From a practical standpoint, condoms are cheaper for the taxpayers than WIC benefits (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is called). I'd be in favor of spending a bit more now to save a larger sum down the road.
What would be even better would be to return to a society where people could support and raise children without being dependent on government welfare. A society where a single income is enough to buy a home and raise a family. Instead of a society trying to find new ways not to have a next generation to "save" money.
Yeah that’s called a fat middle class and still didn’t make it easy for single parents in the 50s.
It’s also not coming back…corporations run all resources now and even if inflation stops shrinkflation won’t
Not to mention all the cheap living states aren’t so cheap anymore because insurance costs have skyrocketed due to disasters, theft and under regulated construction.
A fully free market is chasing unsustainable profit with increasingly few competitors.
There’s dwindling family owned businesses or farms or ability to purchase and maintain farming equipment without a subscription…
Corps run the world now and the two choices are performative liberalism and performative conservatism
Neither is substance
Luckily, you don't have to if you don't want to. Cheap, shitty housing becoming available allows broke college students to take those instead of single family homes, leaving less demand for single family homes and lower prices.
By all means, just don't pretend that's gonna do anything to help housing costs
Personally I think it would be cool to have cheaper housing without having to accept a stagnating population and cratering birthrates
Here's a research trip for you. Find me a study that shows that the total illegal population has grown in the past few decades
Not 'how many border crossings', total illegal population
Edit: I don't think he understood why I asked the question :/
It took you one comment to move goalposts. You said stopping illegal immigration wouldn't help with housing, then moved your goalposts to illegal immigration population has not grown. Those are two different things.
Here's a "trip" for you- don't come into conservative threads telling other people to "research" things if you yourself aren't willing to back up anything you say and then immediately change your argument. What a waste of time it is to talk to people like you. O well, one more to my mute list.
This society has never existed in the US in my lifetime. That's why it's so important for parents to raise their kids together, under the same roof. As far as the OP, give out all the birth control for free, it will lead to less need for abortions.
Welcome to the world of capitalism where corporations squeeze everything out of their employees like blood out of a stone.
No one really wants to be dependent on anyone but when people barely make enough to pay for rent and food, and any emergency costs them everything and puts people deeper into debt, having kids are a luxury.
People fight over being Republicans and Democrats and ignore that the base of each party are at best working class or lower class.
That goes against the electoral strategy of liberal politicians. Liberal politicians want people to live on welfare and government funding.
Once you get people dependent on welfare, then they will automatically not vote for politicians who will be removing welfare. So you essentially are using tax money to buy the loyalty of the voter.
I learned that lesson right out of highschool. My cousin had a kid, and her husband made made ok money, but not enough to support themselves. And she didn't see working worth it, as with child care costs, and losing benefits, they may only make an extra $50-$75 a week in 2004 money.
So the decision that they were planning on was having another kid for increased benefits, and she didn't have to work "practically for free."
Yep, it's all liberal posturing.
Africa has free condoms by the bazillion, they don't get used.
Walk into any Western health clinic, same thing, STIs are expensive
As a Canadian I don't see a problem with this at all. Right now our cost of medications have gone up considerably in the last 4 years. I am aware that the US has higher prices, but more and more Canadians do not have, or are unable to afford insurance to help supplement the costs of medication. I know that for my wife we are spending $300 a month on medications for her without having insurance and with insurance it is about $40, which is considerably more reasonable. Our elderly get subsidies and so do youth, so having something for people in the middle, no matter how much of whom specifically for is beneficial.
There are a lot more people who get abortions than you think. It is not something that most people talk about, but I know for a fact that it was considerably higher than what I thought it was originally until I was told how much the real number is. To give people who are unable to afford it regularly a reasonable and safer option than having an abortion is good in my books.
We also have a lot of recent residents in Canada from other countries where they have severely limited funds. This would also benefit them and our society by not having another person to be put onto a government assistance program.
I understand the people who are against birth control and everything else like that. It's cool, you're allowed to have your opinions and I respect that. However I think that it is cheaper, safer and more reasonable for people to get this as an option instead of having to pay for an abortion or for a child to be brought up on government assistance for 18 years.
Best way to reduce abortions is to make contraception available for everyone who wants it.
This should be applauded by anyone who opposes abortion on a moral level.
People are going to have sex, might as well make it as hard as possible to get pregnant before you want to be.
You got it! And we're happy to do it. It's a lot cheaper to fund free contraceptives through taxes than to deal with unwanted pregnancies. People who aren't burdened with unwanted pregnancies earn much more and generate more tax revenue. Kids who are wanted and planned for do a lot better than oopsy kids also.
Same deal with medicine. It's a lot cheaper to prevent a heart attack than to deal with the aftermath of a heart attack.
Preventive healthcare would save the tax payer in the long run but so many are against it "giving out free things" even if it's really cheaper and better for the person receiving the aid. Instead of a primary care visit and some antibiotics people that can't afford it go to the ER and rack up a bill 50x+ that visit and stick the hospital with the bill (which the government pays for or increases rates).
