I have a good friend who was visiting from out of town this weekend, and last night while having supper our conversations turned political. He is quite a bit farther to the right on the political spectrum than I am, and we started discussing the pros and cons of socialized medicine, and in particular, Canada's system. He was claiming that he had talked to Canadians who told him that their system is a bureaucratic mess and that there is oftentimes a several month waiting list for even the simplest of medical procedures. He also said they told him that more affluent Canadians regularly go down to the U.S. for medical care because they don't have to wait and the quality of health care in America is supposedly a lot better. I was just wondering if any Canadians here could share their experiences with their government's health care system and if there really is a long wait for simple medical procedures; and I was hoping you could give your opinions on how well you think the Canadian system works.

Not being Canadia, I can't comment directly, and look forward to the responses of our northern friends.

I will refer you to the history of the U.S. government assuming control of a whole series of industries and services during WWI, all of which were run without (documented cases) of corruption, and were run efficiently to support the war effort.  All large entities, government as well as private, can succumb to bureacratic lethargy, incompetance, and in fact failure (do the names Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia ring a bell?).  You need to read the German sociologist Max Weber (who died in 1914 if memory serves) on bureacracy, which I called "the Iron Cage".

I do have an antecdote regarding Canada's national health care.  Many years ago, in the early '80s, we were visiting family in Mewfoundland and our eldest got sick.  A doctor was called, symptoms described, and within, as I recall, 1/2 an hour the doctor appeared at the door with an assortment of what might be appropriate meds.  Becky was examined, meds prescribed and handed over, and there was NO CHARGE.  Can you get a doctor to make a house call?  Things may have changed in Canada, but here, even in those days, the house call in the U.S. was anchient history.

I am not from Canada, but I do know that if a woman has a child she has 1 year maternity leave!!  In the US what do you get?  Three months if you're lucky some only have 8 weeks...not fair!!

I do have an antecdote regarding Canada's national health care.  Many years ago, in the early '80s, we were visiting family in Mewfoundland and our eldest got sick. 

That would be Newfoundland Carlos :D

Yes socialized medicine in Canada is good when you want to see your family doctor if you have the flu. But if you have a more serious ailment he/she will then have to refer you to a specialist. And that is where the trouble starts.

A few years ago I went to my GP because I was having trouble with my back. His diagnosis was a herniated disc. So he referred me to a neurologist who then wanted me to have an MRI to see what the problem was. The waiting list to get an MRI through the system was 10 months! But if I were to go to a private clinic and pay out of pocket the waiting list went down to 2 weeks. Of course at the time I couldn't afford the $800 for the private MRI, so I had to wait the 10 months. And it was the most excrutiating 10 months of my life.

The MRI revealed 2 herniated discs and I was told that surgery would be needed to correct the problem. But I had to get on a waiting list to get on the waiting list to have the surgery. I waited almost a year before they finally called me and booked the surgery, but it wasn't for another 6 months! Of course in that time I found other ways of fixing the problem and I didn't have, and never plan on having the surgery.

But realise that my problem was only herniated discs. There are people who are battling cancer and they face the same problem!

SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE ANSWER!

I am not from Canada, but I do know that if a woman has a child she has 1 year maternity leave!!  In the US what do you get?  Three months if you're lucky some only have 8 weeks...not fair!!


Well, lorac, exactly WHO would you like to put up the money to pay for a 1-year maternity leave?

Do you want the employer to put up the money?  How much is that going to cost the owner of a hot dog stand to pay the wages of somebody who is not on the job for a year?

Do you want the government to put up the money?  How much do you want to increase taxes to cover this, and exactly why should my tax money be going to pay you to have children and take off for a year?

Here's a novel idea.  If somebody so badly wants to have children and spend the first year of the child's life with them 24/7, have the parents themselves pay for the festivities.

On what basis is a 1-year maternity leave justified?  America has NEVER seen this 1-year leave practice, and has built the largest economy and the highest standard of living in the world.

SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE ANSWER!



What is?  For-profit HMOs?  Every system is going to have complications, ineffeciencies, and drawbacks.  One myth about private insurance is that it's efficient.  Doctors spend more time than ever filling out paperwork and getting bossed by bureaucrats.

America has the best health care in the world if you're rich.  Canadians of means come to America for operations.  So do Bengaladeshis, so do Nigerians.  In America, you can get anything you want if you can pay up front.

As a liberal, I believe we can adopt, adapt, and improve upon progress we made in the 20th century to create more perfect healthcare system!

What conservative policy makers in the U.S. are trying to do is send the non-rich back to 19th century healthcare via stingy cost caps and bureaucratic strictures.

I'd like to see a doctor that actually fills out paperwork.  Every one I've ever seen gives it to the receptionist or assistant to fill out, other than making a little check on a sheet.
As a patient you don't literally see a doctor do most of the work she/he does.  Additional assistants on the payroll to do paperwork also increases the cost of running a medical office.
That's because they don't want to wait (like Resin and like a friend of mine in New Zealand) 6-10 months OR MORE for surgery. 
Yes, that was exactly my point.  And, for those of means, the healthcare itself is top notch.
In America, if you go to a public hospital, they cannot refuse you treatment based on ability to pay.  And, by law, they HAVE to work out a payment plan with you for as little as $5/mo.  I found that out the hard way when dealing with my grandparents' healthcare/finance issues prior to their death. 
This is what I call America's foolish version of socialized healthcare!  If a patient cannot pay, the hospital eats the cost.  It varies from state to state, but most hospitals then get reimbursed by the government.  People without health insurance don't seek medical care until they're in crisis.  Then they go to the emergency room, which is the most expensive healthcare of all.
We just don't have the cajones to go for the Newt-style solution:  "Tough sh*t, go die in the street!"  Bankrupt hospitals are closing nationwide.
And, private healthcare has nothing to do with being rich.  Less than 2% of the population actually pays for their own insurance 100%.  Most of them have employers who pay it.  My family has EXCELLENT HMO insurance through his employer and he pays a whopping $74/month for family coverage.


