That’s a stupid statement.

Countries die if they don’t at least replace their population. If only the richest people can have children then the country dies.

Nothing dies if someone buys a Ferrari they can’t actually afford.

I understand that Conservatives want to mess with our pharmacare, but what will Liberals do to lower cost of housing/living? Liberals also created a migration crisis and lost track of tens of thousands of people that were supposed to go back to their home land and don't seem to care to do much about it.

They’ve also dug Canada into a huge financial deficit. What im saying is Liberals have done more bad than good for Canada in the last 9 years and yet people still want to keep them in power.

Bro we’ll be the new Monaco and your kid can be by Chauffeur

When they do things quickly they make more mistakes that cost money, which you complain about. If they take their time they're less likely to make those mistakes, but then you complain it's too slow. Pick one cause you can't have both.

100% this. After we opened our gas station my dad did not quit his mill job for over a year because he did not want to lose his benefits. Dentists are not cheap. In the states it's way worse because you will also lose your basic medical. makes it really hard to quit your job to start a business.

Cons will perpetuate the exact same except they'll also throw in a bit of culture war no one wants along side with it.

Do you really think anyone with a chance of winning power is going to lower housing prices and/or slash immigration?

Extended benefits are also pretty pricey. When I worked at a small company we had no benefits most of the time and then got okay-ish ones that cost $3500/person/yr. With how little they covered it never saved me anywhere near that amount. My last job they were $8600/person/year and they covered 100% of basically everything, but most people aren't using them that much either. They covered maybe $1500/yr worth of stuff and the rest went to some private companies profits. I'd rather have it go to the government and actually do something useful.

lol in either situation are things ever right?

I am not disputing any of the Liberals-induced woes that you have mentioned.

What is happening with a lot of Canadians is -- they see the Trump hostilities as the most pressing issues above almost everything else. From slapping us with heavy-handed and unjustified tariffs, to the implications of such tariffs, to the repeated insults of how we ought to be their 51st state, these are the topics that are now occupying a lot of our political considerations. And in light of this overarching theme, Carney with his previous international leadership experience, is seen as the more suitable candidate to deal with this mess.

Also with all the criticism thrown at the Liberals the Conservatives never seem to have a clear plan of how they will address those issues and actually make it better.

I'll chime on this because I have actually worked within this industry, directly.

The Pharmacare Program has two major goals in mind that benefit Canadians writ large.

1. Scales of economy -- Lowering the cost of prescription drugs. The Federal Government already has a mandate of sorts on the cost of drugs, however by sitting as the first payor universally allows the government to drive the cost of prescription drugs even further on a national level. This benefits everyone, especially with the advent of newer costly biological drugs that are decimating employer plans. Which leads to my second point.

2. Lowering the costs of benefit plans on employers -- Think of this as almost a small business/corporate tax cut in that by offering a universal Pharmacare plan, employers can reduce their overall cost on premiums and claims under the ever growing and bloated drug costs burdened under employer health plans. Since these private plans can push the burden of cost onto the government for certain costly drugs, employers can lower their overall overhead expenses by a large margin. We know that these sophisticated drugs are only going to rise in cost, as we're able to treat more morbidities we were unable to before, extending the lifespan of people. That all carries a cost.

By this the Pharmacare Program benefits not only the public, but also the private sector.

It's a win win.

People comment on things without having any idea of its actual function.

I didn't even mention the direct cost savings from a premium perspective.

One of the most costly portions of an employer plan is the drug component -- think of people on auto-immune blockers like Remicade, or cholesterol inhibitors like Lipitor.

The cost of drug plans to employers is jumping up every single year with the advent of these newer more expensive drugs, if you as an employee carry a cost sharing calculation to your plan with your employer, guess who burdens that cost increase every year?

You and your employer, that comes directly out of your pocket.

None of this is fucking rocket science.

Do you actually think these huge benefit plans would either A) reduce the cost of their group benefits or B) ultimately pass those savings back onto the plan holder?