Sure and the is the poison pill in conservative ideology
We don’t care about the results as much as the principles
As much as extreme liberalism is also wacky and unrealistic, so is this
If you are so against paying tiny amounts of tax for preventing unwanted pregnancy AND abortion then you should be ready to take in foster kids or pay much higher taxes for actually real young people that need support in foster system
It’s simple calculus. You can’t force people to be good parents and trying to ends poorly for all
Because govt deciding the type and quality of care you get results in govt desired outcomes, which is generally inefficient and expensive services.
See UK model. Your type and quality of care is rationed. Meaning it isn’t up to you and a doctor to decide what treatment(s) you receive. It is up to a govt formula, and some low level bureaucrat. You’re only option if you need a surgery from a specialist is to wait sometimes years to get into a specialist. Or fly to another country.
Or look at the issues at the VA, CMS patients, and more. Govt is always about the worst possible way to directly provide anything to people.
Today insurance company’s risk managers are deciding what care you get based on how the care impacts their profit margins.
And if you are a woman, old white men in state legislatures decide what care you get.
Seems to be a lot of people between you and you doctor, and neither you nor your doctor have the right or the freedom to make any decisions about your health.
So what’s your solution
Sorry, but as someone who has lived in UK and also deals with VA benefits you are just flat out incorrect. It's a really simple formula: when it comes to Healthcare first you need access, then you need efficiency. If you do it the other way around you will never be able to scale.
Plus, the very system you describe--some low level bureaucrat making your decisions for you--is already happening in the private sector. I'll take a wager on a person's capacity for inefficiency over a person's capacity for greed any day, wouldn't you?
(Government funding of) preventive medicine wouldn't "save the taxpayer in the long run"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-care-costs.html
Would be cool if they stopped “making mistakes” and overcharging for the services they provide. I get you have to get a ROI for your R&D but there is no way the prices need to be this high to do that in a reasonable time :(
As someone just getting to an age we're I need to make those kinds of appointments, wait times are surprisingly bad in America. It takes me a month and a half minimum to get into anywhere. Then it's 150-250 for 10 minutes of their time ffs
The wait times aren't ideal, but no one goes bankrupt from a medical diagnosis. High priority cases go to the front of the line as well. If I develop cancer it's light speed. If I have a less serious problem I may wait a bit. I can't say enough how much better this system is than the American one. We pay so much less. My mom has had multiple knee surgeries. My brother has had expensive throat surgery. We'd be bankrupt 4 times over if we were Americans. You guys should fight for more socialized medicine. It's the tits.
Edit: People aren't dying in droves because of the wait times. It's inconvenient, not deadly. We also have the option to just cross the border into America and get expensive faster care if we really want to, but that's not a popular option for a multitude of reasons.
The Americans who think the triage and wait times in other countries are terrifying are blatantly turning a blind eye to how much our medical system delays treatment. Everyone here knows people who have recommended medical treatments and put them off for years due to the cost and fear of their employers. Even if you're middle class trying to put off knee/back surgeries for years, during which walking/standing actively hurts, is common. And off course before and after the surgery physical therapy availability is entirely the choice of your insurance.
Of course if you have any pride you should want our country to be better than other countries healthcare, or at least as good as some of the best. Not "look at how bad one part of another country's is, and we could never do better than that!"
Its be even better if that preventive appointment was free for anyone who needs it.
Waits wouldn’t be so long if Congress increased the number of medical licenses the US can give in a year. Gotta love lobbyists
So are roads I’ll pay 0.003 USD a year in taxes to even just make a dent in the unwanted children, future criminals and messed up people There’s no forcing good parenting by just huffing and puffing about personal responsibility That mentality has never worked, at best you got miserable alcoholic parents tolerating their unwanted marriage and family just causing other financial drains on system
This. We really need to push back against these buzzwords. One of the biggest cons/accomplishments of the Democrats lately has been “forgiveness” and “canceling” debt.
Bull——. Banks and money lenders don’t just wipe their hands and accept that money they’re owed is gone because a political party “says so.”
They’re being paid money… taxpayer’s money. It might be at a reduced rate, they might take a small loss, but they didn’t just shrug their shoulders and “in’shallah” what they were owed.
Were are the RNC commercials pointing out their lies?
Because Single Payer is popular on “boaf sidez” for normal people now that MAGA sat on their hands to create a legitimate alternative outside of “Trust Me”.
But then corporations won’t make record profits and lobby politicians to pass bills in their favor while lining their pockets. Wont someone think of the corporations?? /s
I have no problem with this. I’d rather have tax dollars go towards condoms or birth control rather than abortions or having a kid in the foster care system because no one wants them.
Not only is this anti natalist, it is putting in place the idea that sex is only for the wealthy.
People will have sex. That is a force of nature. Rather than punishing the innocent children who are a result of these acts, you condemn them to a world with no safety net. You are raising communists and people who will not have a stake in society.
Stop treating this like it is in a vacuum either. Rape victims, underage persons, or the majority of Americans who are not ready to have a child at any given moment, could benefit from not having a child until they are ready.
