[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

So here's my contention.

From a medical point of view, there are probably better areas to extend pharmacare coverage to than contraception.  There are other chronic diseases like diabetes that would have a much better public health effect if covered than birth control.  The Trudeau government (together with the NDP) have chosen to extend coverage to contraception in order to set a political trap, more so than for the public good it would provide.  (although yes, it would provide some amount of public good).

Pharmacare as designed doesn't cover a whole bunch of areas, and one of them happens to be contraception.  It very specifically only covers two classes of drugs - and one of those is contraception.  This is no accident - it's a deliberate choice.

As such they are definitely participating in the "culture wars".

They are free to do so, of course.  I've never been offended at a certain kind of "elbows up" politics.  But I think it worthwhile to point out what's going on.  Because as I said before - it's not only the right wing that plays culture war games.

It's an interesting analysis, that I appreciate

My surprise that contraception is a site of culture war is genuine. I thought it was a settled and dead issue for decades. But you may be right that it's a trap.

[Grey Fox]

They are free to do so, of course.  I've never been offended at a certain kind of "elbows up" politics.  But I think it worthwhile to point out what's going on.  Because as I said before - it's not only the right wing that plays culture war games.

Don't I agree and I wish my side would remember once in a while that politics is a dirty business.

[Josquius]

I am surprised that Canadian conservatives would be upset at contraception.

I suppose there's some reasoning around it with it being quite a cheap thing to offer that has a lot of knock on effects for various other health outcomes so stops need for a lot of treatment down the line?

[Barrister]

I am surprised that Canadian conservatives would be upset at contraception.

So it works on two levels (I think.  I'm just some Joe Schmoe after all).

First: When Conservatives argue they think this pharmacare plan is a bad use of scarce public resources, the Liberals will say "see! Conservatives are against contraception!".  That can work on one level.

Second: That given what's going on in the US, some back-bench Conservative MP will say they ARE against contraception.  So that will work on a whole second level.

[PRC]

RE: Danielle Smith and working as an O&G lobbyist.  No idea if she technically did or not, but it wouldn't come as any kind of shock to have it confirmed.

It would also be unsurprising if she found herself with a handsomely salaried post-politics position with an O&G company or group.  I believe Alison Redford had exactly that experience and found herself working as an advisor to foreign countries on O&G exploration projects in Asia and Africa.  I think Jason Kenney is working as an advisor to a law firm, but unsure if that is an industry related capacity.

Is there consensus that this type of career path is kinda, sorta, actually is corruption? 

Having an industry related career trajectory pre-politics, then finding oneself in government advocating and making policy for that industry, and then a post-politics career right back where you started but at a loftier height.

[Jacob]

It's certainly not super clean, though I don't think it's something just limited to Alberta or to Conservative parties.

I have feeling that the NDP is less susceptible to this sort of thing, simply because they're not as in bed with business (and non-profit/ social justice type groups tend to have less funds)... but it's just a feeling, I actually have no knowledge on the topic. I also assume that Liberals are just as in bed with moneyed industries.

[viper37]

That'd be fair if contraception was a new war ground. But it's not, it's been a thing for decades. Hell, weren't condoms only made legal in canada in the 60s?

In that light I'm more inclined to agree with BB as to why it was chosen as one of the first things to be covered.

I thought it used to be a site of culture war, but that it'd been a settled thing for decades.

It's called Canadian politics, not Quebec politics. 

Defo settled over here.  There are condom vending machines in high school bathrooms.  

We're debating if integrated bathrooms are a tool of Satan or a walk toward progress.  So far, it's leaning to be a debate for the next generation of politicians.

A few excited (misguided?) souls still protest about drag queens, but there's a real winter now, so they've gone hibernating.

[crazy canuck]

Isn't it both?

You choose it because it's something you support/agree with. But it's also a trap you hope your opponents fall into because opposing it would be very unpopular and culture war-y but some of their base or MPs may not particularly like it.

At best you get it, at worst you get it (because you'll have the votes) and either sow difficulties for your opponents or create a dividing line with them....so maybe that's at best...

I don't know the politics of contraception in Canada, but my assumption is that this is a massive bear trap with giant signs around it saying "IT's A TRAP" and the Conservatives would do very well to say nothing

I think what you're witnessing is the Americanization of the culture wars from the perspective of the right wing. Until BB posted in this thread, I would never of guessed that contraception was a culture war issue in Canada. But I guess it is now for the right wing.

[HVC]

That'd be fair if contraception was a new war ground. But it's not, it's been a thing for decades. Hell, weren't condoms only made legal in canada in the 60s?

