This article’s about health insurance. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about pensions to provide an ELI5; in fact, I could use one myself ;P

I’d already saved Cory’s post from today to read later xD. What an important voice for these times he is

Another example of lobbyists buying policy, in this case land for a data centre, against overwhelming public condemnation. Outside of NYC, shit looks bleak. The electorate needs to take back democracy. Horwath was the former leader of the Ontario NDP. Shame on her x1000

I wish I had an article on-hand at the moment. We’re able to remove like 5% of annual, ongoing emissions at most with carbon capture. And, as you say, carbon capture is primarily used as a reason to delay the transition away from fossil fuels by its proponents. So the solution is not “Carbon capture, but don’t slam the downvote button just yet,” it’s "reduce and stop burning fossil fuels (first, second, third, fourth, etc.), and then and only then does carbon capture become relevant. We need to be careful about discussing carbon capture since, as we agree, “carbon capture” is primarily a fossil fuel industry speaking point. After all, (created) confusion about a so-called “carbon tax” completely beat us as an electorate and slowed our progress away from FF

Sorry, are you against public healthcare? I’m in favour of expanding and improving public healthcare, not shrinking or privatizing it.

I think you misunderstand, although to be fair I don’t know for sure how the benefits packages compare, although I’d guess the public one is more extensive.

As is, 65+ go onto the provincial healthcare plan and because of that employers can drop their benefits.

Now the AB government says employers can’t drop benefits for 65+. 3 impacts are expected. 1) Companies will hire fewer people 65+, 2) employer-associated benefits packages will cost more for everyone but the insurance companies as policies include ‘more expensive’ claimants, and 3) this is no doubt a piece of reducing the public healthcare system in AB and pushing us towards the US model with only private healthcare insurance

You took the most important part out of the quote. Here’s the quote:

Ottawa is pursuing trade, investment, and security agreements that privilege corporate access and geopolitical leverage, even when doing so aligns Canada with governments implicated in repression, environmental harm, or grave humanitarian crises. The prime minister has described this approach as “principled and pragmatic,” as “values-based realism.”

It’s not right for politicians to undermine publicly-funded, evidence-based healthcare.

We don’t test for no reason. No test is perfect. And so doctors will order a test when the imperfect test can meaningfully inform subsequent decision-making, based on other pieces in the clinical picture.

I’m not sure how the system will manage medically unnecessary tests on many levels.

Let’s say some rich asshole, considering themselves an expert and wanting to take advantage of this anti-democratic system, pays for an MRI of their head with no doctor’s referral simply because they have a headache.

What priority is their scan given? Can they bump a medically necessary scan? Is it clearly communicated to the radiologist interpreting the scan that only a patient and not a healthcare provider deemed it necessary? Is the cranial MRI marked as medically unnecessary on any subsequent health records? (From a healthcare perspective, when one sees a cranial MRI done, they’re thinking something much more clinically relevant than a headache happened; and this stands to cause a lot of confusion and wasted time)

Also, diverting the system towards privatization is a huge abandonment of trying to improve our public system. Shame on the UCP!

Playing music, scrolling stuff on my glasses on the train every morning

Both of those things can be done with a phone or mp3 player and some headphones. These glasses don’t allow you view a social media feed, for example; you’re describing a different technology https://www.techlearning.com/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-meta-glasses

You’re helping elucidate it though 🤣

[this system we’re considering] maintains the close connection between voters and their members of Parliament—one that Canadians are familiar with in single-member ridings

Lol. How many people can name their MP?

Exactly! More votes matter under PR “[this system we’re considering]”, and so more people would probably be able to name their MP under a PR system

I don’t disagree with you about the cherrypicking thing, although I don’t know enough about PR in other areas to know. I already read today about some right-wing crap in Italy, the other country they mentioned: Italy Blocks Reproductive Health Websites Women on Web (WoW) and Women Help Women (WHW)

Agreed. If you read only one article, read Ars Technica for parsimony. The PostMedia version (main link) is more ragebait-y. It’s a pretty chilling tale of someone being convicted due to a typo made during the investigation when no actual evidence against him was found (before or after the typo was caught)

Decent, non-partisan-enough article on our electoral system with a terrible, very partisan-sounding headline. Canada does have a conservative government, it’s just formed by the LPC vs the CPC.

I’ll admit, I skimmed their re-counting previous elections using a PR system analysis because I think voters fundamentally vote differently under PR vs FPTP. FPTP often incentivizes voting AGAINST parties, whereas PR often incentivizes voting FOR parties. For example, in the last federal election, the LPC wouldn’t have got such a big anti-CPC vote under PR. Moreover, Ontario has always split the Libs and Cons at the federal and provincial levels in the last 70 years or so, minus one election with Bob Rae

I think the corporations have done a great job at normalizing surveillance and anti-privacy in the intervening years. In that time there’s also been a huge trend in marketing of getting celebs to do advertisements, which I’m guessing has some effectiveness seeing as it’s spread like wildfire in the last several years, and meta’s pervertware glasses have a dumbass-spokesperson in someone apparently famous named Kylie Jenner or something like that. I think your question is a good one; I think the answer has is how effective corporate manufacturing of consent has become (and the death of [mainstream] journalism; these days news outlets are just loudspeakers for corporations and politicians, especially in the tech space - critical thought need not apply)

Again, no: pointing out concern about whether giving a US-owned company money is good for Canada is, by definition, not anti-Canadian

Dude. Anyone recording with a big tech device - from scamazon’s ring cameras or w.e to glasshole glasses - all that data’s going straight to the corporate cloud. Who knows what happens afterwards, from adtech to data breaches of your biometric data to surveillance. You should be concerned about threats way beyond those from the actual person filming you. This aspect of society, where all privacy-naive people are freely spying and collecting data on all of us through the above devices for corporations and states, like a ‘self-checkout of surveillance,’ creeps and bums me out

personal surveillance includes state and corporate surveillance

It’s fair to outline legitimately Canadian aspects of P&W. It’s not fair to label those concerned about its American ownership as being Anti-Canadian or fake news