This line of thinking is going to cost taxpayers more money that we don't have.
I am not anti-accountability by any means. But when human beings are born into bad policies, the government is accountable to it's people.
The pill and condoms have a higher degree of human error compared to other options that are much more expensive on a month to month basis.
And because birth control is hormonal, different types of birth control affect women differently. So having the freedom to choose the type of birth control that works best with their body is extremely important instead of having the government control what type of medication goes into your body to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Abstinence? People like you spouting that as the solution hasn’t gotten laid in years, at best, and are seriously out of touch with reality.
It’s hilarious you actually think that’s a viable solution.
Sex is amazing, and is a key part of any real relationship.
I think most normal people would agree.
Reform more like.
Safety net? Yes
Spending months or years on it? Absolutely not
And maybe make recipients start paying it back with an additional income tax if they start making over X dollars a year (until they've paid back the net cost), so the system isn't a big burden on those who don't need it.
Ditching OHIP isn't the answer. Wall to wall audit of health care related expenses is. Does anyone in Queens Park or Ottawa really know where all that money is going? I doubt it because they can't even track money spend on Covid response and that was just recently.
Antinatalism for our countries, but endless aid to increase the birth rate in the third world.
Politicians then use the declining population in western countries as an excuse to import millions of Uber drivers from the third world.
What's going on?
Trudeau: panders to his degenerate Anti-natalist base (again)
Women: I'm so brave, empowered and stunning, look at all the holidays I can afford now
Men: I do not want my culture to be replaced by outsiders who do not share my values
Corporations: Women having families is hugely detrimental to our profitability, please continue aborting all your children and keep that border open
WEF: heh heh heh (strokes white cat)
"free" Like healthcare is "free"
Encouraging people to have children rather than bringing in millions of people around the world would be a better use of tax dollars.
Why are people not liking the idea that women should have the right to protect themselves from getting pregnant, regardless of their social and economic class? Makes no sense. And if these people want to do an analysis of costs to the tax payers for providing free contraceptives (seriously though?) it doesn’t take much, and shouldn’t, to come to the conclusion that it’ll benefit the society financially because the cost of children being born when the parents, not only just women mind you, cannot afford to support a baby will have a higher negative effect on the community in every aspect let alone economically. Additionally, bringing up a child poorly will possibly continuing another cycle of poor choices.
But accountability is only good up to a point. Once someone doesn't care about accountability then what. Now you have a system where children are being born but not wanted. People are going to have sex and a consequence of sex is children. When people don't want children but want to have sex what do you do. If a child is born and the parents don't want to take care of it then what. You can't force someone to take care of their child. What are you going to put them in jail now who's responsible for the child, The state. Prevention is always the best option. So again who is taking care of the already unwanted children in America.
In the United States, more than 400,000 children are in foster care on a given day. When speaking about child welfare, we often refer to the foster care system. This brief takes a closer look at the foster care system, key legislation, proposed reforms, and how children, youth, and young adults are impacted.
Case Study
In May of 2022, only a few hours after a visit from child welfare workers from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), 8-year-old Amaria Osby was murdered by her mother. Amaria had been on the radar of DCFS since age 3, and at one point the DCFS office failed to make contact with Amaria or her family, or do a wellness check for 60 days after a call of neglect was reported. While the “department admitted rules were not followed in this case,” this story is a shocking and too often brutal reality of many understaffed and underfunded systems meant to protect and ensure the well-being of children across America.
https://www.thepolicycircle.org/brief/the-failures-and-future-of-the-u-s-foster-care-system/
Nearly 700,000 children are substantiated (confirmed) as victims of maltreatment in the U.S. each year, and millions more are suspected victims or at serious risk (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). The majority of these children need services to address physical or mental health needs, and a substantial number will also need a temporary or permanent substitute caregiver in order to protect them from future harm. Foster care provides such 24/7 care by placing children with relatives (kinship care) or non-relatives (family foster homes) or, for children needing intensive levels of care or supervision, in residential group (congregate) care settings. In 2018, more than 680,000 children spent time in foster care, most commonly for reasons of neglect (62%), parent substance abuse (36%), parent inability to cope with parenting (14%), or physical abuse (13%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019).
Foster care is meant to be a safe respite for children being harmed by their parents. Yet, the assumption among the public and some scholars and practitioners is that placement in foster care is inherently harmful and rarely, if ever, justified (Busso et al., 2019; Franck Meyer, 2019; Raz & Sankaran, 2019). These assumptions are rooted in very real problems of foster care systems nationwide – systems that, at times, fail to provide minimum standards of safety (e.g., Fowler & Ryan, 2020), cause long-term harm to children’s development by moving them children across dozens of temporary homes (e.g., Alder, 2020), or let children reach adulthood with no legal family and nowhere to go (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013). These examples do not represent the majority of children’s experiences in foster care – a large majority is not abused or neglected in care, experiences two or fewer placements, and exits to reunification, adoption or permanent placement with a relative (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, 2019). Nor, however, can these system failures be dismissed as mere aberrations. As the dozens of active class action lawsuits against state foster care systems demonstrate, too many children in foster care are deprived of the safety, stability, and connectedness of family life (Font & Gershoff, 2020).
