Kim J Dobranski | Facebook - "Day three in Yakima, Washington. I've spent a lot of time in the US over my life, traveled all over the country, and never thought much about it. But over the last three days I've spent more time simply observing everything. Of course, this is all anecdotal and based on my own experiences. It may or may not reflect other areas. They were absolutely zero issues crossing the border. Nothing had changed in the last 30 years of me crossing the border. It was as straightforward as it always has been. First of all, Canadians think about the US far more than Americans think about us. In fact, most people here don't really think about Canada at all. It's just not on their radar. They know we're their northern neighbour, but they don't spend much time thinking about our politics. We're just not that relevant to them. When they find out you're from Canada, they're genuinely interested. I haven't experienced any animosity or hatred toward Canadians the way many Canadians seem to have toward Americans. In my experience, it's been the opposite. Honestly, it's almost embarrassing knowing how many Canadians talk so negatively about the US, while Americans I've met have viewed Canada positively. There's no rioting in the streets. ICE isn't dragging people into detention centres everywhere you look. People aren't getting shot where they stand. Washington is a concealed and open carry state. Yes, a state that's probably more liberal than Canada in many ways. If you're legally allowed to possess a firearm, you generally don't need a permit to openly carry one. Yet oddly enough, I haven't seen a single gun, and certainly no gunfights in the streets. In fact, I haven't seen any violence. I haven't seen any crime. Everybody's just going about their day, living their lives. I also don't think I've seen a single homeless drug addict since I've been here. I'm not saying they aren't here. Maybe I simply haven't been to the areas where they are. But in Kelowna, they're everywhere I go. Literally everywhere. Every day in Kelowna, and I mean every single day, I hear police, ambulance, and fire sirens multiple times throughout the day. I've been here three days and I haven't heard one. Not one. People are genuinely nice. I'm still using a cane as I recover from surgery, and everywhere I go people have been very helpful, holding doors open for me and even offering to carry my things out to the bus. There's not this constant left-versus-right division that the media wants you to believe. Everybody seems to be getting along just fine. Nobody's being attacked for being a Trump supporter. And yes there are Trump supporters everywhere here. Everybody's very patriotic. American flags are everywhere. You can feel the patriotism. It's embedded in their DNA. I wish Canada had more of that same pride. I'm lying here in my hotel room waiting to take the Kelowna Falcons to a game today, and I thought I'd share some of my observations. America is not a bad place. In fact, I know many Canadians don't want to hear this, but we're a lot more like Americans than many of us probably want to admit. And from what I've experienced, they're a lot like us too."
A federation at crossroads: Alberta’s case for equality in Canada | Calgary Herald - "For years, Alberta has been told its frustrations are exaggerated or rooted in partisanship. But the truth is far simpler and far more structural — Canada is not an equal federation, and Alberta is the province most affected by that reality. Canada operates under what political scientists call asymmetry, meaning one province has different powers, rights or exceptions that others do not. This isn’t a criticism of Quebec or a denial of its unique culture. It is simply how the federation was designed. Quebec holds powers no other province has — control over immigration selection, unique authority over language and cultural policy, the ability to opt out of federal programs with compensation, its own pension plan and police force. These powers were created to protect Quebec’s identity — a goal many Canadians respect — but they also mean Quebec operates under a different set of rules. Alberta’s position is straightforward — if Quebec has these powers, every province should have the same options. Alberta is not asking to take anything away from Quebec. It is asking for equality. This is where the structural conflict becomes unavoidable. Quebec’s political identity is built on being distinct, not equal. Alberta’s political identity is built on fairness, not special treatment. These two visions cannot coexist within the same constitutional framework. Alberta’s grievances flow directly from this imbalance. Equalization remains unreformable because Quebec treats it as untouchable. National energy corridors cannot be built when another province can veto them. Federal overreach lands more heavily in the West. And constitutional reform is impossible because Quebec will not support changes that dilute its special status. These are not emotional complaints. They are structural realities. Yet, across the country, there is a reluctance to acknowledge this. Canadians dislike conflict, and reopening constitutional questions feels risky. Ontario benefits from the status quo and fears instability more than inequality. Atlantic Canada depends on federal transfers and avoids debates that might threaten it. And in recent months, both B.C. and Manitoba have taken public shots at Alberta — not because it is the source of the problem, but because criticizing Alberta is politically safe. Confronting Quebec’s special status is not. It is easier to frame Alberta as unco-operative than to address the deeper imbalance at the heart of the federation. Meanwhile, the national media often frames Alberta’s concerns as regional irritability rather than legitimate structural issues. This reinforces the perception that frustrations are emotional rather than grounded in the design of the federation itself."