Good for you!  Tell your old man not to get canned!

Well, lorac, exactly WHO would you like to put up the money to pay for a 1-year maternity leave?

Do you want the employer to put up the money?  How much is that going to cost the owner of a hot dog stand to pay the wages of somebody who is not on the job for a year?

Do you want the government to put up the money?  How much do you want to increase taxes to cover this, and exactly why should my tax money be going to pay you to have children and take off for a year?

Here's a novel idea.  If somebody so badly wants to have children and spend the first year of the child's life with them 24/7, have the parents themselves pay for the festivities.

On what basis is a 1-year maternity leave justified?  America has NEVER seen this 1-year leave practice, and has built the largest economy and the highest standard of living in the world.


Lyric Boy, my dear, I did pay for the "festivities" myself, including paying for my insurance (Probably around $6,000 a year for family coverage), the lab fees that were not covered by insurance, the 80.00 per each pain pill I had while I was in the hospital, the epidural that was considered "not medically necessary", and the 20 % that was not covered by my insurance.  I did this not once but twice.  I am aslo fortunate enough to be able to stay home with my children probably until they start school, maybe even longer, I've never had any "outside help", no WIC or Federal Assistance.  I'm able to do this  because of all of my hard work (starting at age 16 until I was 30 and decided I was ready to have a child) and my husband's hard work each and every day.  Should I decide to have another child I will also pay for those "festivities" myself...and I wouldn't have it any other way, to me it's the best money I've ever spent in my entire life. 

Now as far as I know the maternity leave is un-paid, but the job is still available should the woman decide to go back to work.  Being a mother I know that 8 weeks is not enough time for most women, but they have no choice but to return to work.  I would be nice if a large company would allow a woman to take off longer and still have her job, I know it's not going to happen but it would be nice.

I really don't think that HMOs are the way to go. Why should some pencil pusher demine that you only need one day in the hospital as opposed to two? Shouldn't it be the doctor who determines what care is needed? He/she is the trained professonal.

Another thing that bothers me about insurence companies-A few years ago Carlos was having problem with his knee (which stemmed from an old skiing accident he had many years ago). A simple brace (cost around $10) would have helped the problem. His insurence company wouldn't pay for that but would have paid for the surgery he would have needed if he didn't get the brace. He did go out to the local drug store and bought a brace himself. Also, (this may have changed) years ago, insurence companies would not pay for birth-control pills but would pay for abortions!-But they paid for viagra when it came out. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?? 



Cat

I really don't think that HMOs are the way to go. Why should some pencil pusher demine that you only need one day in the hospital as opposed to two? Shouldn't it be the doctor who determines what care is needed? He/she is the trained professonal.

Another thing that bothers me about insurence companies-A few years ago Carlos was having problem with his knee (which stemmed from an old skiing accident he had many years ago). A simple brace (cost around $10) would have helped the problem. His insurence company wouldn't pay for that but would have paid for the surgery he would have needed if he didn't get the brace. He did go out to the local drug store and bought a brace himself. Also, (this may have changed) years ago, insurence companies would not pay for birth-control pills but would pay for abortions!-But they paid for viagra when it came out. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?? 



Cat

I had a similar thing happen.  I wear arch-supporting orthotic in my shoes.  Back when I had to be fitted for new ones, my insurance would pay for the podiatrist, but not the orthotics, which were much more expensive. Basically, they would pay for the diagnosis of the problem, but not the solution to the problem.

HMOS are particularly bad with mental health.  A guy goes to the hospital with accute schizophrenia, the HMO might give him seven, five, or even just three days.  Then he gets sent back out the door with a bottle of pills.  This isn't even enough time to bring an untreated schizophrenic around to the point where he's receptive to treatment.  Within a few weeks the guy is back at yet another hospital, IF the HMO will allow it.

I agree it's ridiculous for insurance not to pay for contraception.  Their argument about Viagra was that erectile dysfunction is a medical "problem," a woman's reproductive cycle is not.

I got healthcare.  I do NOT want to pay for anyone elses.  Socialized healthcare means an extra 15 dollars a week in taxes, which is 60 dollars extra a month and an EXTRA 780 dollars a year.  Personally I feel no sorrow for people without healthcare, this country has WAY to many chances for people to make millions, there is NO excuse for living in a box on the street and blaming everyone else.

I got healthcare.  I do NOT want to pay for anyone elses.  Socialized healthcare means an extra 15 dollars a week in taxes, which is 60 dollars extra a month and an EXTRA 780 dollars a year.  Personally I feel no sorrow for people without healthcare, this country has WAY to many chances for people to make millions, there is NO excuse for living in a box on the street and blaming everyone else.

Oh, you don't really believe that, do you?  Of course you care.  I think you're just in denial.  You've talked so often about Christian values and the pro-life cause there's no way you could object to $15.00 a week going to the well-being of your fellow citizens.  I believe the problem of homelessness tears you up so much inside that you have to project this social Darwinism just to keep from falling apart!
;)
Seriously, the right-wing reduces everything to me and how much I have to pay in taxes.  Look, nobody likes to be pay taxes.  If people liked to pay taxes, we wouldn't need taxes.  Everybody would just give of themselves freely, like JESUS said to do!

If you honestly DO resent even the idea of helping your fellow citizens through taxes, you ought to move to a country where social Darnwinism really does reign.  How about Liberia or Somalia?

