Speedy von Vloppen

It's not about thinking derogatory slurs are a good thing. Clearly, they're ugly and disgusting. It's about whether there should be legal remedies against them. If someone insulted me, I wouldn't pursue litigation unless there were some kind of real measurable injury. If someone said, "Speedy you're a [insert racial slur]," it might hurt my feelings, but I would think the way to deal with it would be for me to exercise my own free speech or ignore the person, not to try to shut the other person up. On the other hand, if I owned a brewery and the person who didn't like me spread a false rumor that my workers pee into the beer, it could cause my sales to go down. I could even put me out of business. In that case of real and measurable injury, a lawsuit would be in order. In the case of a racial slur -- the N word or whatever -- it seems the damage to the reputation only occurs to the person saying the word, not to the one who's being referred to. Believe me, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who degrades another person based on ethnicity. I just question the use of litigation in response to it. There are some things that belong in the courts and some that should just be worked out between people informally. For example, I don't think the government has any business punishing someone for committing adultery. Cheating is a low thing to do, but people should have to work out their differences on their own in such a case. However, if a spouse physically assaults his partner, then the legal system should be involved. I also think that bigotry isn't cured by making a bigot shut up. That only makes those kind of views fester and develop further. Bigotry can be alleviated by learning and slow evolution in a person's thinking. I don't believe the legal squelching of specific words will accomplish that. Plus, I'm concerned with the chance that the squelching may spill over and end up suppressing more legitimate views. But please don't mistake any of my concerns for sympathy for anyone with hateful views. Hate disgusts me. In fact, that's one of the things that's frustrating me about the whole extremist Tea Party movement in the USA. The Tea Partiers have been spewing plenty of racism. However, IMO the antidote is not to shut them up, but rather to expose them in hopes that more reasonable people will prevail.

I found this video to be quite good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV_041oYDjg

I'm an American learning about Canada. One thing I'm not sure of is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. From what I've read thus far, it looks like an attempt to make sure minorities get a fair treatment in being able to get work. However, one thing raised my eyebrow. People could get sued for using ethnic slurs. Doesn't that conflict with the free speech rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or some other offensive slur, it seems that the person is guilty of bad taste, but has not committed a crime. It's ugly speech, but still free speech. Isn't the Canadian Human Rights Commission clashing with the Canadian Constitution? Perhaps I haven't gotten all the facts or have interpreted them wrong?

It would seem so. Back in the 70s, the goal of American liberals was to get a single-payer system like they have in Canada. Richard Nixon proposed an alternative, which is a lot like a German-style multi-payer one. Nixon's plan would have set up a single public option that you could choose if you wanted to and pay for based on a sliding scale depending on your income. If you didn't choose that, you would have to be fully insured with private insurance. Nixon's plan also included small co-pays. He didn't believe you should be able to go to the doctor and not pay anything out of pocket. However, the co-pays were to be small so that anyone could afford it. Unfortunately, Nixon never came to an agreement with liberals. He got mired down with the Watergate scandal and was forced to leave office early. Nixon pissed off a lot of Americans in the way he handled the Vietnam War. He didn't start it, but many felt the way he handled it escalated it. Plus, he infuriated people by calling anti-war protesters, "bums." At the time, he was seen as very right-wing. Today, his policies come across as on the left. Obama's health care law is far to the right of Nixon's. Yet, he's branded a far-left socialist. That shows how far to the right the USA has moved. I'm alarmed by it in the same way I might be alarmed if I were living in Germany post World War I. That's a big reason why I'm thinking maybe I'd better just get out.

Hi, everyone. I'm doing research on Canada to help me decide if I want to move there. I'm frustrated with how extreme right the United States has gotten. I'm not going to make any snap decision, however. The choice to move to another country is a huge one, and so I want to be as well informed as I can be. I've read up on the Canadian Government's web site about what's required. It does seem that it might be tough to get a work visa, especially in this economy. If I go there, it will be with the goal of being a productive and law-abiding member of society. I want to fully pull my own weight and never draw any kind of welfare benefits. I would also want to get and stay there legally. I won't use any tactics such as fraudulent marriage. I do work in computer forensics, that is, data recovery. I also do photography work on the side. It seems it might be tough to find a way to justify a work visa. However, I have not yet consulted with any immigration attorneys to explore all options. In the meantime, I'm looking to get a good understanding of the country. I've found a documentary which was not shown in the United States to my knowledge. It's called Canada: A People's History (My link). Perhaps that would be a good place to start? I'm also considering a book titled The Penguin History of Canada (My link). If you know if these are good sources, please speak up. If you have any other sources you think I should look at, I'm interested. Thanks.

However, the private insurance is supplemental in Canada, correct? In other words you're on Canadian Medicare, but you can put private insurance on top of it in order to get more benefits. In Germany, it's different. If you purchase private insurance, you get that instead of one of the public options and then the private insurance covers everything. It's essentially opting out of being on public insurance. I would be thrilled if the USA got either a German-style or a Canadian-style health insurance system. Both countries do a much, much better job of covering people.

Ann Coulter is an extremist. Her rants are so vitriolic, I sometimes wonder if she really believes them or if they're shtick designed to sell more books.

It's not just an issue of being able to afford health insurance. Many Americans work hard to be able to obtain insurance, only to be thrown off insurance rolls after they get sick in a process known as "recision." For years American health insurance companies have used it to keep the unhealthy off their insurance rolls and therefore keep their profits as high as possible. It's been outlawed by the new health care law that President Obama signed, but the far-right extremists of the Republican Party have vowed to repeal the law. If they're successful, the system reverts back to the way it was, and you can find yourself uninsured even if you've paid into health insurance for years. Also, even if you've got health insurance in the United States, it almost never is 100 percent coverage. It's typical for an insurer to cover 80% of the cost of treatment. With the high costs of treatment, that 20% that you're responsible for can add up fast. Many of the Americans who end up filing for medical bankruptcies are ones who had health insurance. I'm one of them. I'm another frustrated American considering relocation to Canada. I'm here on this board for the purpose of learning about the country. The right in the United States has become politically extreme. If you take a conservative in Canada and put him into the United States, he'd be viewed as a leftist. For example, I advocate a German-style health care system in the US. I previously lived in Germany, and their system works well. Theirs is a multi-payer one. The government has created numerous public option health insurance companies, and there are also private insurers unfunded by the government. A German citizen (or legally residing foreigner as was the case with me) is required to purchase an insurance plan. The various plans cover 100 percent of essential care. As you would expect, the private plans include more amenities. For example, a person on private insurance might be able to get a private hospital room while a person on a public plan would need to share a room. I was fine with giving people the choice between public or private insurance like they do in Germany. However, my support of any kind of universal health insurance gets me branded a far-left socialist in the US. I suspect, my position is not considered that in Canada. If anything, I'm probably right of center there. The point is, the right in the USA is extreme and is holding the country back. If they're successful in duping the American public, a repeal of Obama's modest health care reforms is a real possibility. Even if it's not repealed, the reforms weren't far-reaching enough to prevent an American from being grossly under-insured and incurring enough medical bills to be forced into bankruptcy. And that's why I'm here researching if I want to consider a move to Canada. There are other options. I could go back to Germany. Australia is also possibility.