carepov

No, I don't think so. Mo matter what system you have in place some legitimate applications will be denied and some fraudulent claims will slip through. IMO, the idea of setting targets will decrease fraudulent claims without significantly increasing the denial of legitimate ones. The EI fraud investigators are like parking meter monitors or traffic cops. With a target, there will be more tickets issued but no one that follows the rules should get a ticket. But if they do, the appeal process will ensure that justice is served.

That's my point. I am very sceptical that legitimate EI claimants are being penalized at all. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

I disagree. More interaction is the best hope to drive change and eventually bring an end to "barbaric practices" in these cultures. Yes, we need to expose all barbaric acts and demand justice and change but your rhetoric and suggestions make the situation worse. It is especially not helpful to name entire cultures as "barbaric" and "Paleolithic". When the West uses these kinds of words they are so easily used by theocratic leaders as justification for things like continued jihad and the silencing of any local progressive people.

No, by definition, quotas and targets are not the same. And you prove it when you say "there's a predetermined amount of rejections that needs to be met" - this implies that there is a quota. I am not so sure. I think that the government is setting targets and telling inspectors, if you do your best, then you should discover $500,000 worth of fraudulent claims per year. If an EI claimant is legitimate, my understanding is that there is no fighting with the EI: Dear Sir/Madam: -Here is my ROI for hours worked -Here is my termination notice -Here is a log of my job search -End of story, no? Also, don't forget that there is an appeal process, if a claimant is legitimate but denied EI due to some investigator trying to meet their target/quota a judge will overrule the decision.

First, in the CBC story and this discussion people are interchanging the word quota and target/goals. There is a subtle but important difference: "Quotas are rigid and exclusionary; they imply, "This is what you must achieve, no matter what." Goals are flexible and inclusive; they imply, "This is what we think you can achieve if you try your best." Goals are simply program objectives translated into numbers. They provide a target to strive for and a vehicle for measuring progress." http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/faq/1660 Is the government setting targets or quotas? Second, if a person is legitimately collecting EI and following the rules, they should have nothing to worry about, right?

OK, I hear what you're saying but disagree. First of all, the long-term stability and security of Afghanistan is in our own self-interest, therefore our job is to help with reconstruction as it is the only hope of long-term security and stability. Secondly, once our leaders promise and commit to reconstruct it becomes our job. I would also add that, whenever feasible, it is our job to help powerless people that are suffering.

Perhaps if we leave the country alone you may have a point. But after a country has been invaded and occupied, then don't you think it is the job of the invaders and occupiers to reconstruct the country?

I try to remain objective but if I had to pick a side I would be anti-Arab. I am definitely against the expansion of Jewish settlements so at first glance I favour this EU policy. Thanks for bringing this issue forward, I especially appreciate the Israeli media sources you link to.

AlienB, You wrong about trade. -Trade is not a zero sum game, it is win-win -Trade creates inter-dependancies between parties. This is excellent for at least two reasons. First it is more efficiecnt and allows for specialization. Secondly, it makes it much less likely for the two parties to fight violently or go to war. -Canada is not giving away anything. Try to find any OECD country that has been more successful economically in the last 25 years compared to Canada. -"It makes sense to buy what you can't make yourself." No, not if you can buy it from someone else cheaper and use the savings to produce something of greater value.

Do you have an explanation for the elements in Japanese culture that are blatantly sexist?

What you are not considering is: What are the costs of not going to war? -Needless to say, in WWII, the costs are immeasurable... -In Afghanistan, the costs of not going to war are nothing in comparison. One more or one less failed state in the world. A few more or a few less terrorists… Again, my opinion is that was that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and that once the war started we needed to keep fighting until security was restored. Let's say we can go back to 2001 and select one of the following: a) Do things over more or less the same way as they actually happened b.) Invade Afghanistan and focus Western resources on quickly restoring security and helping to rebuild (do not invade Iraq) c) Do not invade Afghanistan If I understand you correctly, both of us would choose Option b.). If b.) was not available, and I could choose only between a) and c), I would choose c).

1) Most often, the people living in failed states are powerless, it's vey difficult to put much blame on them. 2) Yes, I agree - war is always a failure but some wars are successful. For WWII, perhaps a better way of looking at it is to judge specific operations or battles.

Fine, the US is unique, I suppose that it is also pointless to compare the USA of the 1970's to the USA of today. There's no problem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png Actually I do not understand the concerns with being "soft on crime". What else matters other than: -Ensuring people are safe, as shown by crime rates -Minimizing the costs of the justice system (perhaps the biggest costs are the social costs of so many men locked up) Recently I saw a report on the justice system in Texas and the creation of a separate "softer" system to deal with drug-related crimes. It looks like their leaders were getting it right and making a big difference. Imagine, Republican politicians from Texas warning Canadians about the pitfalls of a "tough on crime" policy! I am "with the program" and am concerned with issues in Canada. For example, I am ashamed of the living conditions of our Natives and for the "Stolen Sisters". I am ashamed of Canada shipping out asbestos when we know that the product is killing people. You and I both agreed that "Canadians are no better than Americans" so why should I be any less concerned about the death penalty in some US states? I am concerned with innocent people being put to death. I am concerned when the State executes mentally handicapped people. I am concerned with the children growing up with no fathers in their lives. I am also concerned because when our leaders watch US politicians keep wining elections based on a "tough on crime" agenda guess what policies they implement here?