I got healthcare.  I do NOT want to pay for anyone elses.  Socialized healthcare means an extra 15 dollars a week in taxes, which is 60 dollars extra a month and an EXTRA 780 dollars a year.  Personally I feel no sorrow for people without healthcare, this country has WAY to many chances for people to make millions, there is NO excuse for living in a box on the street and blaming everyone else.



What would you do if you lost (i.e. laid off) your $23.50 an hour job? Find another one? Sure sounds easy but for every job out there, there are at least 15+ people applying for it. So, say you couldn't find a new job right away-you probably couldn't afford health insurence-not to mention your monthly bills. If everyone had the kind of attitude you had, I just hope that you don't find yourself in a time of need.




Cat

I believe the vast majority of Americans do NOT want socialized healthcare, the majority does want reform but that doesn't mean socializing it.  We can look at Canada to see how well socialized healthcare is going.

The thread asked how canadians feel about socialized health care. And I seem to be the only canadian who has an opinion on it.

I will say that I am privaleged to be able to go and see a doctor whenever I feel ill, and not have to worry about paying doctors fees. BUT. My problem is with what happens AFTER you see a GP and he/she refers you to another doctor. Than our system is exactly what you pay for in the States. The only difference is that I pay through the nose every year for socialized health care in taxes, PLUS I still have to pay for private health insurance if I want to be treated for whatever ailment I may be suffering from (if I want to be treated in under a year). So basically i'm paying more than what an average American pays.

There's a reason why Quebecers are the highest taxed population in North America ;)

I believe the vast majority of Americans do NOT want socialized healthcare, the majority does want reform but that doesn't mean socializing it.  We can look at Canada to see how well socialized healthcare is going.

If America was going to institute national health, we would have to develop our own plan.  We could not copy Canada, Sweden, or Germany.  We are a very different kind of country.  Call it whatever you want, Americans would like prompt, competent healthcare for what ails them when they need it.  In a country as rich as ours, we can make that happen.  It'll never happen if everytime the idea of reform is brought ups we have to listen to people blather on about, "look at Canada," and "That's socialism." 

If America was going to institute national health, we would have to develop our own plan.  We could not copy Canada, Sweden, or Germany.  We are a very different kind of country.  Call it whatever you want, Americans would like prompt, competent healthcare for what ails them when they need it.  In a country as rich as ours, we can make that happen.  It'll never happen if everytime the idea of reform is brought ups we have to listen to people blather on about, "look at Canada," and "That's socialism." 




I would like to know what is wrong with socialist programs? We have it for our roads, schools, etc. While the system isn't perfect-both these programs could use some reform, I don't see why we can't do it with health care. As you say, Max, this country CAN make it happen. But unfornately there are a lot of people who are on Capital Hill think like GW-"I have my health care-let everyone else fend for themselves".




Cat

I would like to know what is wrong with socialist programs? We have it for our roads, schools, etc. While the system isn't perfect-both these programs could use some reform, I don't see why we can't do it with health care. As you say, Max, this country CAN make it happen. But unfornately there are a lot of people who are on Capital Hill think like GW-"I have my health care-let everyone else fend for themselves".




Cat

And as The Beatles' song went, "I, me, mine, I, me, mine, I, me, mine!"  As one of our fellow members recently expressed, he doesn't want to spend $60.00 a month for the common good.  How can society get anywhere with that attitude around?  Reagan sold us on this phony perversion of Adam Smith that selfishness is the best thing for the common good.  Of course it isn't, but how else can a political leader justify such moral turpitude?

My husband has the skills to get another job if he gets canned.  He acquired these skills by working to put HIMSELF through college, then working his @$$ off to get him where he is today.  When he started at his job 9 years ago, he was only a small bus. salesman and has worked his way up through the corporate ladder to an upper management position.  With the knowledge he has about technology, he could probably get a job at any tech-based company in the country so we don't have to worry about NOT having healthcare.  I actually agree with GWB2004 on this one, why should WE have to pay even more for healthcare for everyone else.  I'm not talking about those who are truly disabled, I'm talking more about those who don't see the need to work because they KNOW the gov't will "take care of them".

Hot doggie for you again, but I'm telling you jult like I told GWBush, the truly shiftless, lazy, don't-want-to-work people are few in number.  Most people who don't work are disabled.  I went through years and years of chronic unemployment due to my battles with sever depression.  I was lucky, I had a family inheritence which allowed me to muddle through, even though I had to drain the whole d*mn thing in the process.  I didn't have to struggle through the web of social bureaucracy.  I knew plenty of people who did, and doing battle with the state to get benefits is even harder than having a job.  It's Dickensian, undignfied, and humiliating on top of all the bureaucratic triatholon you have to run. 
Anybody who "knows the government will take care of them" doesn't know much about social service policies in 2004!!!

Yes, there's plenty of paperwork under any healthcare system.  The paperwork I'm referring to is the paperwork required by paper-shuffling bureaucrats who badger doctors for a living.

a canadian here and one who depends on the healthcare system because i'm a type 2 diabetic. my monthly doctor visits are free, my bi-annual hospital bloodwork tests are free, my visits to a foot care nurse are free. i do pay for my medication, 35 dollars a month and i believe i would be paying out of the nose had i been an american.

my mother has had knee surgery, she waited for over a year to see the specialist for, what i understand, was a simple procedure of removing calcium growth. i'm due to see a specialist in a few months for a foot ulcer and i dread to have to wait for my appointed surgery. it's these specialist visits where the universal healthcare system gets the most criticism, people have died waiting for visits, a treatable problem which becomes fatal over the long months.

i appreciate my country for the healthcare system, i won't even attept to argue the pros and cons, i really have no other insight into this other than being a simple canadian who wants to continue living without worrying whether my disease would finacially ruin my family.