In that light I'm more inclined to agree with BB as to why it was chosen as one of the first things to be covered.

I thought it used to be a site of culture war, but that it'd been a settled thing for decades.

No battle ever really goes away in the culture wars, I don't think, just becomes secondary fronts. I mean there are still crazy republicans fighting the good fight against Miscegenation. I mean that's an extreme example, true, and not mainstream, but if you can dog whistle it and get some votes some politicians will do it.

On the issue of contraception, it also depends on the province. BC is pretty liberal, so I don't doubt it's less of an issue there (perhaps none at all). And while Ontario isn't as conservative as Alberta it is still a bit of a floating issue here. more so the pill than condoms, perhaps obviously. Not a frontline issue, but an issue that can still rally a following. But BB is right, the conservatives would be dumb to fall for the trap since they'd lose more than they'd win.

And maybe most importantly, the issue can be used as a bludgeon. Like BB said, it can be used to decry any opposition to medical coverage as an indictment against being anti contraception. And it will ring partially true because some conservatives are against contraception, it'll be used to try to mute any legitimate concerns conservatives might have about the topic.

I like the medical coverage, so the conservatives falling for the trap would be a ok with me, actually

[HVC]

Back to the important matter of geese vs Türkiyes*, this gorilla knows what's up.

*I just remembered my goal to rename the birds

[Josephus]

I've never known contraceptives to be an issue in Ontario. But what I can see is this being an issue in the anti-Trudeau old rural folk saying stuff like, "oh, pharmacare is good but why are they starting with something so people can have sex. that's so Woke. My son doesn't have insurance and he needs  free cholesterol pills" . That is to say that of all the medications to pick, well if you were going to pick two, I can see the contraceptives being an odd one.

Wonder if the insurance companies had anything to do with that.

[crazy canuck]

That'd be fair if contraception was a new war ground. But it's not, it's been a thing for decades. Hell, weren't condoms only made legal in canada in the 60s?

In that light I'm more inclined to agree with BB as to why it was chosen as one of the first things to be covered.

I thought it used to be a site of culture war, but that it'd been a settled thing for decades.

No battle ever really goes away in the culture wars, I don't think, just becomes secondary fronts. I mean there are still crazy republicans fighting the good fight against Miscegenation. I mean that's an extreme example, true, and not mainstream, but if you can dog whistle it and get some votes some politicians will do it.

On the issue of contraception, it also depends on the province. BC is pretty liberal, so I don't doubt it's less of an issue there (perhaps none at all). And while Ontario isn't as conservative as Alberta it is still a bit of a floating issue here. more so the pill than condoms, perhaps obviously. Not a frontline issue, but an issue that can still rally a following. But BB is right, the conservatives would be dumb to fall for the trap since they'd lose more than they'd win.

And maybe most importantly, the issue can be used as a bludgeon. Like BB said, it can be used to decry any opposition to medical coverage as an indictment against being anti contraception. And it will ring partially true because some conservatives are against contraception, it'll be used to try to mute any legitimate concerns conservatives might have about the topic.

I like the medical coverage, so the conservatives falling for the trap would be a ok with me, actually

Conservative Ontario was the first province to subsidize condoms. It is also the model for other provinces that followed.

I think your view of culture wars is not accurate and you are confusing what is happening in the United States with Canada. But that is also happening with BB and so perception has become reality.

[crazy canuck]

I've never known contraceptives to be an issue in Ontario. But what I can see is this being an issue in the anti-Trudeau old rural folk saying stuff like, "oh, pharmacare is good but why are they starting with something so people can have sex. that's so Woke. My son doesn't have insurance and he needs  free cholesterol pills" . That is to say that of all the medications to pick, well if you were going to pick two, I can see the contraceptives being an odd one.

Wonder if the insurance companies had anything to do with that.

I'm not sure what the insurance companies would have to do with it since it's already subsidized in most provinces.  In other words, this change has nothing to do with the coverage of private health insurances. 

But it is an easy thing for the feds to do because it's already been done. I think that's the simplest explanation for why it was picked. It's easy.

[viper37]

Is it "contraception is for WOMEN, so it's reverse-sexism" angle? Or is it "my religious belief thinks contraception is wrong, so I can't support this"? Something else?

BB nailed the argument pretty well, I believe.  Please read again what he wrote.

[viper37]

BB, there are good reasons for subsidizing birth control independent of your imagined culture war

The problem arise in only subsidizing that, of course.

When Quebec's plan was launched back in the day, there were much more than contraception and diabetes medications covered.  Of course, we weren't trying to do wedge politics with this back then.