This seemed to come up every now and then, especially when the Cold War made the military cross borders a lot for training or manning of the DEW line, and especially when Quebec voted whether to split off.
We’re already the longest un-defended border, and the best customers of each others goods. And many Canadians read and watch mostly US media.
OK, you can become a state. Start passing out the petitions.
The problem as I see it is that Canada can’t get into a decent war by itself, so you have to do something about tthat first.
No friggin’ way…they use Monopoly money!
No thanks. I’d rather be a part of a cultural mosaic than a melting pot; I’d rather live in an officially bilingual country than an unofficially monolingual one; I’d rather have medicare than insurance and crossed fingers.
Matt
Is it true that Robert Bourassa (then Premier of Quebec) charted a plane at his own expense in August 1990 to visit the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda when he discovered he had melanoma? Also, is it true that he returned the following November for an operation?
Is it true that Margaret Marland, a Member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament, joined a private health care organization after one of her staff spent three days on a stretcher in an emergency room, eventually checking himself out and going home?
Is it true that a 1990 report by Canada’s Fraser Institute showed that “the average waiting period for patients in British Columbia is 23.7 weeks for coronary bypass surgery, 16.3 weeks for a hysterectomy, 21.4 weeks for certain open heart procedures and 30.9 weeks for a prostatectomy”?
Is it true that, as of 1992, Newfoundland (pop. 570,000) had one working CAT-scanner, and that in all of Canada, there were only 15 MRI machines, compared to 2,000 in the U.S.?
Is the following story true?
What about this one?
Source: The National Center for Public Policy Research
Canada is as much a cosmopolitan large nation as is the US. Actually, it is the closest thing to the US in composition among “foreign” places. To say Canada could become a state is like suggesting Texas would make a nice additional county to New Mexico. At minimum if there were a merger the ten provinces would each become states.
Bigger is not always better. (Or Roseanne Barr would be a Penthouse centerspread.) Would it be beneficial to either nation for them to become one?
I find that the “second opinion” phenomenon resulting from there being two nations far outweighs the potential benefits of union. Granted that much of this is “a domination by the U.S. of Canadian markets, airwaves, etc.” if looked at parochially, each crossfertilizes the other. (My perspective here is probably skewed by growing up in one of the few US areas that is heavily affected by Canada – the three networks we watched when I was a child were CBS, NBC, and CBC, adding ABC, CTV, and Global in my teens.) I think the divergent paths taken by the two nations towards such things as minority languages, gay rights, gun control, prove my point about the benefits of separate status, whatever stand you may take on the issues individually: It’s worth knowing what would happen if we did X by trying it out on one side of the border or the other.
The policies of Her Majesty’s Canadian Government at the moment no more reflect Canada as a nation than do the policies of the Clinton Administration reflect the U.S. I.e., the majority favors them for now, but that could easily change. So whether publicly supported (and perhaps lacking) medical treatment on the Canadian model or the admixture of public, private, welfare-capitalist, and absent medical care that characterizes US medicine at present is better in general and in specific terms is not germane except as a question to be answered either individually by the two nations or jointly by them united.
An intelligent coordinated economic and defense program is probably very wise. This could include a joint currency – I do find the greater inflation on the Canadian dollar annoying, having grown up where 2/3 of the quarters had eagles on the back and the other 1/3 beavers, but they were worth the same. And this does not necessarily entail political union.
Finally, there is a tacit assumption by “Americans” (“USAnians”) that “Canada would join us.” What about, as a thought experiment, looking at what a possible union into a new nation would be like? For that matter, what about looking at it the other way around, with the US joining Canada?
Just as a side question, this question always involves Canada, never Mexico. Do you want to expand the “what if”? Or are common language and basic Anglo-based culture the key ingredients?
I dunno. Do you think they could assimilate 50 new provinces?
Um, 51. You forgot the District of Corruption.
DC isn’t a state, it’s a colony. Talk about taxation without representation…
Well, Canada also speaks French, but Quebec aside, our two nations do share a common heritage: the rule of law, respect for the rights of the individual, and the language of Shakespeare. However, Canada is a sovereign nation proud of its culture and identity, and it’s insulting to them to think they should be glad to give up their sovereignty just to be part of the USA.
I have to give mad props to Mexico for voting in PAN’s Vincente Fox and ending PRI’s 71-year monopoly of rule. OTOH, Mexico is a Spanish-speaking, third world, feudal oligarchy with which we have nothing in common.
A merger would be a bad deal for the US. Why would we want to deal with Quebec, massive amounts of land owned by the native Americans, high inflation, no army to speak of, a socialist system of taxation and medecine, when we are so successful on our own?