I just thank my lucky stars that none of my Canadian relatives have had major medical calamities :P

I'll get in on this one just to add a bit more to this topic.  I'm Canadian and there are some problems with our medical system just as there are everywhere.  Part of the problem is with governments fighting over who should pay for what and how they should pay.  But even though I have a good job with benefits I don't thinkI'll be giving up my citizenship to move south.  What's wrong with the entire tax paying public subsidizing the health care system....it works the same for education...if you don't have kids some of your tax $$ go to pay for your neighbour's kids.  Same as highways, you may not drive but...Even the private insurance our US friends pay works the same way, the insurer tries to spread the cost across as large a number of payees as possible.
There's an essential difference between Canada and the US and from what I've heard the Europeans and the US, we have a greater belief in the 'greater good of the many as opposed to the individual'  There's pros and cons for each idea but that's the way it is.

Also there is 1 year maternity leave deal...yes it exists here, it was 6 months but due to a good economy and a HUGE surplus in our unemployment insurance fund the Gov't decided to use some of the surplus to fund 1 year parental leave, part of which can be taken by either parent. 
Many question using that surplus in premiums which is paid for by both workers and employers (33/67% I think) it has been very successful.  I wish I would have been able to stay home with my girls when they were babys but my wife spending 6 months with them was still good.

I'll get in on this one just to add a bit more to this topic.  I'm Canadian and there are some problems with our medical system just as there are everywhere.  Part of the problem is with governments fighting over who should pay for what and how they should pay.   But even though I have a good job with benefits I don't thinkI'll be giving up my citizenship to move south.  What's wrong with the entire tax paying public subsidizing the health care system....it works the same for education...if you don't have kids some of your tax $$ go to pay for your neighbour's kids.  Same as highways, you may not drive but...Even the private insurance our US friends pay works the same way, the insurer tries to spread the cost across as large a number of payees as possible.
There's an essential difference between Canada and the US and from what I've heard the Europeans and the US, we have a greater belief in the 'greater good of the many as opposed to the individual'  There's pros and cons for each idea but that's the way it is.

Also there is 1 year maternity leave deal...yes it exists here, it was 6 months but due to a good economy and a HUGE surplus in our unemployment insurance fund the Gov't decided to use some of the surplus to fund 1 year parental leave, part of which can be taken by either parent. 
Many question using that surplus in premiums which is paid for by both workers and employers (33/67% I think) it has been very successful.  I wish I would have been able to stay home with my girls when they were babys but my wife spending 6 months with them was still good.

The American right-wing has launched a full-scale cultural war against our tax-payer funded schools system.  Like I said, it's all "I me mine" with no sense of civic duty.
Only a fool would believe there's a perfect healthcare system the government could institute and live happily ever after.  There are always going to be problems.  The system will always be need adjustments.  It will always be a source of political contentions.
My argument is most American pay much more for healthcare plans now than they would under a nationalized system.  Tens of millions will lose their health coverage if they lose their jobs.  The number of Americans at any given time who have NO health coverage is equal to the entire population of Canada and Australia combined.  Thousands more lose coverage every day.
Objectors always point on waiting periods for surgery, as though America in all its ingenuity couldn't set up a better system.  Talk about pessimism.

The bottom line is that there will always be a waiting list for surgery. Depending on the surgery, people can wait years for it here in Australia, even those who have private health insurance. And if it's considered "elective" surgery -- surgery for something that can be treated by other means in the interim, or something that is reasonably cosmetic -- sometimes the waiting lists are very, very long. Australia's socialised health care system was introduced in the early 1970s and in general works pretty well. The big problem with the system is that in recent times, the Federal Government thought to ease the burden on the Medicare system by "encouraging" more people to take up private health insurance, an industry which was in slow decline due to the high dependence on the socialised health care system. Private health funds launched massive campaigns to enrol new members and at one point the Government was offering incentives to people under 30 to join up before they turned 30. Of course the doctors then jumped on the bandwagon and began withdrawing from the Medicare system, charging up-front fees for consultations with the knowledge that with the increase in private care patients, more people would be able to afford the fees. Now the socialised system is in crisis because the majority of people -- who still don't have private insurance or whose private insurance is inadequate -- can no longer find a decent doctor who still uses the socialised system. Of the dozens of doctors in my area, only one still accepts Medicare cards. All the rest charge a consultation fee. The problem is so bad, the Government is now trying to implement incentives to encourage doctors to return to the socialised system, a system that was arguably one of the world's best until it was destroyed by greed.

The question is a philosophical one.  Should access to modern medicine be a right based on humanity or a privilege based on income?

The question is a philosophical one.  Should access to modern medicine be a right based on humanity or a privilege based on income?

How about a right based on income?  How about we have consistent rules about property rights--we could call it, I don't know, the "rule of law", or something.  That way, everyone would know that anything you earn would belong to you, and the right to do with your property as you please would be something others could only take away if you were actually harming someone else.  I know it's an outrageous notion, but wouldn't it be cool if people couldn't take your stuff just because they "need" it?  All right, back to fantasyland for me.

How about a right based on income?  How about we have consistent rules about property rights--we could call it, I don't know, the "rule of law", or something.  That way, everyone would know that anything you earn would belong to you, and the right to do with your property as you please would be something others could only take away if you were actually harming someone else.  I know it's an outrageous notion, but wouldn't it be cool if people couldn't take your stuff just because they "need" it?  All right, back to fantasyland for me.

Yup, as long as we live in a society, you're sure to have plenty to bellyache about!

