Canada v. US

Yes! That is exactly why I started this thread.

Just above I have given my views on the "friction between the two countries" from what I consider to be the admittedly simplistic but still pragmatic perspective.

I consider it a self defeating artifice.

Here is my opening request

You might want to break your question up. There are probably lots of reasons the US is "problematic for Canada", but not many why "the US is not Canada's friend and ally." If anything, Canada looks better the worse the US looks.

Here is an interesting conversation about our two health care systems.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.gladwellgopnik.html

If I break up the question what will happen to the baby questions?
From a Canadian perspective I can assure you that there are a surprising number who quite strongly feel that the "US is not Canada's friend and ally"!

Yes but why do you dislike / mistrust Americans? I know you do admit it!

This is perhaps the most perceptive remark on the topic so far. The American "melting pot" has never really worked automatically, because people have moved into ethnic neighborhoods in which they feel comfortable, speak the langauge and, more importantly, read the language--some small circulation newspapers in New York, for example, have been in print for more than a century. The "melting pot" only works gradually, as offspring of the immigrants learn English in school, and go out into the dominant culture to find employment.

By the same token, the Canadian "tossed salad" doesn't really work, either. Although a good deal of lip service is paid to the idea of cultural "survival" and the preservation and celebration of ethnic differences, the same factors which eventually assimilate immigrants in the United States will have the same effect on immigrants in Canada. An Italian, for example, can move to Toronoto, read Italian newspapers, speak Italian in their neighborhood every day, watch Italian-language television. The children of such a family will, sooner or later, be exposed to French and English in school. If, after university, the best employment opportunity is in a bank in Woodstock, Ontario, the second generation Italian-Canadian is going to live and work in an English-speaking community surrounded by "white" people. Their children will grow up exactly as do any small town Ontario children in English-speaking Canada.

The ideals and the realities of national existence in any nation never match. The majority of immigrants in Canada throughout the entirety of its history since the French were run out and the English took over (1760) have been from the American colonies/states. In the last fifty years, a great wave of immigrants have come from other sources, but the sources of immigration to Canada and the United States do not differ greatly. The great industrial revolution worked at the end of the nineteenth century resulted form the introduction of alternating current electricity to industry by George Westinghouse and Nichola Tezla, despite the opposition of Thomas Edison and Lord Kelvin. That took place at Niagara Falls. Both the United States and Canada were able to exploit hydro-electric power to make themselves industrially successful, and both nations have long prospered from the ability not only to feed themselves, but to make a good foreign exchange from exporting grain and other agricultural products.

Canada and the United States have more in common than they have significant differences. Lots of people can show up here and quibble about it, but the fact remains that their separate histories have been conditioned both by the same factors, and by their proximity.

Chumly, there are 150 million Americans who distrust their present administration. I sympathize with them.

Americans are normal human beings; I have nothing against them.

What makes me nervous are the bullying tactics of Washington. I believe I am not the only one who is frustrated by them.

Not a lot of response from Canadians yet on the main topic, and I am a bit reluctant to join in the diversion. However, until something better comes along ...


It was indeed a very interesting dialogue that, in my view at least, touched on all of the arguments and trade-offs on both sides.

For me the decisive element is the observation that centrally planned economic systems, whether for the production of software, industrial goods, or health care services, techniques, and medecines, simply are not sustainable. They may appear to work for a time as the initially accumulated store of wealth, technology and innovation is used up. However, in the long run they choke off the wealth production and innovation required to both sustain the system and to improve it through investment in new approaches and methods. To some extent the market system for health care delivers the needed investment and innovation in new techniques and medicines that (eventually) fills this need in canada and other western nations with socialized systems.

We can remove certain elements of life from the pressures of the market as the commentators noted, but we must retain somnethhing with which to pay for it, Even the social insurance schemes of the United States and all of the major western nations are facing very serious financial crises. It will be interesting to see what evolves in this area in the years ahead.

Another aspect of this that bothers me is the transfer of critical decision-making from individuals to government functionaries, as was noted in the dialogue. I would prefer not to allow government to make decisions regarding the relative worth of individual lives under any circumstances. To a bureaucrat the marginal return on his decisions for the rationing of health care to (say) a newborn or an elderly man wanting a bypass operation may seem very clear. However, I dread ever giving government that kind of power, and I don't see any net benefit in the bureaucrat's intervention compared to what evolves in the marketplace.

Thanks I always appreciate your input too I was just ribbin' yah! But I do know some Canadians who truly feel Americans are not so savory and don't belong at any civil dinner table.

Chumly, I know Americans who believe that Canadians are left-wing fanatics who should be converted to pure capitalism.

I haven't yet met any of that disposition. The spectacle of Canadian outrage over various trade issues, while they enjoy such a hugely favorable balance of trade with us, and at the same time bemoan the "plundering" of their natural resources for the U.S. market -- all have convinced most of us that capitalist neurosis and greed are alive and quite well in Canada.