No, I don’t want to merge with them. I want to ANNEX them. Or at least the good parts. move the troops north! Bomb Ontario! Take over the good side of Niagara Falls!
That’s what this country really needs–an overnight influx of 30M liberal socialists overnight.
Now, if we annexed it, but sent the natives packing back where they came from (oh, say, NY, PA, MA), then just geographically chop off that absess from the main body of the US, we might be onto something.
Hey there Libertarian. You know, as much as I resent the fact that my government legislates the proportion of Canadian culture that I must endure, uses my proverbial tax dollars to underwrite multiculturalism (and the maintenance of the parochial, tribal and special interests that go along with that), and guarantees that children have the right to be educated in religious schools funded by federal money (so long as the religion in question is the one practised by one of our founding peoples), I still can’t agree with most of your diatribe against our health care system.
You provide anecdotes that illustrate the fact that things aren’t perfect. Fine, but for every Canadian who falls through the cracks in the health care system, there are 1000’s of Americans who don’t even have a system to fall through.
You cite statistics concerning MRI machines and the like. Tell me. What is the correct number of machines per unit population? I suspect that there are too many in the USA. They’re being used frivolously and, along the way, generate too many “false positives” which, in turn, leads to more harm than good. Similarly, there is good data to suggest that bypass surgery is overused in the States.
I will agree with something implicit in your post, though. We are not allowed to purchase additional health care in Canada. We can buy the services of the “best” lawyer, send our kids to the “best” private schools, pay to see the “best” dentists, etc., but we can’t buy an expedited MRI scan if we are so inclined (no matter how ill conceived). It is this type of restriction that irks me so.
KarlGauss
Greetings. A series of questions is hardly a diatribe.
But for your edification, here is what is called a gratuitous assertion:
Not to mention vague.
Well, I suspect that ought to be up to doctors, and not bureaucrats, to decide.
I’m sure there must be. You did, after all, say it.
Well, you could always charter a plane. For now.
Sorry, but I can’t resist:
Is it true that the number of Americans without health insurance exceeds the entire population of Canada?
Is it true that the U.S. spends more of its GDP on public health care than Canada? (Give your head a few shakes to get rid of the cognitive dissonance caused by the juxtaposition of this and the previous sentence).
Is it true that the U.S. is dead last out of the top 24 nations in the world for infant mortality rates (and that the black infant mortality rate is two to two and a half times that of the white infant mortality rate)?
Is it true that “[a] 27-year-old man from central California was given a heart transplant, and was discharged from the hospital after only four days because his HMO wouldn’t pay for additional hospitalization. Nor would the HMO pay for the bandages needed to treat the man’s infected surgical wound. The patient died.”
Is it true that “A Texas woman with a disabled 11-year-old son was told that her managed care plan was retroactively denying payment for all oxygen, nursing care, respirator supplies, speech therapy, and incontinence supplies because, the case manager said, ‘Your son costs too much money.’”?
Is it true that "A healthy 2-year-old boy was taken to a local hospital after a fall, with a stick lodged between his upper lip and gums. Once there, health care personnel repeatedly misdiagnosed the boy’s condition, and, mindful of the HMO’s cost-consciousness, refused to authorize an $800 CT scan that would have confirmed that he was developing a brain abscess. As a result of this poor treatment, the boy was left blind and brain damaged. "?
I would think that the greater difference between our two lovely, wonderful, bestest in the entirest worldest countries would be legal and bureaucratic. The only word to describe the forcible merger of Ottawa with Washington, D.C. is “kafkaesque”.
You are probably right. We should cut back on objective diagnostic tests to improve medical care.
[quote]
I will agree with something implicit in your post, though. We are not allowed to purchase additional health care in Canada. We can buy the services of the “best” lawyer, send our kids to the “best” private schools, pay to see the “best” dentists, etc., but we can’t buy an expedited MRI scan if we are so inclined (no matter how ill conceived). [/quote}
And there we have a beautiful example of the liberal idea. Rather than making people who fail to plan, fail to buy insurance or fail to think ahead responsible for their own failures, it is better to punish those who do think ahead.
“Mediocrity for all rather than merit based results!” We could put that on the new flag.
(BTW, there is currently healthcare available for everyone in the US. IT is the big secret that the socialized medecine folks don’t want you to know.)
Mr. Zambezi said:
I would be most interested in seeing your substantiation of this assertion.
In the interim, my thought would be, it’s a true statement. And there’s nothing stopping the kid who waited on me at Burger King yesterday from going out and buying a 2000 Beemer. IF he can afford it.