Socialism and fascism have failed.  We can look at the no-doubt failing healthcare of Canada and Germany and see that socialism is a bust.  Cuba has failed too.  If you want to see what the far-left wants to take this country look at the European Union.  In countries like Germany they praise the lord and think the economy is going great when they have a 10% unemployment rate.  No one can argue Germany isn't far-left.  A socialist, anti-2nd amendment, pro-vulgar material on the airwaves, for legal drugs, secular, bad economy is what the Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the far-left democratic party want to take us to.  Read ''A National Party No More'' by Zell Miller.  He talks and proves how the far-left has stole the democratic party from the more rational moderate to conservative democrats.  We see how liberal government has failed California, and how a republican has cleaned it up with a near 70% approval rating in one of the most liberal U.S. states.  I give the democrats one thing, their policies are no-doubt a very nice thoughtful idea, but they don't work.  Being a democrat is simple, its based on emotion, not reason.

Socialism and fascism have failed.  We can look at the no-doubt failing healthcare of Canada and Germany and see that socialism is a bust.  Cuba has failed too.  If you want to see what the far-left wants to take this country look at the European Union.  In countries like Germany they praise the lord and think the economy is going great when they have a 10% unemployment rate.  No one can argue Germany isn't far-left.  A socialist, anti-2nd amendment, pro-vulgar material on the airwaves, for legal drugs, secular, bad economy is what the Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the far-left democratic party want to take us to.  Read ''A National Party No More'' by Zell Miller.  He talks and proves how the far-left has stole the democratic party from the more rational moderate to conservative democrats.  We see how liberal government has failed California, and how a republican has cleaned it up with a near 70% approval rating in one of the most liberal U.S. states.  I give the democrats one thing, their policies are no-doubt a very nice thoughtful idea, but they don't work.  Being a democrat is simple, its based on emotion, not reason.


Once again you have taken a thread and turned it into one of your anti-democrat rants ::)

The question has NOTHING to do with what democrats or republicans have done in California.

And once again I would like to remind you that Canada is not, I repeat NOT a socialist country. And do you wanna know how I know this? Because I actually live here! ;)

, I repeat NOT a socialist country. And do you wanna know how I know this? Because I actually live here! ;)


Okay you live there.  Big deal.  People know facts and assume things about other countries without living there.  I know Canada's political climate, its far-left fanatical socialist government.  On a side note about Canada:

''A recent poll taken in Canada says that 40% of Canadian teenagers believe the United States is an "evil" country. Among French-Canadian teens, the number rises to 64%. This, of course, is hard to believe, and must be laid right on the doorstep of the often viciously anti-American Canadian press as well as irresponsible educators supposedly teaching Canadian kids about the world.
And all over the world, America is getting slaughtered in the arena of public opinion. Therefore, what can we expect from children? When government funded press agencies like the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation portray America as the world's chief villain, there's little anyone can do to balance the picture. The Fox News Channel, for example, isn't even allowed in Canada.

So for the benefit of the Canadian kids, and, indeed, children all over the world, I am going to set the record straight right here in this column.

Let's start with an undeniable fact: The United States of America has set more people free than any other country in the history of mankind. We all know about World War II, but here's what's happened recently:

In Eastern Europe, the policies of Ronald Reagan led to the freeing of at least 122 million people from Soviet domination.


More than 48 million South Koreans remain free because of American protection.


Nearly 23 million Taiwanese remain free because of American protection.


The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.


By removing the brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and Britain have given almost 50 million people at least a shot at some kind of self-determination. Also, the American-driven campaign against the butcher Milosovic in the Balkans saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them Muslims.


America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million.
And those countries have the nerve to portray America as a villain? How many human beings has France freed over the past 60 years? The same question can be asked of Canada. Yes, those nations have helped the USA on occasion, but they are drifting away from reality now.
It's not only Canadians and the French who are misguided about the USA; there's also a fifth column in America itself. The "anarchists" are hoping to disrupt the Republican convention in New York City. Police believe they will use violent means to do so.

And the verbal violence on display daily by partisan fanatics is growing more despicable by the moment. Michael Moore and his acolytes hide behind the "dissent" label, but they are not dissenters, they're destroyers. Moore has been quoted as saying capitalism is "diabolical," even as he trucks his millions to the bank. By the way, did you know that associates of Hezbollah want to help distribute Moore's movie in the Middle East? What does that tell you?

The truth is that America is a great country striving to protect itself in an ungrateful and dangerous world. We, the people, have sacrificed blood and money so others could have a chance in life. Yet many teenagers in Canada are convinced we are an evil nation. The powers-that-be in Canada should be ashamed that their young people are so ignorant but I know they are not. Ignorance, you see, is most often a contagious disease.'' -Bill O'Reilly.

--CNN but no Fox News.  Also O'Reilly here is suppose to announce that Canada is now going to allow Al-Jazeera, but still no Fox.

You know you should really give credit where credit is due. I have never said anything about this before, but now I must ask. Do you actually have an opinion of your own, or do you always cut and paste other peoples opinions and pass them off as your own?

Everything written above was actually written by Bill O'Reilly. And was posted on the Fox News website ::)

America is sending $3 billion a year to Africa to combat the AIDS epidemic. By comparison Canada is sending $270 million, France a paltry $60 million. And those countries have the nerve to portray America as a villain?

Yeah Canada contributes less. BTW have you ever happened to compare the population of Canada to the United States? ::)

Oh yeah and you make it sound as though the canadian government has outlawed Fox News from airing up here in Canada. And you complain that Al Jazeera is allowed to air.

Let me set you straight. The reason Fox News isn't aired up here is because nobody has asked for it. There is no demand whatsoever. Al Jazeera on the other hand has however been asked for.

The state of Israel and five and a half million Jews would be crushed by its enemies if not for American aid.

Please refresh my memory. How many UN resolutions has Israel defied? So when some countries defy UN resolutions you invade them. When others defy them, you give them aid.

Lemme try this...


You know you should really give credit where credit is due. I have never said anything about this before, but now I must ask. Do you actually have an opinion of your own, or do you always cut and paste other peoples opinions and pass them off as your own?

