Canada - USA Trade War commencing March 2025 #2

[indicolite22]

His people would absolutely not care. They didn't care about the most basic decent things a President should have. He did not the first time and a billion times worse the 2nd, as he vowed he would.

Which means that they don't care about his loony policies now, unless it affects them personally. It appears that most would rather suffer the consequences than admit to voting against themselves.

The firings and tariffs mess is starting to impact my red state. The Red River Gorge is a natural gem in nature. This area is poor and employs local people. It is likely to impact more Trump voters than not. Already I am seeing people in total shock that have lost their jobs. They obviously didn't read Project 25 and if they did believed Trump when he said he knew nothing of it.

I'm finding it hard to feel for these people. They drank the Kool aid this past decade of nonstop misinformation and believed in simple solutions for complex problems. Now they are literally in shock that what they voted for is impacting them and they don't know what they will do to support themselves.

Cuts to Medicaid, food and lack of affordable housing is going to hit these people hard. It isn't like they can move to a job in a city because you cannot live there on minimum wage. Rent alone will more than eat up one salary and if you have kids you now have a work requirement to even be eligible for Medicaid (passed in legislature, going to be vetoed by the governor then overruled by the state legislature who is the Republican majority)..

MOO MOOO MOOOOOO

I wonder who they will blame for their predicament. A portion of them would vote for Trump again.

 

[indicolite22]

I have a difficult time feeling bad for these people- he showed who he was--although he denied knowing anything about project 2025-- I have no idea how anybody could have believed anything he promised--- these people put him in office and those of us who knew better are stuck with this horrible mess---

He showed how bad he was the first time around. The number of lies he told could not be counted. Yet people voted for that again.

 

[LoveyG]

He showed how bad he was the first time around. The number of lies he told could not be counted. Yet people voted for that again.

Because they thought it was going to happen to other people, not them, and that was OK.

 

[ilovewings]

Which means that they don't care about his loony policies now, unless it affects them personally. It appears that most would rather suffer the consequences than admit to voting against themselves.

I wonder who they will blame for their predicament. A portion of them would vote for Trump again.

True that----they have undying devotion to him- It boggles the mind

 

[otto]

The firings and tariffs mess is starting to impact my red state. The Red River Gorge is a natural gem in nature. This area is poor and employs local people. It is likely to impact more Trump voters than not. Already I am seeing people in total shock that have lost their jobs. They obviously didn't read Project 25 and if they did believed Trump when he said he knew nothing of it.

I'm finding it hard to feel for these people. They drank the Kool aid this past decade of nonstop misinformation and believed in simple solutions for complex problems. Now they are literally in shock that what they voted for is impacting them and they don't know what they will do to support themselves.

Cuts to Medicaid, food and lack of affordable housing is going to hit these people hard. It isn't like they can move to a job in a city because you cannot live there on minimum wage. Rent alone will more than eat up one salary and if you have kids you now have a work requirement to even be eligible for Medicaid (passed in legislature, going to be vetoed by the governor then overruled by the state legislature who is the Republican majority)..

MOO MOOO MOOOOOO

A bit off topic, but helpful to understand the overall intentions of the current USA government. I don't really understand Medicaid. Could you help Canadians understand what it is in layman terms?

In Canada, we have national health care. Until the 1980s, the cost was deducted from monthly employment income, unemployed people paid individually. That payment system was eliminated and health care was bundled with federal taxes. A portion of taxes is allocated for health care, the money is distributed by the federal government to provinces, where it is filtered down to regions and cities. Most health care costs (from brain surgery to knee surgery) are free.

Is Medicaid only for people with some form of disability or age category? Do unemployed people have access to Medicaid? If unemployed people with disabilities have reduced work opportunities and no Medicaid, does this contribute to increased poverty levels and mortality rates?

 

[Warwick1991]

A bit off topic, but helpful to understand the overall intentions of the current USA government. I don't really understand Medicaid. Could you help Canadians understand what it is in layman terms?

In Canada, we have national health care. Until the 1980s, the cost was deducted from monthly employment income, unemployed people paid individually. That payment system was eliminated and health care was bundled with federal taxes. A portion of taxes is allocated for health care, the money is distributed by the federal government to provinces, where it is filtered down to regions and cities. Most health care costs (from brain surgery to knee surgery) are free.

Is Medicaid only for people with some form of disability or age category? Do unemployed people have access to Medicaid? If unemployed people with disabilities have reduced work opportunities and no Medicaid, does this contribute to increased poverty levels and mortality rates?

Medicaid is a health care program for low income people. It is distinct from Medicare, which is a health care program for seniors and the disabled. Medicare is a program that receives funding from payroll taxes, like our Social Security. People pay for one portion, Part B, monthly. Part B is mainly outpatient care. Part A, hospital care, has no monthly charge. Medicare is not really income based; everyone over 65 can use it, although higher income people pay a surcharge on their monthly rate.