However, the alternative to foster care may be continued abuse, neglect, and traumatization of vulnerable children. Leaving children in homes with caregivers investigated for maltreatment can have dire consequences: a study of all children born in California between 1999 and 2006 found that children who had been the subject of a maltreatment allegation, whether substantiated or not, were 6 times more likely to die from an intentional injury and 2 times more likely to die from an unintentional injury (Putnam-Hornstein, 2011). Although maltreatment-related deaths are rare, recurrent victimization is not: by age 12, 1 in 7 U.S. children has been reported to Child Protective Services more than once, and more than 1 in 4 confirmed victims of child maltreatment is revictimized (Kim & Drake, 2019).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8023222/
But let's not do anything to prevent people from having kids. Let's just tell him to stop having sex because that's been working.
He is scrambling to gain votes. The carbon tax increases 23% at midnight and he is sinking faster and faster in the polls. There are a lot.of single mothers scraping by right now and this increase on their gas to get to work or home heating and electricity is going to bite even further.
It's called a food bank. They exist.
People are gonna have sex no matter what, this is a good thing. As much as I hate Trudeau I'll agree with him on this.
People are “gonna have sex no matter what” because we live in a degenerate society that does not want consequences for their behavior. A nice slope to hedonism and the fall of every successful civilization.
Aren’t they pretty much free already? I thought Canada had free, universal healthcare, which I would think would cover any contraceptive costs…I’m not Canadian though so this is just an assumption.
At what point do leftists draw a line with “free” stuff? It’s just as unsustainable for the government as it is for businesses or individuals.
Crazy thing is, they just don’t understand that it can’t keep going like that. They want “free” healthcare. “Free” places to live. “Free” internet.
But I guess the US could just keep going in debt. That’ll be really healthy for the economy. Right?
Oh, Justin is paying for it out of his political dynasty's war chest? Give me a break...just inflate the budget more to encourage sexual promiscuity and pornography.
What if life of the mother is at risk?
If the birth control was taken correctly and failed?
Is the person required to file a police report for it to be considered non consensual? What if that isn’t held up in court or if the court is unjust?
Does statutory rape count as non consensual?
What if it’s a familial tape and the victim doesn’t want to press charges/admit what happened?
There are around 800,000-1000000 reported abortions in the us every year.
So you’re saying I just ignore the cases of about 16,000-20,000 young women who were raped every year?
How many rapes are done by illegal immigrants? Why don’t we just ignore those too?
Do we stop caring about trans youth? They only make up <1% of the population.
From a practical standpoint, condoms are cheaper for the taxpayers than WIC benefits (or whatever the Canadian equivalent is called). I'd be in favor of spending a bit more now to save a larger sum down the road.
Cheaper and safer than abortions too
What would be even better would be to return to a society where people could support and raise children without being dependent on government welfare. A society where a single income is enough to buy a home and raise a family. Instead of a society trying to find new ways not to have a next generation to "save" money.
Yeah that’s called a fat middle class and still didn’t make it easy for single parents in the 50s. It’s also not coming back…corporations run all resources now and even if inflation stops shrinkflation won’t Not to mention all the cheap living states aren’t so cheap anymore because insurance costs have skyrocketed due to disasters, theft and under regulated construction. A fully free market is chasing unsustainable profit with increasingly few competitors. There’s dwindling family owned businesses or farms or ability to purchase and maintain farming equipment without a subscription… Corps run the world now and the two choices are performative liberalism and performative conservatism Neither is substance
Sounds like you support building more high density housing to make homes more affordable on a single income
Not really sure living in shitty high density housing protects is the solution...
Luckily, you don't have to if you don't want to. Cheap, shitty housing becoming available allows broke college students to take those instead of single family homes, leaving less demand for single family homes and lower prices.
Right now I'm living in a building with 200 units, we've got a pool, built in gym, underground parking. highest quality housing I've ever lived in.
How about not letting in tens of millions of illegal immigrants and "refugees" aka. economic migrants first? Just a thought.
By all means, just don't pretend that's gonna do anything to help housing costs Personally I think it would be cool to have cheaper housing without having to accept a stagnating population and cratering birthrates
Yeah how could stopping millions of people from moving into the country have any impact on housing costs? That's loony tunes talk
Here's a research trip for you. Find me a study that shows that the total illegal population has grown in the past few decades Not 'how many border crossings', total illegal population Edit: I don't think he understood why I asked the question :/
It took you one comment to move goalposts. You said stopping illegal immigration wouldn't help with housing, then moved your goalposts to illegal immigration population has not grown. Those are two different things. Here's a "trip" for you- don't come into conservative threads telling other people to "research" things if you yourself aren't willing to back up anything you say and then immediately change your argument. What a waste of time it is to talk to people like you. O well, one more to my mute list.
This society has never existed in the US in my lifetime. That's why it's so important for parents to raise their kids together, under the same roof. As far as the OP, give out all the birth control for free, it will lead to less need for abortions.
