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?

Yes, and yes. But I somehow don’t think OPS waits for budget season to do that.

He’s already pouncing, and it’s exactly what you expect. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/poilievre-says-carney-must-keep-fiscal-promises-in-upcoming-budget/

We don’t want people to enable him by letting him use their cars.

So guy breaks the law and innocent person loses their car because guy who hadn’t broken the law previously broke the law? Fair.

Maybe we could put his name in a registry, so people will know not to lend him their car(s).

Or maybe we could put him in jail, where he should be.

I admire your optimism. I think it’s seriously misplaced, but you have it and that’s a good thing.

We could drive up the deficit specifically for health care, and you’d have the same problem. Because having the money and wanting to spend the money are two different things. There is always going to be someone who needs more help than you. And the government is always going to put them first. I’m not saying they shouldn’t. I’m saying if they’re going to do that, they should grant you the ability to help yourself. Because that person with 50% mobility may be waiting on someone with 40% mobility. The person with 40% mobility may be waiting on someone with a spinal injury. It snowballs. Meanwhile, both the person with the 50% mobility and me with 75% mobility are being impacted and there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it. More funding does not change that, because the problem is not how much money the government has but where the government is choosing to spend it. And if the government chooses not to spend that money on my surgery, tripling the amount of money the government has access to doesn’t necessarily change that.

The problem was never the government can’t afford my surgery. The problem was the government decided my surgery wasn’t needed, or a priority. In fact, the entire idea behind universal health care was never about whether or not the government could afford it. The assumption was it could. The idea was always about prioritizing who needed that universal health care most. In other words, you were promised access. You weren’t promised when. And if you have access to a replacement knee in two years, well, the government met its obligation. Does it help you? Yes, in two years. What do you do until then? Not the government’s problem.

I want to be surprised. Shocked, even. Unfortunately, I live in Ottawa. This is just Monday.

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.

I think the constitution might have something to say about that, but I’m by no means an expert. If that bodycam footage involves me, for example, you’re damn right I want my hands on it. And if that bodycam footage involves me being railroaded by a cop, you’re damn right it’s going on YouTube.

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.

Not just speeding, but that’s two of them. https://www.ontario.ca/page/speeding-and-aggressive-driving

You’ve just offended half of Ottawa. I approve.

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.

Based on the article we’re discussing, I wouldn’t have blamed them if they didn’t. And if they didn’t, someone would have almost certainly assumed it must not have been a real emergency then. Someone else commented in this thread about sitting in the ER for 7 hours with chest pains. Fortunately in that person’s case it was not a heart attack, but in both cases it was “not an emergency”. That’s the problem. Not having a family doctor adds to that problem, but that’s the problem.

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.