I think the common interests of the U.S. and Canada could make a stronger union, but only if you left out the French-speaking section. If they were included they would whine the French language should be the offical U.S-Canadian language and the rest of us would never hear the end of it.
I like the French language; just not the egoism of the native speakers.
Canada already shares its ABC news anchors, its comedy shows, and production companies with the US. Also, it is US’s largest foreign investor. So why not merge?
Hohenstein: Right. I suppose if your culture, which had been there for four hundred years already, was being swamped by another, you’d make no “fuss” and commit no “arrogance”. Supposing you leave the sociolinguistic analysis to those of us who actually reside in the province.
It bugs me when Americans and english-speaking Canadians think of the French as a cross to bear. The Québécois have contributed disproportionately to Canada’s nation-building. Mackenzie fought in solidarity with Papineau in 1837. Macdonald stood alongside Cartier and Baldwin stood alongside La Fontaine. And let’s not forget arguably the greatest prime minister in Canadian history, the man on the $5 bill - Wilfrid Laurier.
Neither extremist side - the Pequiste view that Canada is a prison, nor the bored Anglophone view that Quebec is a zoo - are borne out by history.
And the short answer to the question “Why doesn’t Canada join the US?” is, not everyone wants you to deign to include them, because not everyone thinks your way is the best.
I can’t think of any good reason to merge with Canada. They seem to be living just fine up there on their own and seem to enjoy being Canadian. I suppose it is possible that one day Canada and the US could be merged. Culturally we are a lot alike and we get along with one another rather well. I just don’t see any overwhelming advantage to either parties to merge.
Marc
Mr. Z. said:
Which casts an interesting light on Libertarian’s reply to hansel:
Ah, I see. The problem isn’t the difficulty of obtaining prenatal OB care for the uninsured, it’s “Jerry Springer mentality”! Gee, sure sounds plausible to me. :rolleyes:
Heck, you’re lucky in the US if your HMO lets you stay in the hospital for four days after birth. And where’s your evidence that grandmothers in the US don’t handle childcare responsibilities? As far as I can tell, grandmothers tend to be strongly connected with their grandchildren across the socioeconomic spectrum in most US communities.
Heck, it’s his link, Kimstu. Bark at him! 
Yes, and his link says—in big black bold letters, conveniently ignored by your interpretation above—the following:
So much for “Jerry Springer mentality” as the dominant factor in infant mortality rates. And you accused hansel of misusing this cite? Wow.
Oh, c’mon, Kim.
Yes, I was kind enough not to criticise the site’s causal fallacies. There are any number of arbitrary factors common among the countries outranking the U.S.
Once, there was a man who drank water mixed with vodka, and got drunk. Then he drank water mixed with bourbon, and got drunk. Finally, he drank water mixed with rum, and got drunk. Guess what his conclusion was?
All I did was ignore the site’s obvious agenda.
Facts are facts, and sometimes can be interpreted many ways (including the way you’re interpreting them). Look at what you quoted here:
The very next sentence is a nonsequitur, presented as implied by the above:
What is the committee trying to say, that the government discriminates in favor of women of Japanese descent? That Japanese-American women break in line? That Japanese-American women have enough foresight to bear children they can afford?
Or what?
Well, if he was a Libertarian, he probably decided that jackbooted lackeys of the tyrannical socialist state were putting drugs in his glass.
It seemed obvious to me that the sentence you cited was a parenthetical remark and that the main argument was the contrast between the two surrounding sentences: “In Japan, pregnant women…” and “In contrast, 25 percent of all US women…” What the committee is trying to say is that better access to prenatal care makes for healthier babies, and that most countries that have healthier babies than the US has provide better access to prenatal care than the US does. Which, if I’m not mistaken, was exactly one of the points hansel was trying to make.
And by the way, being fortunate enough to be able to afford private health insurance is what makes a woman “foresighted” enough to deserve to be a mother? That kindly and supportive attitude is what I love most about the Libertarian philosophy. :rolleyes:
> Heck, you’re lucky in the US if your HMO lets you stay in the hospital for four days after birth
How often is that long a stay necessary? I don’t know many women who stayed in the hospital that long. Usually they’re anxious to get home after a day or two.
Why should the US join Canada? … what should happen is:
Alberta, BC, Washington State, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho should merge to form a country of their own. Given our access to natural resources, computer technology (hey maybe ask California to join us), and a nice blend of manufacturing companies, we could form a powerful country.
MDE
By the way: If you want it, you can have Alberta.
“If fascism ever triumphs in Canada, it will begin in Alberta.” - Margaret Atwood
Hey Matt, what would the country do without Alberta? There are a lot of transfer payments coming out of Alberta to subsidize other parts of the country, maybe that’s because we have the lowest unemployment and a growing economy?
I am all for annexing parts of the U.S. Alberta, British Columbia, and some of the northwest United States could do very well on their own just on the virtue of the abundant natural resources.