In our free nation, you can have all the healthcare you wish:[li]If you have the money to pay for it, or[/li][li]If your health insurance will cover it, or[/li][li]If you are on Medicare and it is covered, or[/li][li]If you are eligible for Medicaid and it is covered, or[/li][li]If you are being treated by medical professionals who care enough to give the necessary coverage regardless of whether they are paid, or who have a write-off program built into their policies (as did the hospital my parents died in).[/li]
Otherwise, saying “it’s available” is like saying that I could buy my wife all the jewelry in the local jewelry store. They’d be more than happy to sell it, if I could afford to pay for it.
If, Mr. Z., you know something that makes medical care available to the working poor, to people whose eligibility for social service benefits has expired, etc., I’d welcome your posting it. I’ve been personally acquainted with people who literally had to choose between new clothes for the kids and paying the rent. And there was no government help available for them. (I interceded with an interchurch group to get them help when I found out about it, for the record. But I assume you’re not suggesting that all the healthcare needs of America should be subsumed by private charity where income is not sufficient to pay.)
Now, having made these remarks, can I draw everyone’s attention back to the idea that the OP was not about what is wrong with the American or Canadian health care systems – particularly as observed across the border?
If we assume that somebody is going to propose a fantastic new system that imposes on nobody’s personal rights and provides for everyone’s needs, probably by selling the feathers plucked from pigs as they fly by, can we debate the question of whether there is benefit in merging the two countries and not their supposed health care “systems”?
Well, I can’t speak for the rest of Canada, but leave Quebec (and mostly Montreal) out of this.
I like living in a city that has that has very few churches (compared to other Canadian and American cities).
I like gun control.
I like living in an environment that is not corrupted by Anglo-protestant puritanical values (read: breasts on TV are OK).
I like bilingualism.
The rest of Canada is pretty much American anyway, but Montreal cannot be put in the same category. OK… Now that I’ve had this moment of blind patriotism (at least in the municipal sense), I feel all icky and must go take a shower.
I would have agreed with you 5 years ago. But now that my wife and most of her friends work in hospitals, I have changed my mind. Anybody can go to a state hospital and receive treatment regardless of ability to pay if their condition is serious.
At Denver general, the waiting room is filled with indigents, illegals, and the chronically poor. None are refused treatment. SUre, they have to wai a few hours but they get treated.
And ave you ever heard of anti-dumping laws. A patient can’t be transferred because of a lack of insurance if their life is in jeapordy.
Furhtermore, my wife has worked at no less than 15 clinics within 20 miles of our house that provide free care to the uninsured, most of which were funded by the state or federal government.
You make it sound as if when tyou call 911, they wont send the ambulance until they confirm your insurance coverage.
This is not to say that anyone can set up an appointment with an OB-gyn, or an ortho and be guaranteed to be seen. Not without paying for it, anyway. But there is a certain baseline of care that is proovided without coverage beyond medicare, medicaid and charity (which add up to quite a bit of coverage by the way.)
You can’t pay for a Yugo and complain that you don’t have a Jag.
Hansel
Oh, don’t apologize. No one expects self-control from liberals. 
Well, the number of Americans named “Frank” probably exceeds the population of Canada. What’s yer point? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release you referenced doesn’t call for socialized medicine. It calls for “the Congress to eliminate the tax code bias against self-employed Americans and individuals who buy their own health coverage by allowing the same full deduction for health care expenses as employers” and other “market-based reform”.
Yes, and it is also true that you left out the next sentence when you quoted the Cato Institute study, that said, “However, such comparisons are seriously misleading.” It then went on to say (and you omitted):
Dang it, man. Did you even read these links you provided?
In this last one, the Tokyo Childbirth Education Association, you’ll see that some of the reasons Japanese women (including Japanese-American women!) have healthier babies is because they take childbirth quite seriously. They don’t have the Jerry Springer mentality that their child is an unfortunate consequence of the fun they were having.
For example, “…Japanese women tend to stay in the hospital for a full week after birth. Following this period, grandmothers help care for the new baby -often assisting for many weeks, and sometimes months.” Heck, you’re lucky in the U.S. if you know who your grandmother is.
Yeah. So you want to put that kind of health care onto everybody?
Libertarian:
It is with disgust that I acknowledge the state of Canada’s healthcare system, but it was working quite well, thank you, before the Progressive Conservative (and there’s an oxymoron) governments of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell, followed by the (neo-)Liberal government of Jean Chrétien and small-c conservative governments in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec defunded the public health care system and promoted the current state of chaos.
“The citizenry insist and insist and insist that they are proud of the Medicare system and that they want it to work. They continually send instructions to this effect to their governments. They do so in every imaginable way. And yet, day by day, the governments and the bureaucracies chip away at the system as if in the hope that, by opening holes in it and creating a new ineffectiveness, the citizenry will drop their commitment to it…There is absolutely no reason why we have to deal with the mid-life crisis of our social policies by putting a bullet through their heads.”