And even if they did, what would that accomplish? Whether you agree with the convoy or not, they protested. And not only did the government (rightly) ignore them, their accounts were frozen. Even if you could afford to take time off to protest, and even if losing your job was not a risk, that could also happen to you. Especially if the government disagrees with you. Precedent is a nasty thing when you’re on the wrong side of it.

Why not both? Though if I’m honest no government be it right, left or centre will do much of anything about either, and their solutions will almost certainly create more problems.

What they’ll do is find the one thing that isn’t price controlled and wham, up it goes. Loblaws doesn’t just sell food, after all. Neither does Walmart. Neither does Metro. And if you decide that if it’s sold in a grocery store it’s now under a price control, well, maybe some locations no longer have grocery stores. On the bright side that opens the door for Avi Lewis’s public grocery store idea. On the not-so-bright side, if Avi’s public grocery store doesn’t sell what you’re looking for because the government doesn’t think you should have it, you’re pooched.

First time?

The only expense that ever goes down is someone else’s, and is your income.

Depends how much you’re donating. Your $20 will go farther municipally than provincially.

Re: price controls, that’s been tried before (not in Canada). It didn’t end well. What makes you think they wouldn’t end the same? Specifically, how would you prevent the price-restricted companies from deciding to just… not sell the things that are least profitable under that model?

This is not a capitalism versus socialism thing. This is a government versus individual thing. There will never be adequate capacity, because we will always be catching up to increases in population. The only way to solve the capacity problem is to give that capacity somewhere else to go. Right now, those who can afford to will go to the US.

But here’s the thing. I live in Ottawa. There are, like, four hospitals I could go to if I needed surgery. Right now, under the current system, the government decides both if I need that surgery and how badly I need that surgery. The government gives absolutely 0 fucks if not having that surgery actually impacts me, and that would be true even if the system was properly funded. Me having only 75% mobility, for example, versus the 100% mobility I currently have, might be a low priority to the government but if it’s preventing me from doing the things I need to do, it’s a high priority for me. I do not have the ability, in Canada, to assert my priorities over the government’s. The government says I can wait two years, then I can wait two years. If I lose my job, which then means I lose my apartment, which then means I move back in with my parents, which then means I no longer live in Ottawa, which then increases my costs of getting the care I need under this very same public system if and when the government decides to let me… that’s my problem, not the government’s. The government created that problem, but it’s mine to solve. And my only solution right now is in the US. Solving it in Canada is illegal.

This is not a hypothetical thing. In fact, in 2008 or 2009, not only did this happen but the Republicans in the US beat Obama and the Democrats over the head with it when they wanted to bring in some kind of universal health care - look up Shona Holmes. She had a tumor that resulted in her going blind. It wasn’t life threatening, so the Ontario government at the time said she could wait. Of course she exagerated the hell out of it (the tumor was not going to kill her, according to the Mayo Clinic), but it didn’t need to. The government said she was a low priority, her life was impacted (going blind as an adult will do that), she could afford to solve the problem. Solving the problem is still illegal in Canada, so she solved it in the US. She should have been allowed to solve it in Canada, but government said no.

That is the problem, and no amount of funding the public system will solve that problem. If the government decides you’re not deserving, then you’re not deserving. Even if the government can afford it. Because here’s the important part. The government isn’t thinking about you. The government’s thinking about society. And if society doesn’t consider your problem a high priority, neither will the government. Just ask anyone on ODSP.

It does not matter how much money you throw at the public health care system. At the end of the day, it’s the government deciding what your priorities are. That may be fine in your 20’s, but you won’t be there forever. I have absolutely no idea what health issue I’ll wake up with tomorrow, but I’m getting to the age where I can’t guarantee it’s none. If I end up with a health issue that impacts my ability to work, I’m solving that problem as soon as fucking possible - I already have one disability; I don’t need two. If the government decides I can weight two years to solve that problem, I’m going to decide that I’m not going to wait two years to solve that problem. What’s within Canada’s control is whether I decide to solve that problem sooner in Canada or in the US. And right now, it might be more expensive to solve that problem in the US, but that’s less time spent with whatever the issue is preventing me from working.

