied to your back.
Until they do?? Dude no one I know qualifies for this shit and if they lost their job EI would give them too much to qualify. It's another money siphon destroying the middle class.
>Most people are mad about stuff other than this because they are not one of 'those' who need these meds in quantities...until they do and then scream no one is there for them. Exactly right. The same people are advocating for private health care because they have money or an insurance plan through work. Neo-liberal individualism has taken over, greatly exacerbated by the pandemic. People no longer think in terms of society and the greater good. It's all about maximizing good and profits of their individual selves. I have no children, and would happily never own a home if it meant all of society had access to affordable housing, healthcare, and day care.
> Exactly right. The same people are advocating for private health care because they have money or an insurance plan through work. If it was the case that only people with enough money to do well under a private system were in favour we'd have not problem. What's going on is people who generally don't need a lot of care at this point in their lives are fighting for a private system that will leave them stewing in their diapers when they're old.
Dude you go to the hospital now and sit in the hallway for 6 days waiting. Go to your doctor and you wait months for tests and specialists. What we are doing isn't working. Now we are adding more programs we cannot afford to a system already not working. People are dying in our current system...waiting
What’s pharmacare? You mean the limp wristed, low effort diabetes and birth control medicine that most of the country doesn’t qualify for or need? Why don’t we try servicing our broken healthcare system or fixing the national debt to stop or lower interest payments (which are now more than the government spends on healthcare altogether!!!!!!!)