Nexii

The other problem with the current system is that you still have to co-pay even if your income is 0. 20% of a drug's cost can still be a lot of money.

Yea, that would probably be best. It also keeps the private work plans competitive with the government one. It is sort of nonsense to pay hospital/clinic fees, but then not give people the drugs they need to get better Yea I meant the concept of it, I didn't look into the NDP plan specifically. Core dental work like cleanings and fillings should be covered IMO. Not doing this stuff just increases healthcare costs elsewhere in our system

Don't think you understood what I was getting at - it's not to be dishonest for safety's sake. Quite the converse. At the same time, there's a big difference between lying and not telling someone you've just met every detail about where you live, work, your dating past, etc. Being trans I would divulge upfront for another reason - I don't want to waste my time either. But many other things I would not. Men don't have to think much at all about that safety factor, is all I'm saying.

Yea well the provincial pharmacare is flawed. And so may be the NDP's vision for federal, honestly I haven't looked into it. Basically you need to be really low income (near to zero really) to qualify. Generally speaking it's overly complex (like doing one's taxes) and it also puts the burden on the people to apply for it. This in turn makes the administrative costs huge to process the requests. It's archaic compared to how private insurers do it.

No, safety is always #1. It's not the same for women as for men

I'm for the universal dental and pharmacare. NDP isn't really up or down, the last Nanos poll has them projected at 32 seats Though I agree with the sentiment. Jagmeet doesn't have the transformational energy that Layton did. Or that Trudeau did in his first year or two.

Agree, we need to take a more global view. If we don't do LNG, all it means is that China burns more coal.

I never understood why countries like Canada went the immigration route over incentivizing people to have more children. In the end immigrants don't get us ahead once all their aging extended family come over. Though it's not easy, for example South Korea has spent a ton and it barely affected birth rates. Programs need to be well considered... I think we often do what's politically popular and not cutting right to the reason why fewer people are having children

Yes, and Israel also elected far-right governments in recent years that pretty much have the same views. They're nothing like the right wing governments in the rest of the West. I'm not sure the details on how the Good Friday agreement worked out. The situation seemed similar, endless terrorism between the IRA and UK. But I imagine laying down arms would be part of the agreement, for other types of aid. Yes, it's not that easy and soforth. But the reality is the Palestinians haven't had any vote in like 17 years. Realistically, it's not going to be Israel brokering that kind of peace like the UK did. It'd have to be multiple third party nations that have a stake in it. Which makes things even more difficult

To let Gaza be its own country.

Yea Israel has created this monster, now they have to deal with it. I fear their going overboard could do them in. In a longer war, the amount of people willing to fight matters as much as logistics. And there's no shortage of Muslim nations around them. Not to mention the 20% Arab population within their own nation. They're rightfully angry, but I don't see Israel having a realistic plan here.

Ok the IDF should be allowed to kill everyone in Gaza because Pakistan committed a genocide generations ago. Great logic there. This won't make the Arab nations hate Israel even more or anything. I'm just saying, Israel is being really short-sighted with the disporportionate response. The way it's headed, militias like Hezbolla are likely to pile in and make it a real war. But this is exactly what you get when far-right governments like Hamas or Israel's current get in. Lots of war and death for everyone. Loosely speaking of course, Gaza and the West Bank haven't gotten to vote in a long time

Doubtful, Israel would nuke them back. But I guess you'd like to see it

Lol ok. If Israel starts nuking, Iran/Pakistan will glass them. And it will only get worse from there. Not a likely scenario

Egypt's border is not open. The Rafah crossing was bombed and is closed. Yes, Israel has a lot of might in a shorter conventional war. They don't need the USA even to not be overrun. The carrier deterrant is there for militia groups from surrounding countries that are likely to pile on. Especially if Israel steps up the genocidal actions. In a longer, asymmetrical war, however, Israel is vastly outnumbered. Like the USA or USSR in Afghanistan, or the UK in Northern Ireland, it's never as easy to keep control of a hostile population as is often assumed. It could play out a lot of ways though, war by nature is always unpredictable. No one predicted Ukraine holding against Russia for example.

