What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
π» Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
π£οΈ Politics
π Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
Wow, I never thought this would actually pass. I was 100% expecting some bureaucratic fuckery to prevent it.
Good job, NDP
Maybe some of us will vote for them in the next election
They'll get more votes but people are still going to vote strategically because what choice do they have.
which strategy overcomes giving people healthcare that actually covers their health?
honest query, not sure how to read this response, and actually jealous because I'm an american (merikafuckyeah no healthcare and bang bang vroom vroom war war) who pays out the nose for dental and my kids' braces are gonna cost bank even with 'good coverage'. :(
Unfortunately much like America we have a system that punishes split votes with this is mind the question becomes less who do you want and more who do you really not want?
Regardless this is great news and good on the NDP
Iβm done voting strategically, once Trudeau broke his promise to end FPTP I gave it up and Iβm never going back.
The strategy that avoids the entire system being dismantled. Imagine if there were five congressional representatives from a new Social Democracy Party. Because those five representatives are the deciding vote if it goes along party lines, they can apply pressure on the Democrats to pass healthcare reform. Hooray, everyone loves the Social Democracy Party.
They might take a few more seats from the Democrats' safe districts in the next election. But in a contentious district where the Republican candidate has a good chance of winning, if half the people who voted Democrat vote Social instead, the vote gets split and the Republican gets in. So many of those people, who want to vote Social, will realize that if they do, then healthcare gets completely gutted. So they hold their nose and vote for the Democrat.
The strategy that avoids the entire system being dismantled.
struggling with this here too. hope people can overcome their slight discomforts in the face of actual fascism.
Strategic voters vote NDP, strategically voting Lib hasnβt worked
Dammit Canada, covering all the mineralized tissue in the body. What's next, eye care?
That is amazing ... and that is what happens when you have the NDP in politics
The NDP are the reason we have National Healthcare. It's no surprise they're behind National Dental Care as well.
Checking in from Minnesota, you're welcome to annex us at any time
WA here. If my homies in BC could adopt us that'd be just rad.
We will be privatizing our health care soon enough
I sure hope not, the only people I've heard be pro privatization are Albertans
A poll earlier this year put support at 60%
Just looked it up sample size was terrible, take it with the largest grain of salt
https://angusreid.org/health-care-privatization-perspectives/
Thereβs also this one, which could line up with it
Very happy it passed but 90k limit on household income seems rather low. I guess this is a much broader discussion but shouldnt it be based on average household income rather than cumulative since that scales with number of people where as a hard 90k number doesnt.
It might feel a little low (especially if you live in Vancouver/Toronto) but it covers some 9 million of us.
I imagine they'll keep revisiting the number or index it to inflation. But really, these programs are designed to help the most needy and at 90k it is already one of our largest social programs.
Yeah, it's truly fantastic that they're aggressively rolling this out to whom it's most needed, first.
A not insignificant number of people earning more than $90k have at least some dental benefits through their employers. Covering the most needy first is the best way to implement this program.
The 90k limit also helps keep the conservatives off their back vs 150k or everyone.
It'll give the program some time to show it actually saves money long term and then they can slowly expand it further with better data to back it up
Vote NDP :)
starting with qualifying seniors over the age of 87
Eligibility will gradually expand over the course of the year to include all qualifying seniors over the age of 65 by May 2024, then children under the age of 18 and people with disabilities by June.
Wow, talk about a big "fuck you" to the taxpayers funding this insurance.
What about working folks who can't afford dental care?
Gotta start somewhere. Once the program exists, expanding it is much easier. Look at Obamacare. They fought tooth and nail against it, but once itβs in the Republicans tried as hard as they could to repeal it and it just never worked.
Itβs hard to take away entitlements once they exist, so the only future is really expanding it. Vision, dental and drug coverage are all on that path, itβs just a matter of time.
Itβs hard to take away entitlements once they exist, so the only future is really expanding it.
As an Ontarian lol. We used to have provincial eye care coverage. That's been gone for decades now. Government can and will strip services as they see fit just need assholes in charge.
I didnβt say impossible, just difficult. I still say expanding it is better than not, even if itβs not perfect.
Why is starting out with seniors a "fuck you" to taxpayers? Would you rather seniors wait longer just so we can all get covered at once?
No, don't get me wrong. Absolutely start with seniors, young kids, and the disabled.
But don't forget the rest of us! We're the backbone of society funding these programs and helping the economy to hum along. Not including taxpayers between 18 and 65 is a massive slap in the face. Discrimination by definition.
Absolutely start with seniors, young kids, and the disabled.
And is this not what's happening? Are they saying that "taxpayers between 18 and 65" will never be included?
Are they saying that "taxpayers between 18 and 65" will never be included?
Correct. That demographic is not part of the plans.
Maybe you have access to some privileged information, or by "the plans" you mean this one piece of legislation specifically.
But I'm pretty sure the forces behind this movement have "the plan" of expanding this to universal access. I wouldn't expect a single piece of legislation to necessarily include the whole ten-year rollout of the program, but start with just one segment.
I guess we can hope. But if it isn't even mentioned as part of a long-term vision, how optimistic should we be?
About as optimistic that this part is not going to be cancelled halfway through or eventually rolled back π€·ββοΈ
It's...a start.
Dental care needs to be free and universal. Need a filling? No charge. Make $370M a year and need a filling? Still no charge.
Dental care, pharmacare, and eye care (at least!) are health care, period - and have to be available to all citizens who need them. Full stop.
Any and every system that charges the consumer for basic health care is predatory and discriminatory; and needs to be destroyed. Not just dismantled, but destroyed.
Health care is a basic human right.