Everything written above was actually written by Bill O'Reilly. And was posted on the Fox News website ::)

Fox News isn't really fair and balanced in my view, it's just a different viewpoint than the mainstream media, which is quite honestly a breath of fresh air.  But at least he tries to source his articles :)


Yeah Canada contributes less. BTW have you ever happened to compare the population of Canada to the United States? ::)

Oh yeah and you make it sound as though the canadian government has outlawed Fox News from airing up here in Canada. And you complain that Al Jazeera is allowed to air.

Let me set you straight. The reason Fox News isn't aired up here is because nobody has asked for it. There is no demand whatsoever. Al Jazeera on the other hand has however been asked for.

I'm wondering why people ask for Al Jazeera.  The only reason I'd thought of is that they wanna see more live beheadings :P  I love Canada though.  Having only 40 million people to tax probably makes it harder to distribute money and stuff, especially when a million of them live in the cold boonies and the taxman probably doesn't like going there to audit :D  (kidding)



Please refresh my memory. How many UN resolutions has Israel defied? So when some countries defy UN resolutions you invade them. When others defy them, you give them aid.




We've actually talked about this before.  Google the UN resolutions based on Israel and you'll notice that the timing has a certain pattern:

1.  Israel gets attacked by some foreign country;

2.  Israel fights back;

3.  UN says, "No, no, play nice" and Israel has to give back all the land that it took from the country it just beat the crap out of because they were posing.

Not really defending Israel, just telling you that it's not as cut and dry as the numbers say.

PS I'm of the opinion that the US of A should take care of itself first (what with unemployment and crack babies and all) but the counterargument is that since we are such a huge target we have to make nice with everybody else so they don't attack us because they're jealous *shrug*

I'd rather have my tax dollars go towards an outreach program or a food shelter than some ungrateful South Korean who thinks the US is trying to oppress them when we're just about the only thing stopping the hordes of North Koreans from throwing down.

Okay you live there.  Big deal.  People know facts and assume things about other countries without living there.  I know Canada's political climate, its far-left fanatical socialist government.  On a side note about Canada:

Ok I live here, Big deal!? I think I know a little bit more about my government than you. It's painfully obvious when you describe the Liberal Party as an " Extreme left, socialist" party.

How many times will I have to say this before it sinks in "CANADA IS NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY!!!!!" And "IT IS NOT GOVERNED BY A SOCIALIST PARTY!!!!!! Sheesh! ::)

Everything written above was actually written by Bill O'Reilly. And was posted on the Fox News website ::)




Oh yeah and you make it sound as though the canadian government has outlawed Fox News from airing up here in Canada. And you complain that Al Jazeera is allowed to air.

Let me set you straight. The reason Fox News isn't aired up here is because nobody has asked for it. There is no demand whatsoever. Al Jazeera on the other hand has however been asked for.








Okay first off I gave credit to O'Reilly, I didn't try to pass that off as my own, I use sources, facts, evidence, something most liberals don't.

Okay maybe (or maybe not) their is no demand for Fox News in Canada, no big deal.  But when Canada's government goes out of its way to fine someone who went out of their way to get Fox News $25,000 dollars that is flat-out censorship.  They don't want a tradional news station like Fox, they want secular liberal crap like CNN and cBS (and I mean BS.)  Maybe Canada has no socialist party like France, but its liberal, i've visited the place, ITS LIBERAL.  I don't mind that,I just want Canada to keep to itself.

Okay maybe (or maybe not) their is no demand for Fox News in Canada, no big deal.  But when Canada's government goes out of its way to fine someone who went out of their way to get Fox News $25,000 dollars that is flat-out censorship.  They don't want a tradional news station like Fox, they want secular liberal crap like CNN and cBS (and I mean BS.)  Maybe Canada has no socialist party like France, but its liberal, i've visited the place, ITS LIBERAL.  I don't mind that,I just want Canada to keep to itself.



Nobody was fined in Canada for watching Fox News. ::) They were fined $25 000 for having an illegal satellite hook up. And usually a fine that big is reserved for a dealer who is providing it's customers illegal signals. Bill O'Reilly cracks me up when he tries to make it look like Canada is somehow afraid of him and his opinions ::)

And yes, Canada is liberal. But when was the last time you saw canadians trying to force anything down your throat? Why do you care so much whether or not we are a liberal country?

You complain about the CBC being anti american. Why do you say that? Because that is what Bill O'Reilly says? You have absolutely no idea what my local news station reports every night, so don't be like  Mr. O'Reilly and tell me what I watch on the news.

Okay first off I gave credit to O'Reilly, I didn't try to pass that off as my own, I use sources, facts, evidence, something most liberals don't.


People know facts and assume things about other countries without living there

Usually when someone assumes something it's because they don't have all the facts

Bill O'Reilly cracks me up when he tries to make it look like Canada is somehow afraid of him and his opinions ::)


You complain about the CBC being anti american. Why do you say that? Because that is what Bill O'Reilly says? You have absolutely no idea what my local news station reports every night, so don't be like  Mr. O'Reilly and tell me what I watch on the news.
 

I said CBS, not CBC.  I have never heard of this CBC before.  Okay and I do not parrot O'Reilly often, this is the first time i've done it in a long time. 

And no I guess Canada isn't afraid of O'Reilly.  But Canada should be afraid of the U.S., whose military could crush Canada, in about 3 weeks.  We're better, higher standard of living, better stronger military, richer, and guess what?  Left-winged policies didn't do that.

And no I guess Canada isn't afraid of O'Reilly.  But Canada should be afraid of the U.S., whose military could crush Canada, in about 3 weeks.  We're better, higher standard of living, better stronger military, richer, and guess what?  Left-winged policies didn't do that.


You can say something so arrogant and totally not related to the topic at hand, and still sit there and wonder why the United States might be the seen as the villain of the world? ::)

Those don't seem to be the words of someone who is trying to unite the world.