Medicaid, which is needs-based, generally prohibits having assets over $2000. It is administered by the state that the recipient lives in, and varies some by state. People may continue to live on homes that they own, but the state puts a lien on the home in the amount the program spends on the recipient.

 

[Himako14]

A bit off topic, but helpful to understand the overall intentions of the current USA government. I don't really understand Medicaid. Could you help Canadians understand what it is in layman terms?

In Canada, we have national health care. Until the 1980s, the cost was deducted from monthly employment income, unemployed people paid individually. That payment system was eliminated and health care was bundled with federal taxes. A portion of taxes is allocated for health care, the money is distributed by the federal government to provinces, where it is filtered down to regions and cities. Most health care costs (from brain surgery to knee surgery) are free.

Is Medicaid only for people with some form of disability or age category? Do unemployed people have access to Medicaid? If unemployed people with disabilities have reduced work opportunities and no Medicaid, does this contribute to increased poverty levels and mortality rates?

Medicaid is a government program that is funded and managed by each of our states, so who is covered depends on the state. It is meant for children and adults with limited incomes (disability, below poverty line, elderly.) In my state of Texas, unemployed people do not have access to it unless they are under the poverty line or pregnant.

 

[Warwick1991]

DBM

 

[Herat]

I can't easily give you the best synopsis, but here is a start.

As USA does not have a single payer governmental system, healthcare that is provided in the US is by a patchwork of programs that change as someone gets older, get or loses a job, or becomes indigent:

1. Employer-paid healthcare through healthcare insurance companies ( Aetna, Blue Cross, Prominennce, United Healthcare) make up the largest segment of insured patients: Approximately 54%

2. Medicare, the governmental program mandatory at age 65 makes up 18.7% of healthcare patients. However, it only covers parts of healthcare and enrollees must find additional secondary insurance programs for other parts ( Part B for doctors and tests, Part D for drug coverage), and pay these secondary programs out of pocket.

3. Medicaid, the non-mandatory governmental healthcare program for reduced income patients also makes up approximately 18.7% of healthcare patients and long-term care.

4. Directly-purchased insurance from healthcare companies makes up approximately 10% of healthcare patients.

5. CHAMPUS ( military) and VA Healthcare governmental programs make up the remainder of insured individual patients.

*Older low-income or disabled people can also have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

While Employer-paid healthcare was once considered the most comprehensive care, the cost of deductibles, and exclusions in coverage can make it a patchwork nightmare for patients with complex or unusual diseases.

Medicaid is derided by healthcare providers because the reimbursement to them can be as low as 10% of the regular charges, making it extremely difficult to get any primary care provider to take Medicaid patients as they can't even pay their overhead rent or office personnel out of the Medicaid reimbursement alone. It's considered a governmental sham because low-income families not on employer healthcare plans are told they have Medicaid insurance, but no one will take them on as patients because the reimbursement is so low.

There is also a means test to be qualified as poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, as referenced in Warwick 191's post #868

 

[otto]

The phrase "New World Order" was used by Biden's team, and now it is used globally. As the USA dissolves democracy, aligns with Russia, threatens to step down from NATO, and wages war against Canada, it sounds like some world leaders are preparing to prevent a world war.

I believe that Carney is the right man to take Canada into a future with the EU. Poilievre sounds too much like Trump, and I believe there's a possibility that his solution is to align with Trump policy and give the USA what it needs. Yesterday, he said that he'll bulldoze Indigenous rights and start mining the Ring of Fire in 6 months. That is exactly what the USA wants and needs.

"Faintly, but not slowly, the outlines of a new world order are coming into view — a world order of large power blocs and with far fewer rules than the one that is now slipping away ... every new day bringing shocking evidence of Washington's embrace of the Kremlin.

European officials have entered into talks with Canada that aim to incorporate this country into a new defence production partnership, potentially allowing Canadian firms to bid for contracts as Europe prepares to rearm on a massive scale.
...

"It is much better to finance Canada and to receive Canadian fossil energy and LNG than to pay Russia indirectly for their energy and gas. It would be to the advantage of both of us if Europe and your country co-operated in this."

But Canada also has a problem: the lack of infrastructure to get its energy to Europe.
...

"There are no harbours. They lack the pipelines. But common investments, joint ventures of European investors and Canada could be a way out," he said.
...

"If I was a politician, I would be saying every factory in Canada that's going out of business, we're going to figure out how we can make it part of the defence industrial complex and how we can provide for our European partners."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-allies-europe-trump-1.7486978

 

[otto]

Thank you for the responses regarding Medicaid. It sounds complicated and somewhat incoherent as a viable solution.

