Is Ontario headed for another Wynne win?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I believe the program your mom is using is the post 65 program that has always been in existence. It is not new

Over 65 drugs are free but there is an annual charge of $100. It is possible to ask for an exemption if your income is below a certain level, though I think that level is very low, as in the poverty line. Not sure a home owner would qualify but don’t know

I think dispensing fees vary but when my parents were alive and using the program they did not pay.

She should check with her pharmacy


And yes pharmacies will substitute generic drugs, if the doctor wants no substitutes I believe there is a slight charge
 
Jae said:
First thing Ford should cut is the sex education of little school children before they are developmentally ready for it.
Click to expand...

Stunned little people are good for population control? It could grow curiosity and interest in devious things though ... especially the existence of another unknown!

Perhaps that was the initial unknown ... dark dipper, big bare thingy ...

They sometimes have odd pills for offspring ... don't take them continuously or seriously ... they could be a bad pill from God meant to contribute to the odd displacements from reason ...

As a small pill some have no reason and why those rabid pills ... something to learn about ...
 
There are some items dispensed that my parents had that were not considered drugs. Cannot remember offhand.

I recommend you go to the pharmacy as a good son and review the list.

Note: regardless of cost or not, you should do that to be aware of an aging parents drugs
 
Last edited:
Lastpointe said:
I believe the program your mom is using is the post 65 program that has always been in existence. It is not new

Over 65 drugs are free but there is an annual charge of $100. It is possible to ask for an exemption if your income is below a certain level, though I think that level is very low, as in the poverty line. Not sure a home owner would qualify but don’t know

I think dispensing fees vary but when my parents were alive and using the program they did not pay.

She should check with her pharmacy


And yes pharmacies will substitute generic drugs, if the doctor wants no substitutes I believe there is a slight charge
Click to expand...

And what Wynne is referring to in her campaign is not the existing program, but her proposed changes, which will eliminate the fees. That does not take effect until August 1 of next year, though, assuming the Liberals win. Though I imagine the NDP would keep it as well. Not sure about the PCs.

Making Prescription Drugs Free for People 65 and Over
 
Mendalla said:
And what Wynne is referring to in her campaign is not the existing program, but her proposed changes, which will eliminate the fees. That does not take effect until August 1 of next year, though, assuming the Liberals win. Though I imagine the NDP would keep it as well. Not sure about the PCs.

Making Prescription Drugs Free for People 65 and Over
Click to expand...

The woman on the ad claims that making drugs free for those -25 and 65+ is something that Kathleen has already done.
 
Yes, jae.
You realize that changes in practises have implementation dates, correct.

The action has been initiated with a date set for implementation .

It is like when you buy a house and have a possession date, or get hired and have a start date.

Please, read the frickin ' info, use your brain and remember you too can look up items.
 
Jae said:
The woman on the ad claims that making drugs free for those -25 and 65+ is something that Kathleen has already done.
Click to expand...

The under 25 is. My son just has to show his health card to get coverage (not that he gets scrips very often). The over 65 was added in this year's budget which was, of course, an election budget full of goodies. So, technically, it is a done deal, not just a promise and it will happen unless a new government repeals it. But I agree with you that it is stretching to say it is happening today for the over 65s.
 
Pinga said:
Yes, jae.
You realize that changes in practises have implementation dates, correct.

The action has been initiated with a date set for implementation .

It is like when you buy a house and have a possession date, or get hired and have a start date.

Please, read the frickin ' info, use your brain and remember you too can look up items.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it isn't an outright lie the Wynne campaign is sharing on the ad so much as a deception.
 
whatever, Jae.

Yuo call it a deception.
Can you tell me what part you consider a deception.

When they said that youth's parmacy would be covered, they said there would be an implementation date.
That then occurred.
They have implemented the senior pharmacy, and that too has an implementation date.

Calling it a deception, is well, a deception.

Then again, that is your norm, yes?
 
The ad says "she's made prescriptions free for everyone under 25 and over 65." To be completely precise, the friendly woman in the plaid shirt, sweater and jeans in the ad should say "she's made prescriptions free for everyone under 25 and they soon will be free for everyone over 65."

So the ad is a little wee bit misleading - but on the scale of political dishonesty this is at most an itsy bitsy teeny weeny tiny little white lie.