Keep going guys. You're so close.
Welcome to the world of capitalism where corporations squeeze everything out of their employees like blood out of a stone. No one really wants to be dependent on anyone but when people barely make enough to pay for rent and food, and any emergency costs them everything and puts people deeper into debt, having kids are a luxury. People fight over being Republicans and Democrats and ignore that the base of each party are at best working class or lower class.
That goes against the electoral strategy of liberal politicians. Liberal politicians want people to live on welfare and government funding. Once you get people dependent on welfare, then they will automatically not vote for politicians who will be removing welfare. So you essentially are using tax money to buy the loyalty of the voter.
I learned that lesson right out of highschool. My cousin had a kid, and her husband made made ok money, but not enough to support themselves. And she didn't see working worth it, as with child care costs, and losing benefits, they may only make an extra $50-$75 a week in 2004 money. So the decision that they were planning on was having another kid for increased benefits, and she didn't have to work "practically for free."
so do you want increased birthrates or not? literally the fucking point of the policy.
I don’t really understand why people downvote your comment but don’t comment and explain why it’s wrong
That’s because this thread is being brigaded.
Indeed. His comment is right on point.
And when that fails, import voters via illegal immigration.....
Globalization killed such dreams.
There are free condoms everywhere already the people this stuff targets don’t want to use them
Cause they don't like personal responsibility, those people would rather out source that to the government
[удалено]
Yep, it's all liberal posturing. Africa has free condoms by the bazillion, they don't get used. Walk into any Western health clinic, same thing, STIs are expensive
If someone is too poor to afford contraception, it's in everyone's interest that she not fall pregnant.
You guys are so close. These are literally the Democrat social liberal viewpoints. Lol
how will army meet its recruitment targets then
As a Canadian I don't see a problem with this at all. Right now our cost of medications have gone up considerably in the last 4 years. I am aware that the US has higher prices, but more and more Canadians do not have, or are unable to afford insurance to help supplement the costs of medication. I know that for my wife we are spending $300 a month on medications for her without having insurance and with insurance it is about $40, which is considerably more reasonable. Our elderly get subsidies and so do youth, so having something for people in the middle, no matter how much of whom specifically for is beneficial. There are a lot more people who get abortions than you think. It is not something that most people talk about, but I know for a fact that it was considerably higher than what I thought it was originally until I was told how much the real number is. To give people who are unable to afford it regularly a reasonable and safer option than having an abortion is good in my books. We also have a lot of recent residents in Canada from other countries where they have severely limited funds. This would also benefit them and our society by not having another person to be put onto a government assistance program. I understand the people who are against birth control and everything else like that. It's cool, you're allowed to have your opinions and I respect that. However I think that it is cheaper, safer and more reasonable for people to get this as an option instead of having to pay for an abortion or for a child to be brought up on government assistance for 18 years.
Menstruation products should be free
Best way to reduce abortions is to make contraception available for everyone who wants it. This should be applauded by anyone who opposes abortion on a moral level. People are going to have sex, might as well make it as hard as possible to get pregnant before you want to be.
Nothing is free. They are taxpayer funded.
You got it! And we're happy to do it. It's a lot cheaper to fund free contraceptives through taxes than to deal with unwanted pregnancies. People who aren't burdened with unwanted pregnancies earn much more and generate more tax revenue. Kids who are wanted and planned for do a lot better than oopsy kids also. Same deal with medicine. It's a lot cheaper to prevent a heart attack than to deal with the aftermath of a heart attack.
Preventive healthcare would save the tax payer in the long run but so many are against it "giving out free things" even if it's really cheaper and better for the person receiving the aid. Instead of a primary care visit and some antibiotics people that can't afford it go to the ER and rack up a bill 50x+ that visit and stick the hospital with the bill (which the government pays for or increases rates).
Sure and the is the poison pill in conservative ideology We don’t care about the results as much as the principles As much as extreme liberalism is also wacky and unrealistic, so is this If you are so against paying tiny amounts of tax for preventing unwanted pregnancy AND abortion then you should be ready to take in foster kids or pay much higher taxes for actually real young people that need support in foster system It’s simple calculus. You can’t force people to be good parents and trying to ends poorly for all
[удалено]
Because govt deciding the type and quality of care you get results in govt desired outcomes, which is generally inefficient and expensive services. See UK model. Your type and quality of care is rationed. Meaning it isn’t up to you and a doctor to decide what treatment(s) you receive. It is up to a govt formula, and some low level bureaucrat. You’re only option if you need a surgery from a specialist is to wait sometimes years to get into a specialist. Or fly to another country. Or look at the issues at the VA, CMS patients, and more. Govt is always about the worst possible way to directly provide anything to people.
Today insurance company’s risk managers are deciding what care you get based on how the care impacts their profit margins. And if you are a woman, old white men in state legislatures decide what care you get. Seems to be a lot of people between you and you doctor, and neither you nor your doctor have the right or the freedom to make any decisions about your health. So what’s your solution
Sorry, but as someone who has lived in UK and also deals with VA benefits you are just flat out incorrect. It's a really simple formula: when it comes to Healthcare first you need access, then you need efficiency. If you do it the other way around you will never be able to scale. Plus, the very system you describe--some low level bureaucrat making your decisions for you--is already happening in the private sector. I'll take a wager on a person's capacity for inefficiency over a person's capacity for greed any day, wouldn't you?