Time to condemn Albertan separatists as traitors and give Quebec even more privileges, because equality and democracy mean pushing the left wing agenda and doing what the Laurentian Elite say
Why Ottawa needs to upend equalization - The Globe and Mail - "One of the most intriguing possibilities – and undoubtedly, one of the most politically explosive – would be to change how the equalization formula deals with revenues and profits from the sale of electricity. Right now, electricity revenues are included in the natural resources category, with only actual rather than potential revenues counted. If a province opts to keep electricity prices low, it is not penalized under the equalization formula. But that is a policy choice, one that deliberately and artificially deflates a province’s fiscal capacity. The current structure of the equalization system creates a disincentive for any province that might think of charging market rates: the Fraser Institute has estimated that a province would see 70 cents in equalization payments clawed back for every dollar it took in from higher electricity prices. Ottawa does not need to cajole the provinces to raise their electricity rates. It can simply calculate the provinces’ fiscal capacities as if that were the case, thereby removing any fiscal incentive for artificially low rates. Already, the equalization formula does this for taxation – Alberta’s fiscal capacity is calculated as if it had a provincial sales tax, even though it very much does not. If the federal government were to similarly read in higher electricity prices for Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, it would have saved $3.4-billion in the current fiscal year (without the fixed-growth rule), according to the equalization simulator on the Finances of the Nation website. Along with eliminating adjustment payments, that would trim $4.1-billion from the program. Those are substantial savings that could be redeployed to other spending, or better yet, used to reduce personal income tax rates, or to simply trim the deficit. But there are other reforms that could push those savings higher. One big problem with equalization is that it mutes the incentive for provinces to increase their revenues through economic growth. Without the cushion of equalization payments, New Brunswick might not be quite so quick to dismiss development of natural gas reserves through a ban on fracking. A possible solution is to set the bar for equalization slightly lower, perhaps levelling up the provinces to 95 per cent of the average national fiscal capacity rather than 100 per cent. That change, without the fixed-growth floor, would reduce the cost of equalization to $20.3-billion this year, freeing up $6.9-billion. There could be even bigger savings if Ottawa were to use a 95-per-cent rate and change how equalization deals with electricity revenues. As this last graphic shows, the cost of the program would fall by $10.5-billion. Quebec would still be the largest recipient, but its payments would decline by nearly $8-billion, or more than half. Another tricky question is that of accounting for the differing costs of providing services. Wages and other costs are typically lower in have-not provinces. If price differences were taken into account, their equalization payments would fall (although Ontario would morph into a have-not province). There’s also the consideration of geography: Newfoundland, for instance, faces higher costs because of the distance between small, scattered communities. And then there is the demographic factor. Provinces with older populations will, all things being equal, be hit with higher health care costs. Ottawa should take those factors into consideration as part of a reevaluation of equalization. Not all of the savings discussed above are politically achievable... Every penny paid out from equalization savings should be contingent on a recipient province eliminating any interprovincial trade barriers. The resulting boom in economic growth would be the best equalization program possible."
