Is Canada’s Economy A Model For America?

[sultan_emerr]

Is Canada’s Economy a Model for America? = http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

[bozodog]

Well, having a special "Strippers" visa seems important. Good article, I've heard about the problems with national healthcare up there and from my Brit husband. AMERICANS, it don't work!!!

Edited February 8, 2008 by bozodog

[JDoors]

... if you have government health care, you not only annex a huge chunk of the economy, you also destroy a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher, and you make it very difficult ever to change back. ... (emphasis added)

"Difficult?" Name a country that went from socialist healthcare to private healthcare without the collapse of the prevailing government.

... America’s Founders wrote of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.†The equivalent phrase at Canada’s founding was “peace, order and good government†...

Oy! I don't like the sound of that. Plenty of tyrants might agree that peace, order and good government, as defined by themselves, is all they really want.

... The top ten most free economies in this report are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Estonia, Ireland, and Australia. With the exception of Switzerland and Estonia, these systems are all British-derived. ... On the other hand, Andrew Roberts, the author of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900, points out that the two most corrupt jurisdictions in North America are Louisiana and Quebec—both French-derived. ...

VERY interesting point.

... In the province of Quebec, it’s taken more or less for granted by all political parties that collective rights outweigh individual rights. ... There was even a famous case a few years ago of a pet store owner who was targeted by the Office De La Langue Française for selling English-speaking parrots. ...

One reason I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of making English the "official" language in the U.S. It will absolutely cause stupid cases similar to this.

... Over 80 percent of Canadian exports come to America. ... So when people talk about the Canadian model as something that should be emulated, they forget that it only works because it’s next to the American model. ...

Another interesting point.

... here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward. ...

[irregularjoe]

47 million, count them, Americans do not have heatlth coverage. That is a travesty. Period.

[bozodog]

You see, I don't see what the "health care" thing is all about. Even at half of todays prices, how much do you pay and pay and pay before you might need some serious help?

Being single, 35 years old and in good health, I opted to buy 40 acres of heaven and pay off my house instead of stuffing the coffers of Blue Cross. In the last 30 years, I've spent less than $5000 at doctors. By golly, I figure I saved over $100,000.00 by playing the "pay as you go" plan.

"Free" healthcare benefits have chased US companies overseas. Even though there are plenty of plans out there, they are abused. (like Canada's and the UK) by kids with sniffles, warts and boo boos. That use and abuse raises the prices to everyone or breaks the back of a national plan.

Sure there are folks who need a higher level of care. But everyone? I don't think so. Young healthy families? Nope. Think real hard on what you pay for a plan, and decide what you can pay out of pocket for the occasional trip to the doctor. I see savings there...

JMHO

[JDoors]

47 million, count them, Americans do not have heatlth coverage. That is a travesty. Period.

I won't argue the number, though it's not an absolute (there are reasons the number appears higher than you might like that have nothing whatsoever to do with available health care).

My problem is, WHY do people deserve to have OTHER people pay for their health care? Because it's expensive? So are new cars, so are homes. People need cars (unless they live in large city that has transportation that's paid for by other people, ie. public transportation). People need a place to live (unless they live in a household that's paid for by other people, ie. public housing). Is it a "travesty" that most people have to pay for their own transportation and a place to live?

Food? It's expensive (unless you get food paid for by other people, ie. food stamps). What a travesty we don't all get transportation, a roof over our heads, food to eat, and our medical care paid for by other people.

It's a personal travesty that I can't afford a new computer, a newer car, better food choices, a nicer home, medical coverage, etc., but YOU don't owe me any of that.

In My Opinion.

Oh, and all those public benefits? Public transportation, public housing, food stamps, etc. How's that workin' out? It's all high quality, works well, costs are always controlled and there's never any corruption associated with any of it, right?

-----

Edited February 9, 2008 by JDoors

[TheTerrorist_75]

I think it is a travesty that we support government welfare. We need to cut the amount of government employees and many of the overlapping jobs that they perform. I am tired of over paying many politicians and government workers for their part time jobs then letting them retire with a full salary and full medical. I can say the same for teachers. It used to be a teacher taught a classroom of 30+ students and those students actually learned something.

To lower medical insurance we need to stop the abuse & waste, cap malpratice lawsuits & insurance rates plus lower the cost of medications.

[irregularjoe]

47 million, count them, Americans do not have heatlth coverage. That is a travesty. Period.

I won't argue the number, though it's not an absolute (there are reasons the number appears higher than you might like that have nothing whatsoever to do with available health care).

My problem is, WHY do people deserve to have OTHER people pay for their health care? Because it's expensive? So are new cars, so are homes. People need cars (unless they live in large city that has transportation that's paid for by other people, ie. public transportation). People need a place to live (unless they live in a household that's paid for by other people, ie. public housing). Is it a "travesty" that most people have to pay for their own transportation and a place to live?

Food? It's expensive (unless you get food paid for by other people, ie. food stamps). What a travesty we don't all get transportation, a roof over our heads, food to eat, and our medical care paid for by other people.

It's a personal travesty that I can't afford a new computer, a newer car, better food choices, a nicer home, medical coverage, etc., but YOU don't owe me any of that.

In My Opinion.

Oh, and all those public benefits? Public transportation, public housing, food stamps, etc. How's that workin' out? It's all high quality, works well, costs are always controlled and there's never any corruption associated with any of it, right?

-----

Those are interesting points.

I guess my answer is that in modern day civilization it is accepted that certain things are inherently available for society in general. If not taxed based, then at least at an affordable cost.

Health care is at least as important as military, police, prisons, (which we never seem to question funding) corporate welfare, highway construction, etc.

