blackbird

That is false. The fact is public fluoridation cannot control the amount of fluoride any one individual receives. It has been known scientifically that excessive fluoride for instance does have harmful effects on humans. Therefore it is nonsense to force the public to receive it through the public water supply. Everyone drinks different amounts of water. Therefore it could seriously harm certain individuals. "Moreover, fluoride itself may be dangerous at high levels. Excessive fluoride causes fluorosis changes in tooth enamel that range from barely noticeable white spots to staining and pitting. Fluoride can also become concentrated in bone stimulating bone cell growth, altering the tissues structure, and weakening the skeleton." Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe? | Harvard Public Health Magazine | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Nonsense. Their are credible reports and the whole issue of fluoridation is not settled. Like many things, science does not have all the answers and they are not unanimous about the issue of harm by fluoridation. Is Drinking Fluoridated Water Dangerous? | HealthNews In the meantime, something that cannot be proven beyond a doubt should never be made mandatory for anyone to take. It should never be force fed to people through the public water system. That is a violation of individual human rights. If someone wants a medication and believes it is good for them, they can take it on their own. But it should never be a political football whereby it is forced on everyone.

Go spend some time reading articles on Google. Of course fluoride is a harmful chemical. If fluoride was so good, ask people who want it to put it in their own water and drink it. Nobody does that because they know it is harmful.

Nothing junk about being anti-fluoridation. Science will tell you fluoride is a harmful chemical. But without any knowledge you just assume that opposing fluoridation is based on junk science. Shows your ignorance.

Why the need to be blasphemous? I did a very important service when I was younger and received no payment or compensation of any kind. I am happy that greater Vancouver area's water system is still pure. I was pleased to join with those who opposed fluoridation and do what I could.

This reminds me of when I was young and they were starting to talk about fluoridation of the public water supply in greater Vancouver. I played a part in helping to stop it from happening I am happy to say. I carried a large sign everywhere there was rush hour traffic, especially bridges. I talked to the mayor of Vancouver, and an important left wing alderman, Harry Rankin and others. After that it went to a vote of the regional district and fluoridation was narrowly defeated. To this day they still don't have the poison in the greater Vancouver water supply. There were lots of anti fluoridation people around in those days opposing it. All the naturopathic people opposed it. Fluoride hardens the bones in people and makes them more likely to break. Proponents want it the water to harden teeth. Chemicals can have a bad effect. Vancouver area has pure water still to this day. People need to remain vigilant to keep the water pure.

Again you entirely missed the point in your desperation to throw insults at me. I know God and Bible really bothers you but there are some things that are more important than your Satanist religion. The point of pharmacare is to provide medicines for people with medical problems. Birth control is not a medical problem. Next we will be providing suntan lotion for people and exercise bikes.

You missed the point entirely. The government just cherry-picked who gets pharmacare and left everyone else with serious medical conditions that require expensive drugs out in the cold. There are countless people with heart problems, cancer, and various other illnesses that need expensive medications. Are they not entitled to be treated the same as people with diabetes. What is wrong with your head man? You don't think that is problem?

Seems like you are ok with a few elite liberal politicians arbitrarily picking who gets pharmacare and forget the rest who may be in just as much need. You claim it reduces strain on the medical system. I'm sure it does. Maybe you would offer them MAID if they can't afford prescription drugs. That would reduce the strain even more. I've got news for you. Everyone pays taxes and the seniors have paid all their life and yet if they don't have diabetes but have some other serious medical condition that requires expensive medications, too bad. You still applaud the politicians who cherry picked some and ignored the rest of the people who need drugs. Diabetes drugs are no more important than heart medications and medications for many other diseases.

Based on "common sense"? Who's common sense? Yours? Or do you have any credible authority? You don't appear to even know or consider history? Just going by history, the Jews have a strong claim to the land. Why do you ignore that? You must be an Arab, Muslim. Unless you have an anti-semitic ideology which would not surprise me as much of the world is known to be antisemitic.

You have strange ideas. Just asking because you could be from an antisemitic country. There are lots of them around. Just trying to figure out where you get your ideas. Maybe you could explain. But I won't hold my breath.

What country are you from?

Only to a limited extent in some provinces as I explained above.

No. There are provincial pharmacare subsidies in some provinces. In B.C. a patient pays for his own prescriptions up to a specified amount per year depending on his income. Then the pharmacare pays for medications for the rest of year. In my case, as a senior on a pension, I pay the first $1,800 in a calender year. Then the pharmacare kicks in and pays for the rest of the year's prescriptions. This is done on the drug store's computer which is linked to the provincial government pharmacare system.

It is discriminatory because it is choosing favourites. About 10% of the population has diagnosed diabetes. How can you ignore the thousands or millions of people with heart disease and other serious medical conditions who must pay for expensive prescriptions or can't afford to even buy them? I thought any public health program was supposed to treat everyone equally and provide the said service to everyone on a fair basis. If you think cherry picking is alright just so you can have some kind of program, then obviously you are not one of the people with heart problems or serious other medical conditions. You are not affected so nuts to everyone else who must pay for medications, eh.