 

[LoveyG]

A bit off topic, but helpful to understand the overall intentions of the current USA government. I don't really understand Medicaid. Could you help Canadians understand what it is in layman terms?

In Canada, we have national health care. Until the 1980s, the cost was deducted from monthly employment income, unemployed people paid individually. That payment system was eliminated and health care was bundled with federal taxes. A portion of taxes is allocated for health care, the money is distributed by the federal government to provinces, where it is filtered down to regions and cities. Most health care costs (from brain surgery to knee surgery) are free.

Is Medicaid only for people with some form of disability or age category? Do unemployed people have access to Medicaid? If unemployed people with disabilities have reduced work opportunities and no Medicaid, does this contribute to increased poverty levels and mortality rates?

The following is MOO:

Medicaid is funded by the federal government but managed by each state. It provides medical care to low income. The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) provided additional coverage to more people (called Medicaid Expansion). Some states (Red states) opted out of that to punish Obama, thus preventing their own citizens from qualifying. Which is a whole other story about stupid.

Because Medicaid is managed by each state, the rules are a little different in each state. I will go by what I remember about my state. I worked adjacent to Medicaid but not directly in it, so I may be off a bit. My state opted out of the Expansion.

Anyway, you have to meet a specific household low income threshold. It covers children, pregnant women and custodial parent of child. Generally, you receive Medicaid if you are on SSI (Supplemental Security Income). Medicaid also pays for nursing homes for the elderly, again, if they meet income restrictions. If you work paycheck to paycheck but don't meet the income restrictions, life is very hard for you. No Medicaid and you also can't afford insurance.

In my state, the threshold for nursing care for elderly is assets less than 2,000 dollars. I have to wonder where these people will go if Medicaid is cut.

BTW, SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is not Social Security payments. I've seen some posts getting that confused.

From AI:

Are Social Security and SSI the same thing?


AI Overview
No, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) are not the same thing, although both are administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and resources who are blind, 65 or older, or have a qualifying disability, while Social Security benefits are based on a worker's earnings history and paid into the system.

Link to SSA re who can qualify for SSI. The income restriction is around 2000 per month. Who can get SSI

 

[Herat]

Europe ( EU) is emerging as the growth market for capital investments in defence and industry spending, as the politics in the US continue to show a contraction of industry (despite all those beautiful coal-fired power plants)

The UK seems to be trying to tag along, but their own finance and healthcare politics seem to be a continual stumbling point. I wonder when UK leaders will openly want to re-join the EU to save their own economy and defense systems.

 

[Herat]

Thank you for the responses regarding Medicaid. It sounds complicated and somewhat incoherent as a viable solution.

There is a massive amount of money politics that controls logical institution of a single-payer healthcare system. Trillions and trillions and trillions $$$$$. Insurance companies made so much money they have to invent new ways to burn off all the funds they have. Then you add in Big Pharma, who completely controls politicians, and there is little hope for the US to divulge itself from the established system.

That's why you see Musk and Trump trying to diable Medicare and Medicaid and turn them into for-profit ventures rather than governmental programs. All those healthcare executives dream at night of having all those Medicare Trillions at hand to play with.

 

[Herat]

From LoveyG's post #874.

"If you work paycheck to paycheck but don't meet the income restrictions, life is very hard for you. No Medicaid and you also can't afford insurance."

This is the working poor population that has been totally screwed over by employers skillfully using rules about denying benefits such as healthcare. Employing people as part-time rather than full-time is a terrible trick that denies regular wage workers the safety of employer-sponsored or paid healthcare. Situations like the two-job single mom who has to find childcare to earn enough to keep a roof over their head or risk end up living out of a car (if she can afford it).

People that work at jobs in restaurants, stores, fast-food joints, gas stations, small businesses, and other non-unionized employment that are deliberately given less than full time employement. This is also a fairly significant part of the Republican vote comes from.

 

[Kudzuu]

I think this is another interesting and important distinction between Canada and countries like the USA. In the USA, the federal election campaign never seems to stop. As soon as Biden was elected, Trump was campaigning. It looked like daily interference with the government - non-stop free-speech badmouthing of Biden and Democrat policy.

Canada has rules and limits - no more than 51 days to campaign, then it stops. When the votes are in, campaigning stops, everyone accepts the decision (whether they like it or not), and life goes on until the next election a few years later.

Trump has spent years winding-up his supporters, regularly convincing them that they are victims of: pet-eating criminal migrants, woke Democrats, unfair foreign manufacturing, and environmental "elites" using water flow restrictors to manage water supply. If his campaign was restricted to 51 days, it would have sounded a bit more nutty and a lot less convincing.