Hey here's an idea. The next time Bill O'Reilly wants to write an open letter to the world you can ask him to include your above mentioned post. Just tell the world to like you because if they don't, you'll make them.

A bully is a bully, is a bully...

Why do people always insist on using the word "liberal" as a dirty word. According to my Webster's Dictionary it means tolerent, not strict, and generous. To me those are good words. But it seems that a certain person here likes to use to the word to attack anyone who who is left of his views-which is probably just about everyone because I think he would love to have this country a fascist state. He has instisted upon making every issue a democrat/republican issue and stooping to calling people names. The dems (and everyone else) is wrong and he is the only right one-without anything to back up his claims except for words of notorious liars.

As to our friends (and I do mean that-FRIENDS) north of the border, I have a great respect for you and your country. I think our country can really learn from yours-and maybe you can learn from ours too. Please don't take these ranting by someone who isn't informed except from what he hears by liars as how most of us in the U.S. feel about you or your country.



BTW, I am very PROUD to call myself a LIBERAL!!! It is because of that, I can except differences in ALL aspects of life-race, religion, and even political beliefs.



Cat

BTW, I am very PROUD to call myself a LIBERAL!!! It is because of that, I can except differences in ALL aspects of life-race, religion, and even political beliefs.



Cat


Maybe Kerry should take a lesson from you.  He is ranked the #1 liberal in the U.S. senate, why not say that in his commercials?

But Canada should be afraid of the U.S., whose military could crush Canada, in about 3 weeks.  .
Good God. I started this post asking our Canadian members about their health-care system. This is a country which the United States has enjoyed peaceful relations with for over 200 years and who has never even considered taking any kind of hostile action against us, and you're actually thinking of them in terms of being a potential military adversary??? Just because they have a slightly different form of government??? What kind of lunacy is that?!?
     I have been to Canada several times, and was always impressed at how courteous and polite the people were up there. And no, Canada should NOT be afraid of the U.S. I would just like to add that the overwhelming majority of Americans think of (and have ALWAYS thought of) Canadians as being our friends, and never anything otherwise. 
     Is this what the political climate in America has come to? Can't people disagree without getting all hateful and wanting to kick everyone's @ss and call each other names?
     

Sorry, I disagree with this.  Here in IL, I see TONS of these people all of the time.  I know in MA, it is difficult to get public aid and there's a limit on how long, etc., but here in IL, it's not so.  I used to work with people who worked to get themselves fired as they were making too much $$ and didn't want to lose their "Section 8" and Medicaid (even though they were getting free benefits from the company, but had to pay a copay).  A neighbor used to work for a doctor who "certified" that people were "disabled" so they wouldn't lose their benefits.  I've worked at a few restaurants where the waitresses were paid in cash AND received PA.  On a weekend night, they would pull down a couple hundred dollars.  So, don't tell me that the abuses of "the system" are few and far between.  I've seen it too much to buy it.

I know, I know, poor people balance between the workforce and the welfare state to make ends meet.  If you've got a nice pad on Section 8, why would you lose those benefits and wind up in a hellhole?  Let's face it, most people in poverty--especially disabled people--stand little chance of climbing their way out in today's America.  Being poor is an endless struggle of making do and choosing the less harrowing of circumstances.  I'm sick of hearing people get their jollies bashing the poor.  It's absolutely, positively disgusting and morally repugnant to me!!!  Most people in this country are a couple of paychecks away from disaster.  We need to be calling the power structure of America to the carpet, and holding it accountable.  The more you recite anectodes about how welfare people have it cushy, and go on with Reaganesque Johnny-Do-Right-Horatio Alger flapdoodle the more you give your OK to the social and economic injustices that prevale.

In countries like Germany they praise the lord and think the economy is going great when they have a 10% unemployment rate.  No one can argue Germany isn't far-left.  A socialist, anti-2nd amendment, pro-vulgar material on the airwaves, for legal drugs, secular, bad economy is what the Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the far-left democratic party want to take us to.  Read ''A National Party No More'' by Zell Miller.  He talks and proves how the far-left has stole the democratic party from the more rational moderate to conservative democrats.  We see how liberal government has failed California, and how a republican has cleaned it up with a near 70% approval rating in one of the most liberal U.S. states.  I give the democrats one thing, their policies are no-doubt a very nice thoughtful idea, but they don't work.  Being a democrat is simple, its based on emotion, not reason.


Germany is far-left IF you don't know what "far-left" is.  The 2nd Amendment is not relevant to Germany, do you know why?  Zell Miller is a nasty old cracker.  His rhetoric is hysterical reactionary spin.  'Nuff said.

''A recent poll taken in Canada says that 40% of Canadian teenagers believe the United States is an "evil" country. Among French-Canadian teens, the number rises to 64%.
Polls, polls, polls, always with these flaky polls.  See here, whatever the percentage is, you can be sure it's gone WAY UP since George W. Bush took his stolen office.  When you have a Republican lapdog press that insults you all day long, calls you disloyal, ridicules your culture, threatens your economy, and generally spits in your eye, DON"T BE SURPRISED WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF UNWANTED.  I don't know for sure, but I'll bet Al Jazeera hasn't heaped on the kind of anti-Canada abuse FNC dishes out!
The Bush Administration and their media lackeys have nothing to offer but bluster, jingoism, bigotry, ignorance, and lies.  Canada knows this, most of the world knows this, and they're sick of it.
The imperial attitude from the Bushies is, "hey, you little sniveling twerpy Europeans, Uncle Sam's saved you bacon a hundred times, so you just quit yer whining and show Dubya some respect!"  It goes against the very grain of human psychology to expect people--whether individuals or nations--to RESPECT you when you treat them like that!
Now, bully philosophers from Caesar to Machiavelli to Kissinger all agreed it was better to be feared than to be loved.  The Bush Administration, and the its adherent yahoos, like an abusive father, demand to be FEARED and LOVED.
The foreign policy damage done by this Administration has barely even begun to manifest itself.  It is imperitive for our national security that we get rid of the PUNKS occupying the Administrative branch of the federal government!!!
>:(