We already have been told it is only going to be fore diabetes people and birth control, at least to start. This proves it is discriminatory and choosing those two groups has nothing to do with income. So it is already proven to be another untrustworthy plan.

I don't know about being brainwashed into hating Arabs. That sounds like it could be propaganda. Of course they are patriotic to their country. Why shouldn't they be? It is their land. People have to join the military to defend their country. They are surrounded by tens of millions of enemies who hate them and want to destroy Israel. A nation has to do what it must to defend itself.

No different than any other country. Everyone in a country believes it is their country. Israel is a little different in the sense that God did give them the land in perpetuity several thousand years ago. The Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and drove many of them out and they were dispersed to other countries. Some of them remained. Then after Islam was started in about the 7th century, the Muslims invaded and took control of Israel at various times and periods since then. Turkey ruled Israel for a long period under the name of the Ottoman Empire. If I am correct, the British took control after WW1. Then Israel regained control in 1948. A large number of Arabs remained in the area but many decided they don't want to live in peace or accept the state of Israel. So there is ongoing conflict that does not appear to have an end in sight.

Another nonsensical comment with no basis. If someone wants to become a good citizen, there are avenues, but they can't be a terrorist supporter or an antisemite at the same time.

The west bank is just the area west of the Jordan River which Jordan controlled before the 67 war. After they attacked Israel in 1967, they lost that area. It is historically part of Israel. It is a major part of Israel. The term "west bank" is actually a deceptive term that makes it sound like it is not part of Israel. There are many Arabs living in Israel and many live in the area called the west bank. Arabs who want to live in peace and work in Israel can obtain Israel citizenship if they meet the criteria. But many do not want to become citizens. That is their choice. But if one is not a citizen of a country, they can't expect to receive all the benefits of citizenship. There is about 130,000 Druze Arabs that live peaceably in Israel and some serve in the IDF to defend the state. quote Originating in Egypt in the 11th century, the religious sect is an offshoot of Islam which permits no converts – either to or from the religion – and no intermarriage. What sets the tightly knit community, whose mother tongue is Arabic, apart from other minority communities within Israel’s borders is their fierce national pride. Druze men over 18 have been conscripted to the IDF since 1957 and often rise to positions of high rank, while many build careers in the police and security forces. After almost 23 years of service, Abdallah, the deputy commander of the 300th Baram Regional Brigade, was a prime example. His widow told CNN that they were out running on the morning of October 7, as they planned to do a marathon together. But when news of the Hamas attacks broke, Abdallah hurried to join his brigade. unquote He died in the IDF. So there are Arabs who will even join the IDF to defend Israel. Israel’s Druze Arabs, fiercely loyal to the state, feel let down after ‘paying with their blood’ | CNN

Nonsensical comment. Who is asking anybody to give their house up? Palestinians who want to live in peace can live in peace in Israel. The problem is there are many trouble-makers and terrorists who do not want peace and think Israel has no right to exist as a state. Kids are brainwashed from a young age to be antisemites and terrorists. There is no place for such people.

Safe is a subjective term. Jews have at times been persecuted in isolated incidents in north America. They are not completely safe. Restaurants, schools, and places of worship have been shot at and vandalized with graffiti. Not much has been done about it. They have a right to their own land of Israel. That is historically their homeland. Why should they have to depend on other countries to protect them in places that are not their country. How has that worked in the past 2,000 years? It hasn't and it ended in the Holocaust where about 1/3 of Europe's Jews were murdered.

Israel has a perfect right to have a state organized along ethno-religious lines because Jews have been persecuted everywhere for 2,000 years. They have a perfect right to their religion and with the antisemitism in the world against Jews, particularly from the Arabs (Muslims), they need a state where they can have a refuge and be able to defend themselves. Israel gives them that refuge and protection.

No, I have not forgotten. But in B.C. they only pay part after you pay the first minimum which can be a large amount per year. I live on pensions as a senior and the BC government covers a certain amount of the prescription drugs, but I must pay for the first $1,800 per year for prescriptions. That is based on my annual income. So I am paying a large part of the cost of the medications. Fortunately I can afford it, but a lot of seniors might not be able to. Many are barely surviving on their pensions. The federal proposed NDP-Liberal pharmacare program plans to pay the whole cost of medications for diabetics and birth control pills regardless of how much money the person earns. How is that equitable or fair for seniors and others with other serious illnesses whose medications could cost several thousand a year and they may have a very low income? These days with the high cost of mortgages, rent, and groceries, many people with serious medical conditions cannot even afford to buy prescription drugs. So just arbitrarily supporting diabetics is not reasonable. Birth control pills is not even for a medical problem. They just picked two programs out of a hat probably thinking they could get some votes from the diabetic and birth control demographic. Many young women will fall for this and think they are really getting something. Oral contraceptive pills cost from $20 to $50. If it is closer to $20 that is not a huge amount. So women are not getting a lot out of this anyway. But it sounds good for votes.

Many seniors on a pension will pay the lion's share of expensive drugs for heart conditions and other medical problems while certain people like diabetes patients and women wanting birth control, who might have lots of money, will be covered by taxpayers. Anything this government touches is a disaster. Good that Poilievre is surging ahead in the polls. There is hope.