Time to accuse Alberta of being selfish and continue to parasite off it, while still holding it back economically
Left wingers love to bash Ford for Ontario having expensive electricity, of course. In left wing land, everyone can be a net recipient
Mario Zelaya on X - "🚨 MAJOR BREAKING The state broadcaster, funded by the state, now decides what the state considers disinformation, using tools the state will not disclose. This is full blown tyranny"
'Very concerning' lack of transparency on federal finances: economists | National Post - "Economists are sounding the alarm on what they view is a lack of transparency around the federal government’s spending and fiscal outlook. Since the spring economic update, Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced several new spending initiatives including a national AI strategy, a food security strategy, a West Coast pipeline project and a cooperative prosperity agreement with the province of British Columbia. In a recently published report, Desjardins deputy chief economist Randall Bartlett, said the new commitments add $40 billion in extra spending over the next decade, beyond what was announced in the last fiscal update in April. “A lot of it seemed to be from previous envelopes, but some of it doesn’t all seem to be accounted for,” he said. Bartlett pointed out his estimate of unaccounted spending is based on incomplete information, because the federal government has not been transparent on how it plans to pay for these measures... “I think that lack of transparency is very concerning because it all points to high and rising debt levels, and I’m not really sure what sort of restraint outside of reductions to the public service are being shown right now, and what sort of analysis is going into funding these projects,” he said. Bartlett is not the only one who is raising concerns about the lack of clarity around federal financial commitments. on Drummond, former chief economist at TD Bank and professor at Queen’s University, said there is a lack of information surrounding how the federal government has reached its defence spending target under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Drummond said he assumed the percentage of core defence spending to GDP was two per cent by 2030. But Carney’s comments in May suggested total defence spending would hit four per cent of GDP by 2030, suggesting higher core defence spending of 2.5 per cent. “Our fiscal framework has already provisioned to achieve four per cent of GDP in total defence spending by the end of this decade, ahead of NATO’s timetable,” said Carney, during an announcement on May 27. “And we will make additional provisions to achieve NATO’s five per cent spending target on or ahead of schedule,” he added. Drummond said it’s not shown anywhere, including in the recent spring economic statement. “I’ve been involved in budgets since 1977, and I’ve never seen such a lack of transparency,” he said. The office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has also flagged that the federal government has not shown its work in terms of how it plans to meet its defence spending targets. Drummond said the PBO office is currently waiting to receive more information through access to information requests. In addition, the PBO’s recent report, published in early June, said it expects higher deficits than what was projected in last fiscal update, averaging $4.6 billion per year between 2025-26 to 2030-31... Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said earlier this month that Canada can afford increased deficit spending, because it has one of the best fiscal positions among G7 countries. In addition, Champagne has said fiscal spending remains focused on growing the economy. Bartlett said not all infrastructure projects have the same economic return, and he is old enough to remember Japan trying to boost its economy by building bridges to nowhere. “This is money that you know is going to be paid off by future generations, as well as being paid down by the current generation,” said Bartlett. “We need to know that rigorous analysis is going into this at the front end, and we haven’t seen that.”... Bartlett said that as more unplanned spending gets added to the outlook, it could push the debt-to-GDP ratio higher year after year. “That’s essentially the definition of an unsustainable path for Canada’s federal debt,” he said."
Damn Maple MAGA! Don't they know Mark Carney has both a Masters and PhD from Oxford?!
Meme - Tim Pettit: "This is a common theme of progressives. A major crisis erupts. There is the possibility that the negligent actions or omissions of a progressive government are responsible for causing or contributing to the crisis. But rather than fairly raising questions as to accountability of a progressive government, we are told that we must be silent, raise no questions but rather mutely support said progressive government. It's an interesting approach but it's wrong. Reasonable speech should never be silenced and certainly never to protect incompetent governments. Folks need to figure out what happened and vote accordingly."
Cindy Heinrichs @Cynthia95001250: "12,000 people have been evacuated from their
community, some by helicopter, and the response of the Conservatives in BC is to politicize it. And the sheer ignorance! My heart goes out to the people of Summerland. May they receive all the support they need to make this bearable."
Tara Armstrong: "I don't believe British Columbians should have to live with a bag packed and ready to flee their homes every summer. We should have a government that is ready to prevent, fight and respond to wildfires, not one telling them to prepare for its failures."
