Thank you for this in-depth analysis - I see where you’re coming from. My comments were based more in simply looking at maps of the 2011 vs the 2015 election results. I concede the point.
The Government of Canada is back.
Now that “The Harper Government” is gone, it is nice to have confirmation that we do NOT have “The Trudeau Government”.
We’re back to normal, and have a Government of Canada again.
I think a good canary test for when to boot out a prime minister is when the government is branded by that person or party.
Yep, I remember when I had a broken front tooth, which is an awful thing not just for practicality and appearance, but you can’t even talk without a lisp! And my dentist immediately put in a temporary, and sent an X-ray to the insurance company.
Claim denied! They said there was no reason to pay for it, as the image already showed a functional tooth in place!
I think my dentist sent them a nasty letter explaining what a “temporary” was, but I really got a good impression then of what basic health care must be like under private insurance. Really unbelievable. In Canada when I need health care I just go to a doctor or a hospital and get it. We really should cover dental, too, under the universal plan, like the UK does.
Incidentally I am taking bets, offering 3-2 odds, that Trudeau will be re-elected. Why?
Well, because in Canada, that’s what we do, at least at a federal level; parties are almost ALWAYS re-elected. Since the First World War ended and the Unionist Party was disbanded, there have been only two exceptions in a century;
- R.B. Bennett interrupting Mackenzie King’s run, and
- The Joe Clark hiccup interrupting Trudeau’s run.
Even before that, if you count the Unionist party as an extension Borden’s government, which really we should, there’s only one other one-term example, and again it’s an interruption of a longer-service Prime Minister; Alexander Mackenzie’s one term in the middle of MacDonald’s run.
If you can, get people to bet with you on this.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
We really should cover dental, too, under the universal plan, like the UK does.
[/QUOTE]
I am sure there’s some historical explanation for this, but I’ve always found it baffling as to why our health insurance schemes don’t cover teeth. I mean, my teeth are rather indisputably part of my body. Quite an important part, in fact. If anything they’re an extension of my skeleton, and if I break part of that, OHIP covers the treatment. In fact, they have, and I’m sure fixing my broken arm cost a hell of a lot more than filling a cavity.
I suppose someone will argue that people have to take care of their teeth and medical insurance will demotivate them from that, but nobody wants to go to the hospital for anything, much less to see a dentist. And anyway, we don’t distinguish in any other way between wise and unwise behaviour in terms of treating things. If I have a heart attack because I eat two Whoppers a day they’ll still treat me.
It’s as if they decided “Okay, so we’re gonna have universal health insurance… but not for kidneys. To hell with kidneys! For that you’ll need private insurance.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ordered Vancouver’s Kitsilano Coast Guard station re-opened in a mandate letter to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Hunter Tootoo.
My best guess is that universal health care was centered on hospitalization (the initial federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act), so doctor’s, often tending to patients in hospitals, had their clinics tagged onto universal health care. Since dentists seldom work in the hospital (where AFAIK OHIP covers them), they were not considered to be part of the hospital based health care coverage. Same for drugs, which fifty or so years ago were not as extensive or as expensive as today. It’s a very unfortunate historical oddity that needs to be fixed.
It was a political decision by the Pearson government, based on finances and the ability to persuade people to support the programme, I believe.
Emmett Hall, that [del]crazy socialist radical[/del] pillar of the Conservative establishment, recommended a much broader range of coverage in the Hall Report. If I remember correctly, he wanted dentistry and pharmacy included.
Pearson’s Cabinet balked, I think because of the cost, but also because of the political concern that if they tried to go too far it would stir up too much opposition. Medical care from doctors and hospitals was the core of the Hall Report and the part that had the greatest popular appeal, so that’s what Pearson ultimately went with.
Our new prime minister made a promise to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees before the end of this year.
With what has transpired in Paris earlier today, do you supporters of Trudeau feel he should continue with carrying out this promise, or should he hold off and proceed at a slower speed?
My thoughts were that for this promise to be carried out, and up until now the government has been heading in that direction, it was a very reckless move on their part. I believe last year Canada brought in about 24,000 refugees. So to attempt similar numbers in less than two months could lead to confusion and ultimate embarrassment for Canada on the world stage.