And that’s exactly what I mean about Canada and the US doing either or, and the US being the flip side to Canada’s coin. The people who can afford not to rely on the public waitlist are already not relying on the public waitlist. They’re just going to the US instead. If that money wasn’t leaving Canada, perhaps we can afford to better fund the public system.

No, but it does bring flexibility, including services that the public system won’t provide or won’t provide soon enough. How long are the waitlists for hip and knee surgeries in your province? Private surgeries could shorten that list and let people who can’t afford it move further up.

Let me answer your question with a question. Why do people have private health insurance? Should we make it illegal? What would making it illegal do to the public system?

I’m not saying don’t properly fund the public system. It’s not either or. It’s and. You’re stuck on either or because the US is right there. The UK does and. Norway does and. Germany does and. Australia does and. Canada and the US do or, and you know what the results are.

I can give you several. The question you should be asking is what makes pretty much every other health care system in the world better than ours. Our health care system is only better than the US. And part of the reason is because the better performing health care systems aren’t entirely private, and aren’t entirely public. They’re both. And part of the reason Canada’s system is slightly better than the US is because the US is the opposite side of Canada’s coin. The US won’t improve because it refuses to introduce a proper public system, and Canada’s won’t improve because we refuse to introduce a proper private system. The countries that get over themselves long enough to do that (again, see countries like Norway) are doing better than we are. Even with Conservative governments. Ask yourself why.

It is very possible to have a two-tier health care system, still value the public health care model, and have a right wing government. They’ve done it for years in Norway. And even in Germany, no one significant is pushing for full privatization. That is strictly an American concept and Canada would do well to train itself out of it. Especially since we’re turning away from America and toward the EU.

If you think it’s an emergency, and a medical professional tells you it’ll be X amount of time before you can see a doctor, that means you’ve been triaged and it may not be as much of an emergency as you think it is.

Or it may be more of an emergency than they think it is.

It’s a call for both, like they do in places like Germany. It is possible to have a properly run two-tier health care system. If your comparison is the US, you’re not actually arguing against what I said but against what you heard.

So, couple things.

1. The deficit will almost certainly be higher than that when the dust settles. A lot of invoices come due in month 11 or 12.

2. Ordinarily I’d say it’s people using this to try to shoehorn their hatred of AI into the conversation, but part of the reason for this specific deficit is Canada just this week took equity in Cohere.

It’s the only thing they have available.

If they won’t listen to you, they sure as hell won’t listen to me.

I considered not telling you this is not an article about Canada Post. :)

Well, our country’s spending money on AI so…

It’s more like neither progressivism nor socialism likes me. You’re just redefining what the classes are. You’ll still be on the bottom either way.

You say he isn’t pro worker until I show he is, then you hand wave and say its all performance so doesn’t count.

Nationalization in and of itself is not pro-worker. Paying people properly, with proper benefits and protections, is pro-worker. We have no evidence the federal NDP under Lewis would do that. We have plenty of evidence that the Manitoba and BC NDP did not do that. The Alberta NDP wasn’t long enough in power to count, nor was the Rae NDP not to mention being 30 years ago. How much is the UK paying its steelworkers with the company it nationalized? How does that compare to the private sector in the UK? That’s what determines how pro-worker it is.

As for saying saying to another company is better than nationalization, I would say that really depends on a lot of things. We just sold to these guys and they turned out to be anti trust.

And yet the guys who sold Stelco to these guys were not, and the guys who run Algoma Steel are not. This guy’s an asshole, I agree. This guy also signed a contract. We agree what he’s doing should hurt him. Where we disagree is what hurting him should look like.

Or, alternatively, you’ve scheduled an appointment with your doctor and he said he can see you in two weeks. Hopefully it doesn’t get worse before then. And if you don’t have a doctor, sucks to be you I guess.

If you’re not dying in the next 2 hours, don’t go to the ER. And even if you are that’s not a guarantee. I’m sorry that this part doesn’t matter what side of the border you’re on.