[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sorry GMO has little to do with whether the food is good or not.

AoD

 

[Palma]

Sorry GMO has little to do with whether the food is good or not.

AoD

you gotta be joking! So you think GMO food is good for you. I don't even want to get into an argument or debate about this

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

you gotta be joking! So you think GMO food is good for you. I don't even want to get into an argument or debate about this

We have been producing GMO for millennia - it used to be called selective breeding.

AoD

 

[goreckm]

you gotta be joking! So you think GMO food is good for you. I don't even want to get into an argument or debate about this

I suppose you think we shouldn't vaccinate our children either . Please provide me a study in a well-known peer reviewed journal that claims that GMO foods are somehow unhealthy.

 

[SJD_Toronto]

So with the 2017 Ontario budget out, does anyone think Wynne's poll numbers will go up?

 

[jje1000]

I think it'll depend on how cynical the population is- whether they see these as genuinely good changes or just pre-election trinkets.

The budget:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...that-features-free-youth-pharmacare-plan.html

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2017/contents.html
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2017/budget2017.pdf

 

[torontologist]

Resigning and letting the party at least stand somewhat of a chance in the 2018 election.

She's well liked and effective at Queen's Park, and has quite the opposite reputation from "hard-headed". The Liberals have acquired a significant amount of political baggage, regardless of the leader. I don't think her approval rating is quite as personal as you'd think. That baggage would be transferred to any new leader.

 

[MetroMan]

So with the 2017 Ontario budget out, does anyone think Wynne's poll numbers will go up?

Nice save.

Back on topic, it doesn't appear that her hydro news helped her. It came across as a desperate attempt at regaining popularity and most people can see right through it — and that's exactly how the media covered it.

However, with good news on policies coming one after another for Ontario voters, perhaps in unison it'll begin to have an effect. Perhaps voters will like what they see and comparing with what the opposition is (not) promising, they may end up concluding that they should go with the devil that they know.

After seeing Wynne interact up close with constituents — something she absolutely excels at — perhaps the answer for her is face to face campaigning. Will her platform along with an exhaustive campaign, meeting Ontarians, have a cumulative effect? I'm not so skeptical as I once was that she can find a way to re-election.

 

[ADRM]

Back on topic, it doesn't appear that her hydro news helped her. It came across as a desperate attempt at regaining popularity and most people can see right through it — and that's exactly how the media covered it.

I think there's possibly some truth to that angle, though I also expect the perception will change once folks actually start seeing the 25% come off their bills in the summer.

 

[Northern Light]

The provincial budget has many flaws, but quite a few thoughtful moves.

That's the opinion of a policy wonk.

The more apt thing, in the context of this thread, is how it moves the needle for those likely to vote, who likely will never read a provincial budget.

I happen to be quite pleased to see the first vestiges of a move toward universal pharmacare. But the most tangible benefit will be felt only by those who don't currently have
prescription benefits, only after January 2018, and really, only if they are or have children at or under age 24.

That's a very small amount of people whose opinion is likely to shift based on this one item; though some others, such as myself may like the policy idea, and a few folks may find their benefits deductions at work go down starting in January or shortly thereafter........so there is that.

On transit, we know there's lots of 'good news' baked in to the budget, soon to be rolled out by the king of photo-ops.......

Again, will it be enough, soon enough.

The challenge here is really how the narrative gets spun.

Have we turned a corner and they are delivering on ideals and promises? Or are they caving under pressure from the public, the NDP etc and belatedly and reluctantly doing good things?

I'm not asking or promoting either narrative, it will be interesting to see which ones take hold.

****

Things I'm looking for that aren't in the budget either at all or in detail:

More hospital beds
More Long Term Care beds
GO Transit near-term service improvements (Stouffville weekday hourly, 2way, Barrie weekday hourly, 2 way, K-W weekend service and Lakeshore service in the offpeak to Hamilton.
Details on repair $ for TCHC

****

Things I'm musing about, what will the pre-election budget bring?

How much wiggle room is baked into the numbers for more good news?

 

[Bayer]

I can imagine a bunch of actuaries developing headaches tonight at private health insurance companies. This move towards universal pharmacare is actually quite daring, and flashy compared to the actual expense involved. It also seems specifically designed to annoy Horwath, whose proposal applied to everyone while being far less generous. Quebec has what passes for pharmacare, but it is more akin to private insurance, with its annual contributions and copayments. Last year, my mother, who lives in Quebec, paid about $1,800 for her prescriptions and contributions - far more than she would have in Ontario. Yet no one was clamouring for this particular move. Most people in that age category are not among the biggest health spenders. I would have preferred more investment in affordable housing, or in housing assistance, perhaps similar to Section 8 housing in the U.S., and also more funds for hospitals.

 

[Northern Light]

I can imagine a bunch of actuaries developing headaches tonight at private health insurance companies. This move towards universal pharmacare is actually quite daring, and flashy compared to the actual expense involved. Quebec has what passes for this, but it is more akin to private insurance, with its annual contributions and copayments. Last year, my mother, who lives in Quebec, paid about $1,800 for her prescriptions and contributions - far more than she would have in Ontario. Yet no one was clamouring for this particular move. Most people in that age category are not among the biggest health spenders. I would have preferred more investment in affordable housing, or in housing assistance, perhaps similar to Section 8 housing in the U.S., and also more funds for hospitals.

I think your point on the low health-spending in that age group is exactly why this was possible.

Its one of the options I suggested they consider in submissions, as its not only politically appealing, but relatively cheap. It also reduces the size of the remaining project to complete pharmacare.

****

There a few non-budget items I would anticipate being addressed, which I think probably will be and may be more popular than anything in the budget.

1) A significant minimum wage increase (they'll want to steal the NDP's thunder on this one. May or may not be $15 in the near term, but I think consensus is there in the public for a substantial move.

2) w/e comes out of the 'Changing Workplaces Review'. From a visibility point of view, going w/paid sick or personal days is probably the best move, as people will feel that almost immediately, it adds a sense of security and costs the gov't next to nothing (arguably, creating additional paid days of work, it may actually boost revenues). There are a few others potential moves in there....so that will be interesting to see.

 

[Jasmine18]

I think most voters welcome the moves but its like taking the bribe payment and not doing what you been bribed for (support the liberals)

Personally I like the idea of reducing drug costs but the liberals free drugs to anyone under 25:
- regardless if they are working full time with benefits
- regardless how much they make
- regardless if they live with parents who are wealthy
- regardless that most young people hardly buy any drugs apart from basic ones at all

Pretty much shows the stupidity of this government and thinks any money should be spent without much thought.

They could have easily provided greater benefits to those who needed it instead of giving rich kids free allergy medicines

Idiots

 

[Amare]

They could have easily provided greater benefits to those who needed it instead of giving rich kids free allergy medicines

I agree with this, the policy is very short-sighted. If they were smart what they would have put income restrictions on the policy and increase the target age range, instead of handing out free medication to everyone and anyone with a prescription under 25.

 

[ttk77]

I think this was an interesting tactic. She knows unemployment and underemployment are sky high for young people. As a result, they're one of the groups least likely to have good drug benefits through work. She also knows that young people lean more to the left than older folks, but that they're also among the least likely to vote. She just provided some additional motivation for them to show up on election day.