Now with the terrorist attacks in Paris, I feel the government absolutely has to back off until the dust settles.
If anything it strengthens my resolve to assist the refugees. I feel it is important enough to assist the innocents fleeing their homes and lives that a slightly increased possibility of an attack in Canada is worth the risk.
I also believe that we should look hard at why ISIS set up these attacks (or at least claimed responsibility). It doesn’t take a mind reader to know that on the heels of such an attack there would be calls to end accepting refugees as well as inflaming feelings of xenophobia against Muslims (that seems to lie just below the surface in many Western Nations). I feels that knowing this is a fairly predictable outcome of the attacks points toward it possibly being one of the goals of the attacks. That alone, to me, provides good reason to take a hard look before deciding to stop accepting refugees.
Trudeau has given his mandate letters to his ministers, and for the first time in history, these letters have been released to the public.
This is such a 180 degree turn from our previous government, it is nothing less than amazing. Open, transparent government. Yet some are attacking him. My favourite is when the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed last week that the claim of a budget surplus by Harper was complete and utter crap…Then Tony “Gazebo” Clement had the unmitigated gall to blather ““We want to know how the Liberals will avoid falling deeper into the fiscal hole,””
Good God. Tony’s party created this fiscal hole. They lied about it during the election. NOW, he demands to know how the Liberals will fix it.
I can’t add anything to this except ditto.
The message below was sent out to military staff and DND civilian staff:
Message from Prime Minister Trudeau to the Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence
“During my travels across Canada, I have had the honour of meeting veterans, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and Department of National Defence (DND) civilians and I have tremendous pride in their service to our country. Their message was clear: Canada needs to take care of its military the way its military takes care of Canada.”
That makes sense. Remember that [del]ISIS[/del] Daesh is obsessed with killing and terrorizing residents of the Syria-Mesopotamia region. Attacking France is probably intended as a means to that end.
I don’t know who you think you are fooling. But it’s not me.
I’m not sufficiently dim for you to fool. Find someone a lot dumber and better luck next time.
That’s not a challenge anyone really has time for.
Charlie’s newfound concern with shaming women for their looks is heartening, given:
Charlie Wayne compares female politician to mule;
Charlie Wayne can’t quite get over how ugly Michelle Obama is:
Charlie Wayne can’t believe Michelle Obama wore the same dress more than once:
And it was an ugly, ugly dress!
Michelle Obama is an even dumber, uglier ape than her husband.
So, yeah, lard bucket is totally uncalled for but it’s odd that Charlie is doing some of the calling.
Trudeauintends to follow through with resettling 25,000 refugees from Syria. (according to “sources”)
This does not bother me one little bit.
I have confidence that our security apparatus is up to the task of screening refugees, and also making sure that they are not radicalized when they are here. This is the MAJOR task ahead, and I think it will be done as well as we can do it.
One must also keep in mind that ISIS does not want the west to take in refugees. The attack in Paris was intended (at least in part) to further isolate Syrian refugees. The think is, ISIS, HATES, HATES, HATES moderate Muslims (that make up the vast majority of Muslims), and kills them all the time. They don’t want them to go to the west and become successful. They want them to stay, and remain powerless slaves to ISIS ideology.
So for those who want to close our borders to innocent refugees because they are afraid that terrorists might slip in with them… I say:
Why do you want to do the work of ISIS for them?
And why do you have such little confidence in your fellow Canadian’s ability to do their security jobs?
Probably because with 25 000 people coming from a war zone it’s not that unlikely a few bad apples will sneak through even if our screening is pretty good.
That tends to be my concern – not with the principle, but just with the sheer numbers, which has implications in terms of screening, infrastructure, and capacity for assimilation. By way of comparison, in the US Clinton is committing to 65,000 refugee admissions, and Sanders isn’t committing to a number at all. Don’t even get me started on Republicans, let’s talk about the sane ones. By that standard our numbers are hugely out of whack in terms of relative population – either we should be admitting 6,500 instead of 25,000, or the US should be admitting 250,000. I can’t imagine anyone there supporting such numbers, so why are we trying to do exactly that relative to our capacity?