Weird how in Ontario, left wingers kept blaming Doug Ford for the wildfires
Of course, if there's a mass shooting, the decent thing to do is talk about gun control and if you don't, you're a monster who wants people to die
Geoff Russ: Yes, the B.C. wildfires should be politicized | National Post - "One of the laziest tropes about governance is that tragedies should not be politicized. Generally speaking, the ones who relay that silly maxim are the ones who must reckon with the tragedy and don’t want the headache or their rightful share of the blame... the choice not to expand airborne firefighting capacity, the treatment of wildfire fuels, and post-fire reconstruction are all political choices. If the Okanagan is going to burn, taking beloved homes and lives with it, there is responsibility that must be assigned. In fact, accountability in these situations is the decent thing... A state of emergency is in effect in B.C., having been declared on Aug. 8. That was four days after Emergency Management Minister Kelly Greene said that such extraordinary tools were not yet justified. Conditions and political calculations have apparently flipped with equally terrifying and infuriating speed. It was precisely this volatility and danger that the B.C. NDP government claimed it was preparing for months ago. Back in March, the province assured British Columbians that it was “ready” for the wildfire season... Not every hill, patch of grassland, and knoll can be manned by a crew. Nor can the government shield the surface of the Earth from electrical storms or identify every lunatic firebug who drops a lit match. Still, the NDP has been in office for nine years and has yet to produce a transformative wildfire response strategy, despite escalating disasters throughout its tenure. Changes in the climate, wind patterns, and snowfall can help us understand why the fires keep getting worse, but they do not explain the government’s ongoing preference for improvisation. In 2026, the B.C. NDP government’s forward budgeting shows that funding for fire preparedness is set to be cut by 2028–29, as is funding for fire management. Despite the destruction of the Fraser Canyon town of Lytton and the solidification of the nickname “Smokanagan” amid the seemingly endless clouds of smoke that blanket B.C.’s wine country, it is clear that a modernized wildfire response is not on the books. The B.C. NDP is running a $13.3 billion deficit, with funds being directed toward what the government deems more important to its political success and hold on power. These include boutique grants, bureaucratic experiments, ideological rebranding of institutions, and all the sleazy sinecures that come with modern left-wing governance. What about larger permanent crews, advanced nighttime operations, aggressive fuel reduction, or enhanced aerial capacity? Why is the protection of life and property less important than the political baubles the government dangles before itself and its allies? The private sector is, in fact, outdoing the provincial government. Coulson, a company in Port Alberni that specializes in firefighting, has just conditionally purchased 10 retired Royal Canadian Air Force CC-130H Hercules aircraft and plans to convert them for aerial firefighting. While the deal is not yet final, it is the sort of bet that the provincial government should have emulated long ago. Coulson is planning for the long term while the province is more concerned with damage control. Has Lytton been forgotten? A fire in 2021 destroyed almost the entire village, killing two people, and the community has yet to be rebuilt. A report from B.C. Premier David Eby’s auditor general placed blame on the tiny municipality for having failed to procure an engineer and for not sufficiently partnering with the local First Nations. A town reduced to ash was supposed to become its own emergency ministry, reconstruction authority, and secretariat for local Indigenous relations. Browbeating a shattered village for failing to uphold the NDP’s standard of hyper-ideological Indigenous engagement is a scandal. Can Lytton perhaps be forgiven for failing to perform every little procedural ritual that the province demands of it? However, the NDP cannot pass the blame for the Bald Range fire down to Lytton, eastward to Ottawa, or backward to long-dead B.C. Liberal governments. The NDP has held power since 2017, receiving repeated warnings with every successive fire season. It has no more excuses for failing to modernize B.C.’s wildfire strategy. Flames are not partisan, but the NDP certainly is, as are its decisions within a democratic system. British Columbians should politicize these wildfires because politicians bear responsibility for preventable failures. David Eby’s government should stop pretending that it did everything possible and own up to the fact that it did not do enough. Then, finally, it might credibly claim to have shown some leadership."
If you blame "climate change", local politicians get to escape responsibility
Facebook - "A source tells CTV News Ontario is re-thinking support for ALTO after the feds grounded the Billy Bishop expansion. Eastern Ontario PC MPPs are also expressing concern with the high speed rail project"
As usual there're different standards when you push the left wing agenda
Comment: "The mayor says Toronto loves its waterfront. Eastern Ontario loves the wilderness and farmland that ALTO threatens. The same reasons for cancelling the airport expansion should apply to cancelling ALTO. Ontario does not end at Toronto's city limits."