I looked at the Ontario Liberal Party's You Tube channel.

A few thoughts.

First, it's interesting (and not surprising) that the "spokesperson" for the Ontario Liberal Party in many of the ads they have posted there (which I assume are also playing on TV) is this friendly woman in the plaid shirt, sweater and jeans rather than Kathleen Wynne - which shows that the Ontario Liberal Party is fully aware of just how terribly unpopular Kathleen Wynne is. In the last election as I recall, Wynne was seen as a big plus - the most likeable of the three leaders. Four years has made a big difference.

Second, the ads come across as a bit of a confessional. "OK. I get it. Not everything's perfect in Kathleen Wynne's Ontario," this friendly woman in the plaid shirt, sweater and jeans says. More mea culpa than you usually find in a political ad. The phrase "Kathleen Wynne's Ontario" bugs me (as would "Doug Ford's Ontario" or "Andrea Horwath's Ontario." In my memory that kind of phraseology dates back to 1985 and "Frank Miller's Ontario." Didn't like it then; don't like it now. Ontario doesn't belong to Kathleen Wynne or any of them!!

Third, it's fascinating that the Ontario Liberal Party has been in office now for 15 years (McGuinty and Wynne combined) and yet - at least on the YouTube channel - all of these ads (the ones featuring the friendly woman in the plaid shirt, sweater and jeans who's not Kathleen Wynne) have a title that begins with the words "Positive Change." They clearly understand that there's a mood for change in Ontario and they're trying (on You Tube at least) to suggest that they - who've been in power for 15 years - are the "positive change." Which fascinates me. I've never heard of a party that's been in office for a long time that's tried to run on "change." It surely isn't saying a lot about yourself if - after you've been in power for 15 years - you're promoting "positive change."

Fourth, the "Positive Change" ads take precedence on the You Tube channel, but there are also a few attack ads against Doug Ford that I refuse to watch. Tell me what you're going to do and why I should vote for you - not why I shouldn't vote for the other side or why I should be afraid of them.
 
Wait what.

All leaders should always be looking for continuous improvement and change.

I am missing something, why is a platform of positive change bad?
 
Pinga said:
Wait what.

All leaders should always be looking for continuous improvement and change.

I am missing something, why is a platform of positive change bad?
Click to expand...
If you don't get why a party that's been in power for 15 years promoting "positive change" is unusually bad optics, then I'm not going to bother saying more than I've already said except that I see those Ontario Liberal Party ads as a huge bonus for the NDP - who are as far as I can see the only ones who have any chance at all of beating the PCs.

An NDP minority would be fascinating. The Liberals (who are almost certain to be the third party, and who the polls are suggesting might even have trouble holding on to official party status in the Legislature) would then be faced with the prospect of having to prop up the party that kicked them out of office.
 
revsdd said:
An NDP minority would be fascinating. The Liberals (who are almost certain to be the third party, and who the polls are suggesting might even have trouble holding on to official party status in the Legislature) would then be faced with the prospect of having to prop up the party that kicked them out of office.
Click to expand...

And given how much of their own policies are basically NDP territory (including the discussed extensions to Ontario Drug Benefit coverage), they would really look like asses if they didn't prop them up and instead forced another election over some contrived disagreement with policies that aren't really much different from their own.
 
BetteTheRed said:
In my dream world, we'd have a NDP minority with a Green Party balance of power.
Click to expand...

So your dreamworld is BC (yes, I know you have family out there)?? :D

I honestly can't see the Greens making enough of an inroad in Ontario to get balance of power, much as I might like it to happen.
 
I can't either, but I can dream... And actually, I'm in a new riding, and I'm seeing a TON of Green signs around here. And we had an all candidates debate the other night, that went very well, I must say. And the Green candidate was really impressive.
 
It would be really nice if they got half a dozen or a dozen, seats. A real good foothold, and then let them try to shut the leader of the Green party out of debates. That's pissed me off.
 
Personally I can't see the Greens winning a single seat.

But I kind of like them. In a way they remind me of the old federal Progressive Conservative Party of people like Joe Clark or Robert Stanfield. Fiscally cautious but not unwilling to spend where justified, socially progressive - and the Greens throw in environmentally responsible. Probably why I'm leaning that way right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top