I guess that's the thing; if we're having a policy debate, that's one thing, but if we're creating legislation that's going to create more bureaucratic issues and cost to create an entirely new program, that seems kind of nonsensical to me in something that already exists. I just fail to understand what the need for that is and why we should be supportive of this.
That doesn't mean that dental care is not important. I've been a family doctor for 26 years. I see a plethora of dental problems that could be easily prevented and treated. As you well know, Dr. Tomkins, because I understand you're a practising dentist, you know what I treat them with—antibiotics, inappropriately.
That being said, then, I continue to fail to understand, if we have programs in 11 of 13 jurisdictions, why we don't make them better instead of creating a new program. If we want to have a strategy on this, wouldn't it make more sense to say, hey, let's make a strategy? Why do we need to spend all this money on a program that to me is looking for a home?
I guess I'm wondering what the CDA thinks of that.