A First World Healthcare System?

Last week we had to visit the emergency department of the hospital in the middle of the night with our sick child who was complaining of severe ear pain and was throwing up. We waited close to 5 hours before a doctor saw us. There was only ONE doctor on duty in such a large hospital in a large city in the middle of the night (by that time it was 430 am).

We woke our son up, who can cried himself to sleep, and the doctor took 2 minutes to examine him, prescribe some antibiotics.

That was it, we waited 5 hours for 2 minutes. If there was one more doctor on duty, we could potentially have waited 2 and half hours. One more doctor, and we would have been seen in less than an hour.

Why do we not have enough doctors on duty? In fact, why do hospitals not have a 24 our walk in so we don't have to go to the emergency?

A close family friend's newborn child is sick; they took him to Sick Kids Hospital. The hospital, once the child was better, actually sent them home because there was a shortage of beds. Another wasn't even admitted because the hospital was full, overcrowded and understaffed.

This is a first world healthcare system?

Does this all point to a shortage of funds?

Now you read that there is actually something the Trudeau government did that is called Canada's Feminist International Assistance Policy. This is an actual entity in the government and this year they are getting an ADDITIONAL 2 BILLION DOLLARS (that's $2b on top of their regular funding) - and what will they do with that? In words of the Minister:

• help the people of the world’s developing countries join the global middle class
• access safe and legal abortions
• empowering women, overseas
• makes families and countries more prosperous

Now, in this context I don't really care what happens to other countries. You want to promote and develop your women, fine. But what could that two billion dollars do to our healthcare? Could it have hired an extra doctor? Could it have provided a few beds? A few more staff?

COULD it have actually improved our healthcare for us - Canadians?

Isn't THAT what the government OF CANADA should be doing?

Why Rona Ambrose should be the next leader of the Conservatives

The Conservatives need to win in Ontario and Quebec. The Conservatives need to present a kinder, a more centrist, a more understanding face to the electorate than what they had in the last election. Someone who is presumably not going to rant against gays and abortion. Someone who can at least pretend to like immigrants. Someone who is seen as a smart, credible person and someone who is not friends with white supremacists. ALSO, someone who is not seen as a LIAR.

There should be no debate that Scheer has pathetically failed as a leader of the Conservatives. All this talk of winning the popular vote and increasing seats fails to hide the fact that he failed to beat Justin Trudeau, who was discovered in old pictures with blackface, MID-CAMPAIGN, and suffering from multiple ethic violations. The Conservatives, as Peter MacKay said, missed a sure fire goal on an open net.

Ambrose is everything Scheer is not, or is presumed to not be. She is a woman. She is smart. She presents empathy. She is intelligent. She did not lie about her job or her citizenship. She put Canada first by serving in a cross party advising committee on NAFTA renegotiation with the USA. She has served in government before. She is a seasoned parliamentarian. She also comes across as a decent human being, with proper charisma, unlike Scheer who makes a dead robot look more lively.

During her time in Ottawa, Ambrose has proven to be a formidable opponent in the House of Commons, vigorously taking the government to task while at the same time maintaining a subtle congeniality. She is fierce without being frothing. That probably explains why she is so well liked in Ottawa, particularly among members of her own party.

In short, if the Conservatives want to win in the next election, they should not repeat their mistake of this election. Or else they will suffer the same fate.

Draft Rona.

Now.

October 2019 Election Watch

Things have become very interesting on the federal electron front. October is still far, but as I predicted last time, it's going to get tighter. Much tighter.

According to the latest Nanos poll, the Liberals and the Tories are in a dead heat. Statistically tied. The aggregate summary still points to a Tory lead, but one that is rapidly shrinking. I believe there's two reasons, and we can draw two main conclusions.

Reasons

1. People don't like Scheer (or as I call him, #ScheerNonsense ) because of his association and support for (and from) Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Ford is historically unpopular (more unpopular than Wynne was before losing), and people see Scheer in the same mold.
2. Most people were pissed of at Trudeau for some of his antics (India trip, "peoplekind not mankind", the SNC Lavalin, virtue signalling etc.) but once they evaluate the alternative, they realize he is not that bad. Jobs are plentiful and he is moving on the pipeline issue, and generally people are not thinking about deficits. Besides, Scheer's missteps with dealing with white supremacy is also playing a part.

As the election gets more heated and close, we can expect two conclusions.

1. The NDP will sink even further. Expect the Liberals to promote the idea of the nasty Conservative government doom and gloom scenario, and why we must vote Liberal to stop them. They will not be wrong. The NDP under Singh has no voice, no pulse, no fresh ideas and no charisma. It's sad because we will thus get "safe politics" and not a genuine exchange of ideas.
2. The Quebec religious oppression bill will be a non-issue. In a situation where every vote matters, no one will dare take on Quebec (sadly).

It will be an interesting summer!

Source: CBC