A Broken System: When Basic Needs Become Political Bargaining Chips


 

As Canada approaches its next election, voter preferences reveal a stark generational divide. Older voters, primarily those over 60, lean toward the Liberals, prioritizing government-funded dental and pharmacare. Meanwhile, younger voters, struggling to afford homes, are turning to the Conservatives in hopes of policies that will make homeownership attainable.

These choices are not ideological—they are survival-based. People vote for what benefits them, and rightly so. But the real question is not about left or right, Liberal or Conservative. It’s about how Canada has reached a point where basic healthcare for retirees and affordable housing for young people are competing priorities rather than universal rights.

The Reality of a Broken System

Think about it: Someone can work for 35 years, pay taxes their entire life, and still be unable to afford basic dental and pharmacare without government assistance. Meanwhile, young Canadians—many of whom pursued higher education with the promise of a better future—are locked out of homeownership due to skyrocketing prices and stagnant wages.

Both crises stem from the same issue: a system that fails to provide for people at critical life stages. A well-functioning economy should not force retirees to rely on government programs for essential healthcare, nor should it make homeownership a distant dream for an entire generation. Yet here we are, with two groups fighting over different forms of government aid instead of a system that ensures long-term financial stability for all.

A System That Works for Everyone

Instead of framing the debate as a choice between healthcare for seniors and homeownership for young people, we need to ask deeper questions:

Why does our healthcare system leave older Canadians in a position where they need additional government-funded programs?

Why has housing become so unattainable that an entire generation feels locked out of stability and family life?

How can we shift from short-term political fixes to long-term economic solutions?

A better system would ensure that healthcare is affordable throughout a person’s life—not just as an emergency measure in old age. It would also ensure that wages, housing policies, and economic structures support young people in building secure futures without having to rely on government intervention.

Canada’s problem isn’t that seniors want healthcare or that young people want homes. It’s that both needs have become political bargaining chips instead of fundamental expectations. Until we address the root issues—healthcare sustainability, housing affordability, and fair economic policies—we will continue to pit generations against each other, while politicians exploit the divide for votes.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CALLING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT

Image
In Canada today, we are witnessing a growing narrative that blames the increasing population for various social problems—rising housing costs, overburdened healthcare, and crumbling infrastructure. What’s more troubling is the subtle suggestion that these issues are the fault of immigrants, without outright saying so. This narrative has roots in long-standing tactics that rile people up against newcomers while avoiding direct confrontation with the values of diversity and inclusion that Canada upholds. While this perspective may resonate with some, it distorts the reality of what many Canadians are asking for when they call for immigration reform. It is a dangerous oversimplification to conflate critiques of the immigration system with anti-immigrant sentiment. The fact is, immigration has been—and continues to be—an essential driver of Canada's economic and social development. Our country’s prosperity has been significantly shaped by the talents, labor, and innovation that immigra...
Read more

Safe Consumption Sites and The War on Drugs: A Misguided Battle or Necessary Evil?

Image
  The War on Drugs, initiated in the United States and later adopted by countries like Canada, has been a costly and contentious endeavor. With billions of dollars spent, lives lost, and communities devastated, many are questioning the true efficacy and moral grounding of this war. The juxtaposition between the drug dealers’ methods during the crack epidemic and the modern approach of harm reduction strategies, such as safe consumption sites, raises significant questions about the rationale behind this prolonged conflict. During the crack epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, drug dealers were portrayed as ruthless criminals, solely motivated by profit. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex dynamic. These dealers were indeed motivated by profit, but this motivation led to practices that, albeit unintentionally, mirrored modern harm reduction strategies. For instance, dealers had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive. Overdoses were bad for business—dead custo...
Read more

Is the State Nurturing Irresponsibility to Justify Social Spending?

Image
 In our society, actions have consequences, and it's a fundamental principle that has long been a pillar of social order. When people take responsibility for their actions, they contribute to a more functional community. However, there is an unsettling trend in which the state seems to be actively minimizing the consequences of individuals' decisions, raising questions about the role of social spending and the motives behind it. We understand that it is part of a humane society to ensure that those who make mistakes, especially those who are vulnerable, have a safety net to fall back on. We also recognize that a society cannot thrive if it fails to provide opportunities for individuals to rehabilitate and re-enter the workforce or community life. However, the balance between compassionate support and encouraging accountability is delicate. When the balance tips too far towards removing consequences, the outcome can foster irresponsibility. One cannot help but notice the growing...
Read more