I also consider public transportation a necessary requirement. Or are more gas guzzling SUV's, air polution, and taxpayer funded highways to nowhere the answer?

Just my opinion.

Edited February 11, 2008 by irregularjoe

[Bubba Bob]

I told myself I wouldn't reply to this thread, but when washington (or, half of washington) starts devising ways to take MORE money from ME, i get a tad upset. Im sick of social welfare, and Im sick of a certain political party catering to the poor and lower class. Take responsiblity for your own ("you" as in americans) actions. It's part of being an adult.

[JDoors]

Those are interesting points.

I guess my answer is that in modern day civilization it is accepted that certain things are inherently available for society in general. If not taxed based, then at least at an affordable cost.

Health care is at least as important as military, police, prisons, (which we never seem to question funding) corporate welfare, highway construction, etc.

I also consider public transportation a necessary reqirement. Or are more gas guzzling SUV's, air polution, and taxpayer funded highways to nowhere the answer?

Just my opinion.

I certainly can't argue that health care isn't important, I mean, if you need it there's really few things AS important. But the military, police, prisons, highways, etc. are things that benefit EVERYBODY, equally, nationwide. Your healthcare? How's that benefit me? Oh, you can come up with some complicated (and probably silly) argument about how if you're healthy it ... well ... I can't think in such a convoluted manner but you catch my drift, somehow you can draw a line from you to me if you really stretch it. If, however, those types of arguments were true then ANYTHING affects EVERYONE: I should get free socks so other people don't have to smell my stinky feet. That benefits everyone!

I have to agree that the costs are way out of whack, but there are many reasons for that. For one, if an insurance company will pay $5000 for something, it WILL COST $5000. There's no incentive to lower costs whenever something is covered by insurance. As more and more people are covered by insurance over the last few decades costs have skyrocketed. Back when you paid the doctor cash money, things didn't cost so much 'cause he could only charge what people could afford to pay, not what some huge corporation is capable of paying by charging everyone, sick or healthy, higher and higher premiums.

Another is people expect the best, ALWAYS. I went to get a mole removed, called the insurance company for a local doctor, went there and the guy was operating out of a freakin' palace. I had to get past THREE receptionists; one for the building, one for the wing where the dermatologists were, then one for my doctor. Outrageous! Ten minutes to excise the mole with a scalpel, hey, give ME the scalpel and I'll do it for free. And to refer back to the insurance problem, I have NO IDEA how much all that luxury cost. Not a clue. Ten dollars as far as I'm concerned because that was my co-pay. Why SHOULDN'T I expect the absolute best when it only cost ten bucks? (Obviously it cost far more than that, but why should I care? SOMEONE ELSE is payin' for it.)

Yet another, outrageous lawsuits. Ambulance chasers, unwarranted class-actions, psuedo-science, if medical professionals have to insure themselves against crazy lawsuits (and I've already discussed how 'insurance' RAISES costs, so those premiums are outrageously high) then they have to recover those costs from EVERYBODY, while only a few benefit (like taxing EVERYBODY to pay for the medical care of the ones that need it).

If you control costs via legislation you can dictate whatever price you want, but you can't FORCE anyone to continue to provide that service at that mandated cost -- that's why there's often a shortage of certain types of doctors, special equipment, new procedures or some medicines when the government "controls" medicine (in the U.S. shortages are due to high cost or lack of adequate proof of efficacy).

Which brings us back to that article, you can paraphrase it to say that Canada's health care might be benefiting from proximity to our free market health care (as much as it IS a free market).

-----

Edited February 10, 2008 by JDoors

[irregularjoe]

I told myself I wouldn't reply to this thread, but when washington (or, half of washington) starts devising ways to take MORE money from ME, i get a tad upset. Im sick of social welfare, and Im sick of a certain political party catering to the poor and lower class. Take responsiblity for your own ("you" as in americans) actions. It's part of being an adult.

And on the other hand, I'm sick of a certain political party catering to the rich and upper class. Stop living off the labors of the poor. That's also part of being an adult.

I'll shut up now.

[JDoors]

An article concerning the Socialist model for healthcare: Star Parker - Hillary-care is Not The Answer

Pretty much repeats what I said above (but more succinctly seeing as how she's a professional writer).

[TheTerrorist_75]

Remember we can't get overly political on these forums. Attacking either party or candidates is a no no.

[sarahw]

Australia, which has a small, more centralised population of nearly 21 million can afford a public health care and run it efficiently, whilst also having an optional private health care. This allows people to make a choice not on the quality of care, but rather an upgrade of conditions (a private room instead of a curtain) and choice of doctors. At the same time I can walk into a public hospital and recieve quick quality care based on the urgency of my needs (A gunshot wound would get me immediate care and a bed, a ingrown toenail would get me chair for maybe thirty minutes). A trip to the doctor is different from the hospital, you pay a small subsidised fee (about $30) which helps keep those who don't really need to see a doctor away (like workers having a fake sick day).

This works well because of many factors, a good education system, low crime rate, low illegal immigration, and subsidised medicines for those that are common and often life saving. Another new initiative is to give pharmisist the ability to treat people for common problems, such as the cold or other innoucuous ailments, for which a doctor isn't really needed, easing the system.

You can't just throw an expensive medical system into the United States, it would be abused and the costs far too great. Instead, a whole range of changes would need to be made to the whole society in general. It's not a matter of throwing free health care at people, you have to create a system that works for the individual country based on it's needs (commonly, what do with the 47 million uninsured people (of which, some are surely voters).

On a personal level, some may think 'why should I pay for other people who are sick?'. It's only when you see it on a much larger scale, a society in general, that you can see preventative benefits, not just a drain on the economy.

Edited February 16, 2008 by sarahw