"The election or campaign period must be at least 37 days and no more than 51 days"

The Electoral Cycle

---

www.elections.ca

I love this idea and before Trump the norm was for the president leaving the White House was to have a peaceful transfer of power and allow the new administration to lead. The outgoing president kept his mouth shut for the most part.

To invite people to violence or death threats and verbal attacks and lying was not done. The expectation was for Congress to show solidarity and rein in unconstitutional behaviors and illegal actions but with a Republican majority they chose to allow this to happen.

Free speech IMO is not hate speech. He is going after retribution for those who disagree and he swore NOT to do that .

The 25th amendment should be invoked but even if they did that I doubt little would change. They are drunk on power and want to make America white again and women subservient.

A woman died in Texas from bleeding out from a miscarriage. She was denied a dnc which could have saved her life. Why? The doctors were scared it would be an abortion and they would be prosecuted under the Texas law.

I'll provide a link if someone wants to read the horror of it.

I'm with you @otto

 

[otto]

Europe ( EU) is emerging as the growth market for capital investments in defence and industry spending, as the politics in the US continue to show a contraction of industry (despite all those beautiful coal-fired power plants)

The UK seems to be trying to tag along, but their own finance and healthcare politics seem to be a continual stumbling point. I wonder when UK leaders will openly want to re-join the EU to save their own economy and defense systems.

I'm sure that the UK will be included in all EU defence strategies. What EU/UK countries are asking of Canada, in order to be included in the new NATO-style alliance, is that Canada develop infrastructure to export oil and potash to the EU and that Canada converts existing un-used warehouses and buildings to develop and build military equipment. Canada is recognized as the perfect location for testing and training EU/UK military due to vast amounts of uninhabited land.

I think that Canada can meet these needs with the right government. The right government will respect the rights of Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and retain industry-based carbon tax in accordance with EU regulations. The Canadian economy will soar with focus on infrastructure, shipping, and military.

 

[Herat]

I'm sure that the UK will be included in all EU defence strategies. What EU/UK countries are asking of Canada, in order to be included in the new NATO-style alliance, is that Canada develop infrastructure to export oil and potash to the EU and that Canada converts existing un-used warehouses and buildings to develop and build military equipment. Canada is recognized as the perfect location for testing and training EU/UK military due to vast amounts of uninhabited land.

I think that Canada can meet these needs with the right government. The right government will respect the rights of Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and retain industry-based carbon tax in accordance with EU regulations. The Canadian economy will soar with focus on infrastructure, shipping, and military.

I do love the new Canada that is emerging.

It's hard to think that a year ago no one would have believed all the huge faultlines that suddenly developed in the long-trusted international US-Canada border. Yet, somehow now it seems perfectly logical that Canada now asserts their own power.

Amazing that the US voted themselves out of democracy and into Balkan-type dictatorship so easily.

 

[LoveyG]

From LoveyG's post #874.

"If you work paycheck to paycheck but don't meet the income restrictions, life is very hard for you. No Medicaid and you also can't afford insurance."

This is the working poor population that has been totally screwed over by employers skillfully using rules about denying benefits such as healthcare. Employing people as part-time rather than full-time is a terrible trick that denies regular wage workers the safety of employer-sponsored or paid healthcare.

People that work at jobs in restaurants, stores, fast-food joints, gas stations, small businesses, and other non-unionized employment that are deliberately given less than full time employement. This is also a fairly significant part of the Republican vote comes from.

"If you work paycheck to paycheck but don't meet the income restrictions, life is very hard for you. No Medicaid and you also can't afford insurance."

Your quote of my post turned on a lightbulb. The reason more aren't screaming about tariffs and a pending recession is because so many already live a recession lifestyle, every day. It's just more of the same for them.

 

[Fabled Automatic]

I think this is another interesting and important distinction between Canada and countries like the USA. In the USA, the federal election campaign never seems to stop. As soon as Biden was elected, Trump was campaigning. It looked like daily interference with the government - non-stop free-speech badmouthing of Biden and Democrat policy.

Canada has rules and limits - no more than 51 days to campaign, then it stops. When the votes are in, campaigning stops, everyone accepts the decision (whether they like it or not), and life goes on until the next election a few years later.

Trump has spent years winding-up his supporters, regularly convincing them that they are victims of: pet-eating criminal migrants, woke Democrats, unfair foreign manufacturing, and environmental "elites" using water flow restrictors to manage water supply. If his campaign was restricted to 51 days, it would have sounded a bit more nutty and a lot less convincing.

"The election or campaign period must be at least 37 days and no more than 51 days"

The Electoral Cycle

---

www.elections.ca

I've always been grateful for this. I'd get sick and tired of hearing from a candidate, even if I liked them, if they campaigned that long.

At some point it's time to cut the diatribe and get to work.