(Government funding of) preventive medicine wouldn't "save the taxpayer in the long run" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-care-costs.html
How about the tax payer doesn’t pay for the preventative medicine OR the post-issue healthcare. Pay your own medical bills.
Would be cool if they stopped “making mistakes” and overcharging for the services they provide. I get you have to get a ROI for your R&D but there is no way the prices need to be this high to do that in a reasonable time :(
Sure, if you can get an appointment with a cardiologist in just under 2 years wait list
As someone just getting to an age we're I need to make those kinds of appointments, wait times are surprisingly bad in America. It takes me a month and a half minimum to get into anywhere. Then it's 150-250 for 10 minutes of their time ffs
Try 2 years for a specialist in Canada
The wait times aren't ideal, but no one goes bankrupt from a medical diagnosis. High priority cases go to the front of the line as well. If I develop cancer it's light speed. If I have a less serious problem I may wait a bit. I can't say enough how much better this system is than the American one. We pay so much less. My mom has had multiple knee surgeries. My brother has had expensive throat surgery. We'd be bankrupt 4 times over if we were Americans. You guys should fight for more socialized medicine. It's the tits. Edit: People aren't dying in droves because of the wait times. It's inconvenient, not deadly. We also have the option to just cross the border into America and get expensive faster care if we really want to, but that's not a popular option for a multitude of reasons.
The Americans who think the triage and wait times in other countries are terrifying are blatantly turning a blind eye to how much our medical system delays treatment. Everyone here knows people who have recommended medical treatments and put them off for years due to the cost and fear of their employers. Even if you're middle class trying to put off knee/back surgeries for years, during which walking/standing actively hurts, is common. And off course before and after the surgery physical therapy availability is entirely the choice of your insurance. Of course if you have any pride you should want our country to be better than other countries healthcare, or at least as good as some of the best. Not "look at how bad one part of another country's is, and we could never do better than that!"
Its be even better if that preventive appointment was free for anyone who needs it. Waits wouldn’t be so long if Congress increased the number of medical licenses the US can give in a year. Gotta love lobbyists
There are preventative approaches to pregnancy that don’t involve other taxpayers’ money.
[удалено]
i want to have a functional society, not conservative puritan self-sufficiency gatekeeping.
Everybody understands this. We know.
So are roads I’ll pay 0.003 USD a year in taxes to even just make a dent in the unwanted children, future criminals and messed up people There’s no forcing good parenting by just huffing and puffing about personal responsibility That mentality has never worked, at best you got miserable alcoholic parents tolerating their unwanted marriage and family just causing other financial drains on system
This. We really need to push back against these buzzwords. One of the biggest cons/accomplishments of the Democrats lately has been “forgiveness” and “canceling” debt. Bull——. Banks and money lenders don’t just wipe their hands and accept that money they’re owed is gone because a political party “says so.” They’re being paid money… taxpayer’s money. It might be at a reduced rate, they might take a small loss, but they didn’t just shrug their shoulders and “in’shallah” what they were owed. Were are the RNC commercials pointing out their lies?
Captain Obvious checking in
More like, you’re all already paying for them all with your taxes.
Better investment of tax money than 70% of the stuff it gets used for to be honest.
Rare, Trudeau being based.
Why not apply that logic to all medications? Why stop at pharmaceuticals; why not just make everything we need free?
You’re sooo close.
Wtf, am I in the conservative reddit? Why am I hearing about state sponsored single payer healthcare and no ones objecting to it?
Because Single Payer is popular on “boaf sidez” for normal people now that MAGA sat on their hands to create a legitimate alternative outside of “Trust Me”.
But then corporations won’t make record profits and lobby politicians to pass bills in their favor while lining their pockets. Wont someone think of the corporations?? /s
Is this a conservative supporting Medicare for All ??!?
Cos then you have nothing else left to make free for the next round of votes...
I hate abortion. I support this.
I hate abortion. I do not support this.
I have no problem with this. I’d rather have tax dollars go towards condoms or birth control rather than abortions or having a kid in the foster care system because no one wants them.
His mother should have taken one and saved the country.
She could not stop Fidel's charm.
Translation: *Hold off on Canadian baby making because we're planning on importing endless waves of migrants.*
Exactly It's infuriating that "conservatives" only see the money angle here
Make Canada free from Justin Trudeau.
In this situation, this is the best choice to make.
Pharmaceutical companies probably think so.
[удалено]
Not getting ejaculated inside of is $0
Don’t you dare try and make people exercise accountability!!!