These weren't people who "stood little chance of climbing their way out".  These were people who were working a fairly easy job making $16/hour TO START.  By March, they had almost made more $$ than is allowed per annum and were not in danger of losing their "pad", they would only have had to pay an additional $425/month for their rent.  Of course, they would've had to give up their new Grand Cherokees, Fendi purses and Tommy Hilfiger clothes, but hey, who am I to complain ???  I have no problem helping those who truly are disabled or who are truly trying to better themselves.  The people I'm sick of supporting are those who think the government "owes" them something and are too darned lazy to help themselves to anything other than a handout.

There's a whole lot more to this that you're not saying or you don't know, and probably both!
:)

Maybe Kerry should take a lesson from you.  He is ranked the #1 liberal in the U.S. senate, why not say that in his commercials?


I don't think he is the most liberal in the Senate and if he is, in my book, that is a good thing. And besides, what does this have to do with the topic of Canadian health care?



Cat

Well, you're right, there is alot more to this story that I didn't say...like the fact that her boyfriend was a drug dealer and she said TO ME "Oh well, if I go over before I get fired, I can always just have another baby" ::)

She's the type of person who would really take the lessons of welfare reform to heart.  If there were not welfare benefits she'd work 9 to 5 and live in a Norman Rockwell house with a white picket fence.  After all, it's welfare that MAKES women have out-of-wedlock babies and go out with drug dealers!

SO, I guess we should just get rid of welfare so these people will stop having multiple babies by multiple daddies ::)

I think we need a serious return to family values.  However, the right-wingers who talk about "family values" have NO INTENTION of reforming our social and economic priorities to foster economic and familial stability.  Whether it's Pat Robertson or Tom De Lay, the "family values" rhetoric from the right is only there to whip up blame, scapegoating, and resentment.  The Right likes to blame the welfare state, rap music, and Hollywood for the destruction of the American family.  They get the gullible to flock to the polls in a "culture" and "values" based campaign.

However, the root of the problem isn't the welfare state.  The welfare state is a result of the problem.  What we have is an economy geared exclusively to profit the rich, NOT to engender stability and dignity for the masses.

Your rap music and Hollywood trash exists because it sells.  It sells because corporations create it, test, it market it, and rake it in.  A welfare-scamming mom and a two-bit crack dealer are just pawns in the game.

Here in Massachusetts they put such strictures and limitations on public benefits that even those who need them desperately can't get them.  As the business parties boast of how much the welfare rolls have fallen, the folks who run the shelters and the food pantries will tell you a story of desperation unheard of in decades. 

You can take away social services, but if you allow the same greedy economic priorities to persist, you WILL see our social infrastructure sloching backwards--all the way to 1900 if you let it.

I really don't give a d*mn about the nefarious behavior of certain individuals.  If a woman has seven kids by three fathers, or three kids by seven fathers, these children are still flesh and blood and soul, same as you and me.  Those vulnerable children are the ones I'm concerned for.

 I'm sick of hearing people get their jollies bashing the poor.  It's absolutely, positively disgusting and morally repugnant to me!!!  


And I'm sick of hearing people making themselves feel morally superior bashing the successful.  They don't do their beloved poor people any favors by telling them that they're not responsible for their problems, there's nothing they can do about them, and it's all the fault of those evil rich people.  Because that's an unhealthy load of crap right there, and they're doing more to perpetuate the difficulties of the disadvantaged than any sinister corporation ever could, by excusing them from the work of self-reliance.  I hope it makes them feel good about themselves, because I find it absolutely , positively disgusting.  Oh, and morally repugnant.

And I'm sick of hearing people making themselves feel morally superior bashing the successful.
I don't do that.  Never have.

  They don't do their beloved poor people any favors by telling them that they're not responsible for their problems, there's nothing they can do about them, and it's all the fault of those evil rich people.  Because that's an unhealthy load of crap right there, and they're doing more to perpetuate the difficulties of the disadvantaged than any sinister corporation ever could, by excusing them from the work of self-reliance
I don't do that either.  Never have.

Personal responsibility and collective responsibility are interconnected.  I don't believe you can isolate the the individual, the family, and society at any level.

Do you think George W. Bush got to be President by way of rugged individualism?
;D

"I am I and my circumstance."
--Jose Ortega y Gassett

I don't do that.  Never have.

I don't do that either.  Never have.

Oh, good.  I must've been mistaken.  I thought you were saying that it's the greed of the economically successful that keeps the poor from succeeding as well.  I'm glad I was wrong.


Personal responsibility and collective responsibility are interconnected.  I don't believe you can isolate the the individual, the family, and society at any level.


As always, this is the heart of our disagreement.  "Collective responsibility" is too subjective to be meaningful; you can interpret it in any way you see fit, to benefit whomever you choose, at the expense of whomever you choose.   There's virtually no limit to how much you can take from one group to give to the other in the name of "collective responsibility".  Individual rights are superior and more meaningful because they're clear, limited, and don't give government carte blanche to trample anybody's rights for the "public good" or whatever nonsense term you want to use.


Do you think George W. Bush got to be President by way of rugged individualism?
;D

Well, no, but when I think of "rugged individuals", politicians are generally the last ones that would come to mind.  They're all parasites and not to be trusted under any circumstances.



"I am I and my circumstance."
--Jose Ortega y Gassett

"Doo wah diddy diddy dum diddy doo."
--Manfred Mann