Everything I've read makes me think that a scam is obvious only to those not taken in and those who get the benefit of reading a news story.
This particular scam is a relatively minor variation on the "bank examiner" scam that has been successfully operating pretty much since the invention of banking. With the right play, even people familiar with the scam can be taken in.
Dentists joining or not joining wouldn't even be an issue if the program was properly constructed in the first place.
All the government had to do was plug into a long established system. I enroll, I get a provider number and plan number and I'm good to go.
When I had dental coverage through my employer, I gave my provider and plan numbers to the dentist and everything just worked.
And jobs shouldn't count as public benefit. It doesn't matter who built the pipeline, the workers were and are necessary.
If jobs were the primary benefit, they could have been created in renewable energy industries as easily as in climate and ecosystem destroying ones.
We should be counting up the number of schools, hospitals, and publicly owned renewable energy projects that are funded by pipeline revenues.
The inquiry into the invocation of the emergencies act found that it was justified, although not without problems. Those problems don't seem to have been in any way related to the freezing of accounts.
My opinion is that he's got, as we old-timers like to say, a tough row to hoe. (Or a snowball's chance in hell; take your pick.)
And then we have the agricultural regions of Saskatchewan, where the only water that doesn't fall from the sky has to flow through Alberta first. So far, Alberta and Saskatchewan seem to have been mostly sharing the pain, but I can't help thinking that those days are coming to an end.
I'm a member of a generation whose wealth is tied up in home ownership. I say let 'er rip!
We can't keep putting off a fix forever, so the earlier we tackle it, the better. No matter what we do, someone has to suffer, at least a little bit, so get it over with.
There is also plenty of money available to help ease the suffering if only we had the courage to tax properly.
It also might not hurt to let the institutional lenders and the investment class just eat some losses.
This sounds like the experience I was having in 1978. We ultimately had to switch back to more traditional roles because she just couldn't earn enough money to support us, while it was trivial for me to do so, despite neither of us having postsecondary education.
I know social change is slow, but this is pathetic.
I'm retired from fire and rescue. I will never forget the words spoken during orientation on my first day: "The toughest decision you will face will be the one where you choose to not add to the death toll. Remember that there are only two ways to go a funeral: as a mourner or the mourned."
Training, equipment, a plan, a way out. If you don't have all four, you don't go in.
This is not a criticism of the would-be rescuers, but a warning to those present. If there is any blame, it should be placed at the feet of those so afraid of negative reaction that they don't make these points as part of any reporting on such tragedies. There is a duty to inform and educate that transcends how people react.
Consider just the labour market. You imply that taking people out of the labour market is a bad thing, but how?
If a person can further their education as a result, that sounds positive.
If a student is better able to focus on their studies, that sounds positive.
If a parent is able to stay home with young children or work only part time with older children, that sounds positive.
If an adult is able to care for elderly or infirm relatives instead of putting them into a long term care facility, that sounds positive.
If a worker is able to retire a bit earlier, opening up opportunities for those struggling to enter the workforce, that sounds positive.
Your "labour market impact" makes it sound like you think businesses are entitled to the labour of others.
As for the rest, much can be avoided by appropriately funding universal services, thus limiting the role of ready cash.
I thought the whole point of the parliamentary system with the Prime Minister selected by the governing parties rather than through general election was about limiting the power held by one person. Shame on those who voted against this.
It's not yet the law, because it hasn't even been introduced, because the legislature isn't even sitting.
The premier is directing that policy be changed in anticipation of forthcoming legislation, when that legislation hasn't even been put forward.
The premier is taking on the role of absolute dictator by directing people to act without first getting legislation in place. The judge is doing no more than upholding the rights of the citizens to be not bossed around without supporting legislation.
Really, it's not all that complicated. No regulation without legislation.
My favourite was a report that showed a percentage increase in profit that was higher than the percentage increase in revenue. Is that not the very definition of "higher margin?"