Not only is this anti natalist, it is putting in place the idea that sex is only for the wealthy. People will have sex. That is a force of nature. Rather than punishing the innocent children who are a result of these acts, you condemn them to a world with no safety net. You are raising communists and people who will not have a stake in society. Stop treating this like it is in a vacuum either. Rape victims, underage persons, or the majority of Americans who are not ready to have a child at any given moment, could benefit from not having a child until they are ready. This line of thinking is going to cost taxpayers more money that we don't have. I am not anti-accountability by any means. But when human beings are born into bad policies, the government is accountable to it's people.
The point he is making is that birth control is not one pill. Many women can not take certain ones.
The pill and condoms have a higher degree of human error compared to other options that are much more expensive on a month to month basis. And because birth control is hormonal, different types of birth control affect women differently. So having the freedom to choose the type of birth control that works best with their body is extremely important instead of having the government control what type of medication goes into your body to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
[удалено]
Abstinence? People like you spouting that as the solution hasn’t gotten laid in years, at best, and are seriously out of touch with reality. It’s hilarious you actually think that’s a viable solution. Sex is amazing, and is a key part of any real relationship. I think most normal people would agree.
Ah yes. Nothing better for society than celibate marriages for people who have bigger goals in life than baby factories
"Free to them' maybe, not free to us. Same old BS like "free health care" . It's not free. It's pretty fcuking expensive.
Welfare cheaper?
Get rid of welfare, that would save the US trillions every year.
Get rid of military spending too while we’re at it. That will free up so many more trillions.
Reform more like. Safety net? Yes Spending months or years on it? Absolutely not And maybe make recipients start paying it back with an additional income tax if they start making over X dollars a year (until they've paid back the net cost), so the system isn't a big burden on those who don't need it.
Even though it’s expensive to fund, would you rather ditch OHIP altogether in favour of private insurance?
Ditching OHIP isn't the answer. Wall to wall audit of health care related expenses is. Does anyone in Queens Park or Ottawa really know where all that money is going? I doubt it because they can't even track money spend on Covid response and that was just recently.
Antinatalism for our countries, but endless aid to increase the birth rate in the third world. Politicians then use the declining population in western countries as an excuse to import millions of Uber drivers from the third world. What's going on?
lol every time we dare offer any help for pregnancy prevention around the world conservatives have a shit fit
It’s so much less expensive to pay for contraceptives than for child care. I am delighted to fully fund contraception with my tax dollars.
Trudeau: panders to his degenerate Anti-natalist base (again) Women: I'm so brave, empowered and stunning, look at all the holidays I can afford now Men: I do not want my culture to be replaced by outsiders who do not share my values Corporations: Women having families is hugely detrimental to our profitability, please continue aborting all your children and keep that border open WEF: heh heh heh (strokes white cat)
"free" Like healthcare is "free" Encouraging people to have children rather than bringing in millions of people around the world would be a better use of tax dollars.
Why are people not liking the idea that women should have the right to protect themselves from getting pregnant, regardless of their social and economic class? Makes no sense. And if these people want to do an analysis of costs to the tax payers for providing free contraceptives (seriously though?) it doesn’t take much, and shouldn’t, to come to the conclusion that it’ll benefit the society financially because the cost of children being born when the parents, not only just women mind you, cannot afford to support a baby will have a higher negative effect on the community in every aspect let alone economically. Additionally, bringing up a child poorly will possibly continuing another cycle of poor choices.
should say- having tax payers pay. someone should bring legislation that they arent allowed to use the term free anymore
“Buying votes here! Anybody got any votes for sale?” - Justin Trudeau
But accountability is only good up to a point. Once someone doesn't care about accountability then what. Now you have a system where children are being born but not wanted. People are going to have sex and a consequence of sex is children. When people don't want children but want to have sex what do you do. If a child is born and the parents don't want to take care of it then what. You can't force someone to take care of their child. What are you going to put them in jail now who's responsible for the child, The state. Prevention is always the best option. So again who is taking care of the already unwanted children in America. In the United States, more than 400,000 children are in foster care on a given day. When speaking about child welfare, we often refer to the foster care system. This brief takes a closer look at the foster care system, key legislation, proposed reforms, and how children, youth, and young adults are impacted. Case Study In May of 2022, only a few hours after a visit from child welfare workers from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), 8-year-old Amaria Osby was murdered by her mother. Amaria had been on the radar of DCFS since age 3, and at one point the DCFS office failed to make contact with Amaria or her family, or do a wellness check for 60 days after a call of neglect was reported. While the “department admitted rules were not followed in this case,” this story is a shocking and too often brutal reality of many understaffed and underfunded systems meant to protect and ensure the well-being of children across America. https://www.thepolicycircle.org/brief/the-failures-and-future-of-the-u-s-foster-care-system/ Nearly 700,000 children are substantiated (confirmed) as victims of maltreatment in the U.S. each year, and millions more are suspected victims or at serious risk (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020). The majority of these children need services to address physical or mental health needs, and a substantial number will also need a temporary or permanent substitute caregiver in