Thunderstorm is coming in… I’ll be back later…
Kim
You have yet to explain how Japanese-American women, whom the site cited as having an infant mortality rate about the same as Japanese-Japanese women, manage to have healthy babies {{{{{over here}}}}} in the USA.
Are you saying that they, by virtue of their Japaneseness, all have private health insurance? Because clearly, you (and that site) are drawing a causal link between having health insurance and having healthy babies.
this thread is identified by a question that could go like this: should the us merge with canada?
the right question should be: should canada and the us merge?(alphabetical order when naming the countries, and i would name that country u.s of canada).
bj0rn - darn hippos…
Libertarian…
I read that information on health insurance, if over 25% of American women don’t have health insurance that means the number of women without insurance in the U.S. exceeds the population of Canada. In whatever way you look at the mortality rates in the U.S. you have to admit that a country as wealthy as the U.S. with all the resources it has at hand should be able to do something about this.
You might notice a trend, countries with universal health care have lower infant mortality rates. In Canada a lot of that health care is educational and we have very good pre-natal programs for mothers to be. Being that my wife’s last twp pregnancies were high risk I am thankful for the excellent system we have. We had a nurse come directly to our home during my wife’s last pregnancy (no charge) and this program is proving to very successful in delivering positive outcomes (healthy babies) in high risk pregnancies.
The reasons that the infant mortality in Japanese children seems to be lower due to:
- Universal health care in Japan.
- Different societal values.
The Japanese American women appear have a lower mortality rate so if you take health care out of the equation you would have different cultural values in child raising as a reason for lower mortality rates.
Our health care system here (Canada) is not perfect and there has been a lot of criticism towards how things are being done by our government. It is still a great health care system and despite us paying higher taxes to fund this and other social systems I would not trade our system for yours, ever.
…can I have the Yukon territory? I actually OWN 2 square inches of it-remember the old “Sgt. Preston of the Mounties” TV show-I sent my letter in, and was rewarded with the deed/title to 2 square inches of the Yukon-I haven’t paid any taxes, so it might not be mine now…
Another question for our friends to the north-what is the status of the Yukon in the canadian fedration-with all of 25,000 inhabitants, they can’t be paying much in the way of taxes!
And, what about the (former) NW territoires-do the inuit own them now? I’d like to set up a nuclear waste dump up there - I can get a lot of business!
b]Feynn**
Yeah, and so…? What in the heck do you, Kim, and Matt think that signifies, other than the fact that the U.S. is big and Canada is small?
Y’all are parading these causal fallacies around like you’re proud of them or something. Not to mention these disconnected, irrelevant, trivial comparisons of some arbitrary subset of Americans with the populations of smaller countries.
Shees.
Oh, good Lord.
So, if we hand over our wealth to politicians for them to take a substantial cut, build their buildings, pay their bureaucrats, finance wasteful schemes in their home districts for their biggest contributors, and then dole out the puny remainder at people too irresponsible to consider whether they can afford to care for children — all the problems will magically go away?
Pardon my French, but bull!
I refer you to my previous post about false trends.
I too am thankful for your good experience, but are you saying that you would have abrogated your responsibility to care for your unborn child had your government not extracted a tax from you?
Well, do you or don’t you pay a tax for this service?
If the program is good, privatize it, get government out of it (other than to enforce peace and honesty), and your program will go from good to stellar.
Well, that’s what I said to Kim when he or she when ballistic.
Oh. You thought I was defending our system?
Well, our system sucks. It is almost as bad as yours, but it will get much much worse because our government has bigger guns and more grandiose egos than yours does.
Wish us luck. We’ll need it.
Ay chi mu mu!
On health care: my feeling is that individuals should have the right to that amount of treatment necessary to preserve their life and reasonable health. And that probably that would end up being a government expense, since nobody else is set up to do across-the-board provision of the costs of such treatment. In my book, Bill Gates and Joe Homeless would both be entitled to precisely the same level of government-provided care. If Bill or some heiress, or even Fred Middlemanagement, wants additional perks and elective treatment beyond that minimum, they can pay for it.
On HMOs: Any hospital that would throw out a sick patient (not recuperating, still in need of treatment) because his HMO refuses to pay more should have its charter revoked. Any physician who discharges such a patient should have his license to practice revoked. And any HMO that refuses to pay should be sued, along with its policy-making officers. If the legislature has prohibited such suits, that law can be voided as “against public policy” by a fair-minded court.
I realized I had never posted my response to Mr. Zambezi, and I’ve learned that one cannot depend on the telepathic skills of the posters here (except the moderators!) to read what one intended to post. 
My response would be that while Medicare and Medicaid do cover a fair amount of stuff for those eligible for them, virtually every other program is state and not federal, and what is provided (or not) varies enormously from state to state. So you are likely 100% on target – as regards Colorado. The incident I reported was in welfare-capital-of-the-world New York State, in a county that seemed to believe its Social Services Department was established and funded primarily to reduce unemployment among social workers. And one wonders about the working poor left to the mercies of, say, Mississippi or Idaho.