A Billy Bishop expansion should never have been linked to Alto rail | National Post - "An agreement that the federal Liberals would wave through the Ontario PC plans for a massive expansion of Toronto’s island airport, and in exchange members of the Ford caucus would give their tacit blessing to Carney’s Alto high-speed rail vision. The pact was made between the two leaders at the premier’s Toronto home. There was reportedly a handshake and everything... no sooner did the Liberals shelve Ford’s Billy Bishop dreams than a bunch of his MPPs in eastern Ontario — 11 of them, including two members of Cabinet and the government House leader — went public with a letter that declared their constituents needed to be fully consulted on Alto before it goes much further... what in blazes were they doing making that kind of deal in the first place? It is, in a word, insane. Both the proposed Billy Bishop expansion and the Alto high-speed rail concept are massive undertakings. The rail plan, such as it is to this point, is many magnitudes larger than Ford’s airport vision, but each involves many billions of dollars and years of investment. It is simply alarming that the two leaders would agree to some kind of quid pro quo on infrastructure projects of this scale without any, you know, facts. It is staggering. It’s unconscionable. Someone needs to invent a new word, because ridiculous does not begin to cut it. We are used to Ford shooting for the moon with some of his ideas, for example the tunnel under Highway 401 that is currently in the middle of the world’s most pointless feasibility study. But Carney is supposed to be a business-school pragmatist. What is the point of the shiny new Major Projects Office if an airport expansion can simply be traded for a train line? The fairest criticism of the Billy Bishop proposal at this point in its existence is that it lacked details... As this country embarks on tremendous infrastructure spending that was spooked by a broken trade relationship with the United States, is this seriously how major projects are going to be decided? Do the merits of any such project matter less than whether leaders can quietly fist-bump over the broad strokes of a proposal at dinner? You’d like to imagine that the particulars of a given multi-billion dollar plan would matter a great deal to any leader before giving it an endorsement, tacit or otherwise. You would be wrong, evidently. (Lest anyone argue that this is what Carney has done by pulling his support, his transport minister cited public feedback as the reason for their decision, not doubts about the viability of the plan.) Even at their most basic level, both proposals deserved skepticism. Would an expanded island airport really drive economic growth, or just move flights from one Toronto airport to another? And would an incredibly costly high-speed rail corridor really be a wise investment in a province that has struggled to build even the simplest of light-rail commuter lines?... You back my project and I’ll back yours, details TBD. They might as well have written “big jets = speedy choo-choos” on a napkin and been done with it. It seems like a crazy way to run a country. But here we are."
Canada will build at speeds not seen in generations – unless, of course, there’s a byelection - The Globe and Mail - "The proposed expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport was a test case for Prime Minister Mark Carney – and a fairly straightforward one, too. Here was an infrastructure project that did not involve multiple jurisdictions, competing provincial interests, or Indigenous land claims (though in late May, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute asked to be formally consulted on the plans). The federal government didn’t even need to initiate development plans: This was Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s baby. All Ottawa needed to do, really, was stand back and let it happen. There was massive opposition to the expansion of the airport, of course, as there has been for virtually any effort to increase flight operations at Billy Bishop. Opposition to a bridge to the island airport arguably turned the mayoral race in 2003 in David Miller’s favour. There was a protest staged the first day a Porter plane took off from Toronto Island to Ottawa. There were rallies and protests against a plan to allow jets to operate out of the airport in 2015. And most recently, more than 87,000 people responded to a call for consultation from the government about expanding the island airport – again to allow jets – with 87 per cent opposed. Those results clearly reflect some degree of selection bias, since random-sample polling shows more of a split: According to a recent Liaison Strategies poll, roughly 49 per cent of Torontonians oppose the airport expansion, while 46 per cent are in support. Initially, Mr. Carney was among those seemingly supportive of the plan, which he dubbed a “very interesting vision” when asked about it back in March. “Big possibilities there,” he said, while also noting that it was too early to make a definitive decision. But that was before Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith confirmed he would be resigning his seat in Beaches-East York, a riding that stretches down to the eastern waterfront of Toronto, where the effects of expanded airport operations will be felt most acutely. The riding has been held by the Liberals federally since 2015, but it was won by the NDP in 2011, and tends to vote NDP provincially. A federal byelection is now slated for Aug. 31, when Mr. Erksine-Smith’s former staffer, Tanveer Shahnawaz, hopes to hang onto the seat. Mr. Shahnawaz, a relative political unknown, would have had no chance of doing that had the NDP been given the space to leverage opposition to the island airport expansion. So Mr. Carney took that space away: Late last month, Ottawa announced it was blocking Mr. Ford’s plans to expand the airport to allow jet operations, citing the “feedback” the Transport Minister has received on the project. But this week, when asked whether he has decided to put off the decision to allow jets “forever,” the Prime Minister responded: “Forever is a long time.” Indeed, perhaps his opinion will again change, as early as the morning of Sept. 1. Reasonable arguments can be made both for the airport expansion (job creation, traveller convenience, economic output, greater aviation-industry competition) and against it (greater noise and air pollution, increased congestion, and lakefill disruption, though that is already happening to some degree with runway safety expansions). But this government has repeatedly insisted that economic development is at the forefront of its political agenda: That “to become the strongest economy in the G7, Canada must act now. Invest now. Precisely when it’s hard.” That “Canada must build critical new infrastructure at speeds not seen in generations.”... Mr. Carney vowed to get things built, but in this fairly uncomplicated case, with a geographically contained opposition and without any particular special interest, he’s already stumbled. How strong will Mr. Carney’s resolve to build be when actual plans for a new pipeline, or mine, or high-speed rail run through disputed Indigenous territory, or run afoul of provincial interests, or provoke more organized climate activists? What happens if there is a byelection slated in some of those areas too? Mr. Carney has failed his own test of building major projects now, “precisely when it’s hard.” Perhaps he’ll opt for a do-over – just as soon as the byelection is over."
