this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
57 points (96.7% liked)

Canada

9889 readers
800 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Did we collectively forget that the NDP brought dental care to those who couldn't otherwise afford it? Kinda a big difference, no? The Liberals certainly wouldn't have done it themselves.

It seems more just that the optics of confidence and supply is confusing to some.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's such a liberal thing to do it based on income instead of it being universal. I still haven't heard a good reason.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

While I agree universal would've been better, the cutoff is 90k. That's something like 80% of the population who qualify, and the top 20% can probably afford it.

In practice, is it really that different than universal with a raise in taxes on the wealthiest 20%?

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

90k isn't the wealthiest 20%.....

EDIT I stand corrected https://www.statista.com/statistics/484838/income-distribution-in-canada-by-income-level/

But still waiting for an actual good reason.

And not to mention the drug plan only covers 2 types of drugs.

[–] DarkWinterNights@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The NDP, despite being tiny in the last two governments, enacted some of the biggest (incremental) changes this country has seen in recent decades. Dental care, pharma care, small rental and housing affordability improvements, universal sick leave protections, etc.

They clearly were the policy "winners" in the last 4 years, whether you agree with the initiatives themselves or not.

They were completely ineffective in the rhetoric and self-advocacy space, where the Conservatives clearly won (whether we find this agreeable or not). This is in part due to the fact the NDP can only get soundbytes on mainstream media access when it's subjectively on things no one else is talking about, making it look like their priority, and in part due to the fact Canada has a major American Republican media arm reaching into Canada (and the slow pivot to inexpensive influencers who hammer the same speaking points effectively as "common sense").

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If they funded it with taxes I would give them props. Future austerity with interest is an unsustainable program used only to drive short term votes, and is nothing like our universal healthcare, which was fully funded from the start so that it lasts.