I find it kind of hard to believe providers like Sunlife etc. would just be like oh yea, ok our claims are less expensive now so we will provide savings back to these companies where it likely doesn’t make much of a difference what they pay. Especially employers that have hundreds if not thousands of employees?

And if so, what would the timeline be for something like that to happen? It certainly wouldn’t be overnight. It would likely take years of consistent costs to realize any savings to the plan holder no?

You’ll have to rely on FSD, I don’t have a kid lol

@Honda. They do, actually.

In fact the Pharmacare program directly impacted employer premiums from the first year it had rolled out.

Just because you find it hard to believe, doesn't make it untrue. Claims experience is calculated on an annual basis, so it would generally take a year or more for those savings to unearth themselves based on analysis. Also on the larger corporate level most employers operate on an ASO basis, which is a dollars in dollars out approach to claims experience, meaning that literally directly affects the employer's bottom line.

Did you know that insurers heavily lobbied the Liberal government against the Pharmacare Program because they were freaking out about the lost revenue via premiums? Sun Life was actually one of the larger entities lobbying against the program, in addition to the dental care program.

That's why the Feds threw them a bone and gave them the contract to administer the dental program from a claims paying perspective to Canadians.

About 50% of Canadians live paycheck-to-paycheck, so it does help many Canadians.

https://leger360.com/economy-and-fin...eptember-2024/

Subsidising childcare has lots of benefits to society - benefits that net out in the positive.

- A larger workforce because more parents can make the choice to work instead of staying at home.
- More parents working equals a larger tax base (this pays entirely for the childcare subsidy and more - Quebec has the proof on this)
- More gender equality (it's usually the mom who stays home)
- Putting kids in daycare result in better educated, better trained kids. Eventually that means better workers (Theoretically it even leads to less crime)
- It grows the economy, those workers that enter the workforce are typically older and better educated/trained.

Subsidised daycare should be something Conservatives support - it results in more jobs, more earnings, more economic growth - this is all stuff they claim to support.

Hence why I said I support larger cuts for people below that window.
If you are living paycheque to paycheque in the 200k range that's your fault unless you are taking care of a sick relative or child.

So far Carney has been sitting on his hands and did nothing to address the looming tariffs that are about to hit April 2nd. It will have a devastating effect for a lot of sectors in our economy. I have yet to hear any plan on him except asking the US to play nice lmfao. As if Trump cares about that.

This doesn't sound like much of a plan...

Carney was asked what Canada’s strategy should be ahead of the next round of tariffs set for April 2, which will be on top of 25 per cent tariffs imposed earlier in March and additional 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum two weeks ago.

“What you do is you prepare for the worst. And that’s part of what we have done in the last weeks. We have made substantial changes to unemployment insurance [sic] program to support Canadian workers,” he said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11096806/...carney-canada/

For someone that talks about how shitty our healthcare system is, what the fuck do you think is gonna happen when a workforce made of 80% women of childbearing age has to leave to take care of their kids.
Think harder.

I mean, that household income level is about the minimum what you need to qualify for a 2 bedroom condo or a townhouse in the suburbs. 200k isn't much these days.

2 years of Matt leave for nurses, bridging into pre-school and afterschool care already largely subsidized.

Not like the situation would improved if childcare was built into the hospital anyways hehe

Affordability forcing two parents to work full time to stay at the poverty line.

Yes, but will $100 more a month get you there? At the cost of what, healthcare? Public education? Environmental protection? Name anything that taxes pay for, and what are you willing to lose? Because it isn't just gonna have Kevin o Leary pop in and find all the spending deficiencies and allow the good stuff to stay.

All parties just pretty much abandoned the environment in their latest platform.

Glad we spend a decade virtue signalling and destroying the one resource we could have actually leveraged into wealth for the nation.

Are you suggesting that? Or saying it exists?
If it does, can you point me in that direction so I can stop paying $1200 a month and my wife can get an extra year of missing mat leave? Let me know where those after school cares are that are subsidized because we can't even find a spot that isn't subsidized and we are 2 years early.

If you're suggesting we do that, I agree, but looks like you'll be paying for my childcare after all.