Former minister Freeland violated election rules during 2024 byelection, watchdog finds - "Former deputy prime minister and cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland violated election rules during a 2024 byelection, the Commissioner of Canada Elections said on Friday. The violation stemmed from comments Freeland made in response to reporter questions following a government announcement, a report from Commissioner Caroline Simard's office said. When asked by reporters about the upcoming vote, Freeland offered "supportive remarks" about Liberal candidate Leslie Church, the report said. Offering support for a political candidate while using government resources could constitute a contribution to Church's campaign. "Ms. Freeland was unaware that those political statements made in response to unsolicited press questions could turn the bona fide costs of a government event into unlawful contributions to a federal political entity," the report said. The report says that the estimated costs "associated with these events" represented a commercial value of just over $900. The Liberal Party's electoral district association in Freeland's former riding agreed to pay that amount to the government."
cbcwatcher on X - "The Chinese-Canadian accused woman sent to spy on NATO used to be an election worker for the Liberal Party of Canada. More proof that Liberals have a major foreign interference problem INSIDE their party... almost completely ignored by almost all media in Canada and buried in this Globe story: "In her applications, she listed past volunteering experience for the Toronto International Film Festival and for an “election campaign for Liberal Party of Canada,” which she did not specify." You can bet the CBC would lead every newscast with this "seriously disturbing" allegation if it was the Conservative Party. Media Protection Program example of the day @brodiefenlon"
Vesper on X - "2010, Freeland, in her own words: "Forget left and right. The real divide is technocrats versus populists." Later becomes Technocrat, George Soros's BFF. Today she's in the NY Times telling Canada to: "Fight back" against the "populists." The love of money..."
L. Wayne Mathison on X - "$135 million spent, and Ottawa failed to make sure the vehicles could even be fuelled, repaired or maintained. Canadian taxpayers funded 3,196 motorbikes, 266 pickup trucks, 16 station wagons, uniforms and work boots for agricultural agents in Ghana. Then the government’s own review found inadequate oversight. Local agencies could not afford fuel, spare parts or repairs. Ghanaian researchers had already described the motorbike program as a “costly failure.” This is exactly what Pierre Poilievre has been warning about. Canadians are generous, but generosity does not mean handing bureaucrats a blank cheque. Foreign aid should have clear goals, strict oversight and measurable results. Buying thousands of vehicles without a workable plan to keep them running is incompetence, not compassion. Think about the opportunity cost. That $135 million could have paid the annual cost of roughly 1,300 registered nurses, supported Canadian food banks or helped families struggling with housing, food and healthcare. Justin Trudeau created this spending culture. Mark Carney now leads the same Liberal government, filled with the same people who believe announcing how much they spent matters more than proving what Canadians received for it. Pierre is right. Review foreign aid. Cut waste. Demand accountability. Put Canadians first. A government that cannot manage the money has no business demanding more of it."
Damn Pierre Poilievre's unnecessary by-election which cost $2.3 million, which is money that could've been used for healthcare!