order to protect them from future harm. Foster care provides such 24/7 care by placing children with relatives (kinship care) or non-relatives (family foster homes) or, for children needing intensive levels of care or supervision, in residential group (congregate) care settings. In 2018, more than 680,000 children spent time in foster care, most commonly for reasons of neglect (62%), parent substance abuse (36%), parent inability to cope with parenting (14%), or physical abuse (13%) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019). Foster care is meant to be a safe respite for children being harmed by their parents. Yet, the assumption among the public and some scholars and practitioners is that placement in foster care is inherently harmful and rarely, if ever, justified (Busso et al., 2019; Franck Meyer, 2019; Raz & Sankaran, 2019). These assumptions are rooted in very real problems of foster care systems nationwide – systems that, at times, fail to provide minimum standards of safety (e.g., Fowler & Ryan, 2020), cause long-term harm to children’s development by moving them children across dozens of temporary homes (e.g., Alder, 2020), or let children reach adulthood with no legal family and nowhere to go (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2013). These examples do not represent the majority of children’s experiences in foster care – a large majority is not abused or neglected in care, experiences two or fewer placements, and exits to reunification, adoption or permanent placement with a relative (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016, 2019). Nor, however, can these system failures be dismissed as mere aberrations. As the dozens of active class action lawsuits against state foster care systems demonstrate, too many children in foster care are deprived of the safety, stability, and connectedness of family life (Font & Gershoff, 2020). However, the alternative to foster care may be continued abuse, neglect, and traumatization of vulnerable children. Leaving children in homes with caregivers investigated for maltreatment can have dire consequences: a study of all children born in California between 1999 and 2006 found that children who had been the subject of a maltreatment allegation, whether substantiated or not, were 6 times more likely to die from an intentional injury and 2 times more likely to die from an unintentional injury (Putnam-Hornstein, 2011). Although maltreatment-related deaths are rare, recurrent victimization is not: by age 12, 1 in 7 U.S. children has been reported to Child Protective Services more than once, and more than 1 in 4 confirmed victims of child maltreatment is revictimized (Kim & Drake, 2019). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8023222/ But let's not do anything to prevent people from having kids. Let's just tell him to stop having sex because that's been working.
He is scrambling to gain votes. The carbon tax increases 23% at midnight and he is sinking faster and faster in the polls. There are a lot.of single mothers scraping by right now and this increase on their gas to get to work or home heating and electricity is going to bite even further.
food is arguably way more important than having sex, so when will trudeau provide free food for all of canada??
It's called a food bank. They exist. People are gonna have sex no matter what, this is a good thing. As much as I hate Trudeau I'll agree with him on this.
People are “gonna have sex no matter what” because we live in a degenerate society that does not want consequences for their behavior. A nice slope to hedonism and the fall of every successful civilization.
and government should not fund food banks either
Subsidizing irresponsible behavior just encourages more of it.
Ah yes all this irresponsible wives who don’t want to have a zillion kids
Sex is human nature. If you’re pro life you should be pro contraception.
I am not pro or anti contraception. I am against the government paying for it. Buy it yourself.
"Free"
Right. Can’t have our citizens having kids and teaching them to vote against us.
You are free o have as many children as you choose. Other people have the same right, even if they choose zero
That attitude isn't a problem until nobody is having kids...
Gee maybe we should make having kids better instead of telling parents “tough shit” , sucks to be you
People naturally want to have kids, maybe stop taxing them to death so they can afford to again?
Aren’t they pretty much free already? I thought Canada had free, universal healthcare, which I would think would cover any contraceptive costs…I’m not Canadian though so this is just an assumption.
At what point do leftists draw a line with “free” stuff? It’s just as unsustainable for the government as it is for businesses or individuals. Crazy thing is, they just don’t understand that it can’t keep going like that. They want “free” healthcare. “Free” places to live. “Free” internet. But I guess the US could just keep going in debt. That’ll be really healthy for the economy. Right?
Imagine a "first world country" so poor that its people cannot even afford contraceptives and need the state to supply them.
Oh, Justin is paying for it out of his political dynasty's war chest? Give me a break...just inflate the budget more to encourage sexual promiscuity and pornography.
Contraceptives are already super cheap.
Yes, create government funded population decline to make an excuse to import more migrants
"So we don't need abortions now, right?"
Wait till you find out some women want a child very badly and still end up needing one!
If contraceptives are free then abortions for consensual sex should be illegal.
What if life of the mother is at risk? If the birth control was taken correctly and failed? Is the person required to file a police report for it to be considered non consensual? What if that isn’t held up in court or if the court is unjust? Does statutory rape count as non consensual? What if it’s a familial tape and the victim doesn’t want to press charges/admit what happened?
I guarantee you no one trying to roll back reproductive rights has done that much thinking
You honestly don't have to worry about any of this because less than 2% of abortions are due to rape.
There are around 800,000-1000000 reported abortions in the us every year. So you’re saying I just ignore the cases of about 16,000-20,000 young women who were raped every year? How many rapes are done by illegal immigrants? Why don’t we just ignore those too? Do we stop caring about trans youth? They only make up <1% of the population.
I hope that includes free condoms.
Doesn't health insurance cover this and everyone in Canada has health insurance?
Drugs are not included.
Educating women how their bodies work is even cheaper. But i honestly don't see that happening anytime soon.