Favorable trade imbalance considerations are not part of any popular anti American stance AFAICT.

george wrote :
"Another aspect of this that bothers me is the transfer of critical decision-making from individuals to government functionaries, as was noted in the dialogue. I would prefer not to allow government to make decisions regarding the relative worth of individual lives under any circumstances. To a bureaucrat the marginal return on his decisions for the rationing of health care to (say) a newborn or an elderly man wanting a bypass operation may seem very clear. However, I dread ever giving government that kind of power, and I don't see any net benefit in the bureaucrat's intervention compared to what evolves in the marketplace. "

someone will have to make a decision about 'worth of life' for almost all of us - sooner or later .
do we allow the medical profession (which might include some bureaucrats) to make that decision or is it strictly dictated by the size of the bank account someone has ?
most of us that are in reasonably good health would like to continue living 'just a little longer' - and a little longer - and a little longer ...
but there is a cut-off point somewhere . so how to deal with this dilemma ?

i understand that a large amount of health-care dollars is spent on the last year of a person's life , and it's often not a very good life at that .
again, how do we deal with that ?
some physicians say that what we need is some way of making our last year as comfortable as possible , rather of trying to stretch it out for a few more months by 'drastic measures'. again , how do we deal with this as a society ?

to get back on track : the canadian health-care system can certainly be improved upon - perfect it will never be - no health-care system will ever be perfect for every member of society.
what the canadian system tries to do , is give a reasonable level of care to everyone . and even here there are differences between the level of care an individual might receive , depending upon where the patient lives , quality of hospital and physician ... but everyone can expect a reasonable level of care.
from some of the entries i've seen from our american friends, some seem to have difficulty affording even a reasonable level of care - without having to declare bankruptcy . perhaps i've misread those entries and i'd stand corrected if i have misread them .

so that seems to be one of the dividing lines between the canadian and the american system .
under the canadian system everyone receives reasonable basic health care . if a canadian wants to receive 'extraordinary' or very quick service(bypassing all others) , that's difficult to get in canada .
under the american system, it seems to depend more on the availability of outstanding health-insurance (which , i'm sure, many people have ) and the ability of the patient to pay.

imo no system seems to be perfect for every patient . there are shades of grey.

canadian patients are free , of course, to travel out-of-country to pay for services not available in canada .
i also understand that some american patients are travelling out-of-country , to look for medical treatments that they can not afford to pay for in the united states (some insurance companies have started to charge lower premiums to patients willing to travel out-of-country for major medical procedures i believe).
hbg

I agree with all that. However I believe a 'system', which consists of the choices of individual patients of their doctors and the choices the doctors make in such difficult situations, is just as effective as one run by government and far more protective of individual freedom.

Bureaucrats and those who, for various reasons, prefer governmental solutions to such social issues often see such issues as "unsolved" merely because of the absence of government-mandated contrrol - when in fact free people take care of it very nicely for themselves.

george :
no real disagreement with you .
but what good is my 'freedom' going to do me, if i can't afford to pay for my medical treatment ?

added to this are the bureaucracies of the insurance companies , they don't seem to be any better than those of governments .

one might argue that we decide what kind of a car we want to buy, and that we don't want the government to tell us what kind of a car to buy ;
but governments do tell us at what speeds we are allowed to drive - so we allow 'bureaucrats' to make decision for us ?

if insurance companies can provide adequate health-insurance for all , i would not have a problem with them administering the health system - but again we have 'bureaucrats' - no matter where we turn; they are all over the place in different disguises(i was one of them). hbg

I don't doubt that, but they would have trouble showing five reasons why. Sure, there are several trade tussles going on at any time. I suppose you could consider that evil instead of typical business negotiations. I hear comments about natural resources, but the US doesn't steal Canadian resources, they buy excess resources. Last I checked, this was to Canada's and the US's mutual benefit. Maybe someone can come up with a reasonable five reasons, but I can't. Of course, I'm not Canadian.

This is a particular form of the excuse offered by all who would take your freedom, including Marx and Lenin. It turns out their promises were all lies - they didn't free any workers "from their chains" - they enslaved them.

I agree that insurance bureaucracies are bad, but they are vastly more efficient and accountable to their customers than are those of government - who have the force of law behind them. Monopolies are well-known for ignoring the desires of their customers. None are worse than government monopolies. At least I can fire my insurance company. or even choose to do without one if I believe my health and assets permit it.

Governments do indeed set speed limits for cars, but I believe most of us would recognize that as a practical necessity. Some would like to see government get involved in the design of automobiles as well. My view is the less government the better. If a German government could produce a Trabant can there be any hope for the others???

I was considering going to University of BC Vancouver for graduate school, so I traveled there visiting classes, checking out the city.

This was in 2000 when the Gore/Bush winner was still undetermined. It struck me how well informed Vancouverins were about America. They were following it like it was happening to them. America dominates in a shameful way, then and even more so now. Canadians are far more well-mannered, civilised.

Rational reasons in your eyes and mine yes.