That's because those in charge or have real power in those communities benefit from the victimhood. They have a conflict of interest I'd argue, when the government funds the cycle endlessly. The government gets to look like they are doing something, while really doing nothing useful. And all parties are to blame

The USA would have to bribe Egypt too, but yea this is probably the most sensible. The area is so polarized that it's probably best to draw the country lines across religious boundaries. The West Bank would have to be carved up, as there's 670k Israeli settlers living there. Though I do hope Israel steps back from the precipice of genociding all of Gaza by starvation. This will only lead to a much larger war than 1948. Israel might have the military might to win a quick war, but wars often are not quick. Israel does not have the population to fight an attritional war like Ukraine is.

Hamas rallies, yes. Palestine rallies, no.

I very much doubt all that re: the CPC. Harper increased our debt to GDP ratio. Unfortunately, Canada is in a much worse situation today than during the Harper years. Simply treading water isn't going to get us out of the deep end. The housing crisis necessitates centralization of the banking, finance, construction, real estate sectors and more. The free market has utterly failed -- or perhaps it's not as 'free' as we think. CPC has a very muddled view here, they say they want to cut red tape but also want to create a system where municipal governments get funding or not based on construction. So that pretty much will amount to even more inefficient bureaucracy which is what got us here. We're probably 5-10 years out from it, but there will come a point where the idea of government just building mass housing themselves won't seem so radical. As will other proposals to dramatically slash government spending in certain areas. But the CPC haven't been running on that. Somehow we're going to keep all our programs at the same level of service without spending more and having more immigrants. It's magical thinking. Granted, the Liberal and NDP parties are even worse in this regard

I think you vastly underestimate how much it costs to imprison someone today in Canada. It costs $120,000 annually which is a staggering sum. It would cost many billions to imprison everyone who overdoses. And that much more again if you want law enforcement to seriously go after the dealers. Police and judges are not free. And after all those billions, it won't really reduce drug abuse at all. Look at the USA for example. They enforce it all hard and despite all that, their death rates are even higher than Canada per capita. High stagflation plus closing all the asylums instead of reforming them has lead to this point.

Criminalization also failed, though. We don't have and can't afford the prison space. Sure we can put more laws in the books but it won't change that reality. Mostly it's a poverty and mental health issue. Drugs are just the symptom. People with jobs and good family lives generally don't decide they'll go and ruin their lives with drugs. But yea, the safe sites thing is a mere bandaid on this problem that's more like a gushing wound. We're in a period of extreme stagflation. We also can't afford mental health support. Waitlists are so long (2+ years around here) that we might as well fold and say we can't help everyone. It'll just get worse until the economy gets better

That seems the most likely. Red, blue, orange, none of them really have a vision that differs from the status quo. Which is why the CPC is only up a few percent, despite pretty much everyone being tired of Trudeau at this point. Oddly enough the status quo has to get even worse, and probably will. At that point a more extreme 'change' party could be viable especially in our FPTP system. What flavor that is, is really hard to say right now

It's the mindset that might makes right. And there is some truth to it if being pragmatic. The West may have way more economic might than Russia, but Russia is far more willing to absorb casualties than we would be. That goes a long ways and is why it's stalemated for now. I really don't think Russia has enough in the tank to fight that much longer. They're more or less down to defensive operations only at this point. That being said, war almost always goes longer than people expect. Especially nowadays, there's like a video game mentality that it will all be over quickly. Five years of war before it reaches a conclusion wouldn't surprise me

Maybe the child read their parents' posts on a certain political forum through the browser history. You'll never know how far they might go trying to predict the outcome without directly asking

Being required to out a child and requiring parental consent to go by the another gender & name are two very different things. But the chuds can't understand that simple logic. A teacher can keep it a secret while saying "you need parental consent per the policy". Also, the policies have not said that teachers must out students. Finally, age 16 is setting the bar extremely high when the age of consent for sex itself is lower than that. So you can legally have sex at 15 but can't decide your gender at 15? I think in the end that age will be lowered, like when the age for homosexual sex was set much higher at 18. That was found to be discriminatory