So it doesn't matter that only 0.11% of Canadian cases are sent to the US (where the Province pays the full cost of the service) and you are saying that regardless of how small this number was you would be right and I would be wrong. I suppose it doesn't matter if Cnadian health care is the same cost as,10% cheaper or 40% cheaper than costs in the US. In the end it all cancels out so numbers don't matter, eh?

Well here it is, small cities in Canada are the most crime ridden: http://www2.macleans.ca/crime-chart/

I addressed both: How Many Canadians Use the U.S. Health System? Do not come to the US for care: 99.39% Come to US for care electively: 0.5% Use the US for emergency care: 0.11% http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html This supports my claim that the use by some Canadians of US facilities has a negligible impact on Canadian Health Care costs. IMO, the US and Canadian Health Care systems acheive similarily good results, but the US system is much more expensive. As many companies are paying for their employee's health insurance, perhaps this is one of the reasons that so many jobs have been outsourced? And yes, Canada's system has many problems and yes Canadian jobs are being outsourced too.

There is no doubt that the USA is unique. This does not mean that it is not comparable. You think that 2.24 million Americans locked up—716 for every 100,000 citizens is quite well? I wouldn't be so sure about the relationship between big cities and crime, generally our largest cities are the safest. This is 2013, get with the program USA and stop the death penalty in all 50 states! Maybe not so much lately but you would have seen many comparissons coming from Canada that were quite favorable to the USA. US productivity, US unemployment rate, lower taxes, etc...

Regarding Canadians using health care in the US: from wiki: -A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer. -In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[65] -A 2002 study by Katz, Cardiff, et al., reported the number of Canadians using U.S. services to be "barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home" and that the results "do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States."[ Created with Highcharts 3.0.0How Many Canadians Use the U.S. Health System?Do not come to the US for care: 99.39%Come to US for care electively: 0.5%Use the US for emergency care: 0.11% Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002. http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

Many good points, I will respond to the ones where I disgree strongly I can't beleive that you are defending/excusing your justice policies. America is "tough on crime" with over 6 times as many inmates AND your crime rates are much higher as reflected my murder rates 2.7 times higher. These differences are way to large to be explained away by your excuses. At some pont you need to say, whoa, we have a problem! Canada pays for any services used in the US. The net savings are minimal/insignificant. No, the history of when the Death Penalty was abolished is besides the point. The point is that US governments kill people - that is wrong. Don't kid yourself about Americans not comparing themselves to Cnadaians or even putting down our country. One good example is during your ObamaCare debates. On one hand you have Micheal Moore, and on the other you have the Right painting us as a third world country where people are dying due to "socialized" health care. Yes, especially since the well-being of Canada depends greatly on the well-being of the USA I agree.

I wouldn't go so far as to call these pathetic, but I would say lame. Many comparissons are interesting and useful: 1. We live longer: Canadians born today will live an average of three years longer than Americans (81 years in Canada versus 78.7 south of the border). (5) We have a lower rate of suicide (11.1 per 100,000 people, versus 12 in the U.S.), (6) a lower rate of infant mortality (5.1 per 1,000 live births, versus 6.1 in the U.S.) (7) and our health care costs per person are much lower (US$4,445 per capita in Canada, versus $8,233 in the U.S.). (70) We attract more immigrants: Canada gets 5.65 per 1,000 people, compared to the U.S., with 3.64 per 1,000. 81. We don’t have out-of-control prison sentences: Last year 38,700 people were serving time in Canada, roughly 114 for every 100,000 citizens. That’s nothing. In the U.S. 2.24 million Americans are locked up—716 for every 100,000 citizens, the highest incarceration rate in the world. Canada ranks 136th. 82. Our government doesn’t kill people: Canada officially abolished capital punishment in 1976, but no Canadian inmate has been executed since 1962. By contrast, the U.S. put 43 prisoners to death last year alone, while 3,125 inmates continue to wait on death row. (86) We have far fewer murders: Our homicide rate is 1.73 per 100,000 people, compared to 4.7 in the U.S. If I were an American I would be very concerned about some of these numbers and I would hope that leaders would take notice and implement better policies.

Maybe not one-on-one, but articles like the Macleans article (Canadian media talking to Canadian readers) are very common, and IMO too common.

Yes, AW, I am embarrassed by the arrogance and hypocrisy of those Canadians that constantly claim "we are so much better than Americans!". Some comparisons are normal, and even very useful, but we do overdo it. I wonder if it's the same with Kiwis/Aussies, Austrians/Germans, Taiwanese/Chinese, Irish/British, Oklahomans/Texans...?

Why are you here on MLW discussing with me and with others? I am not "behind". My only objectives for being here are to express myself and therefore clarify and hone my opinions, and I appreciate the ideas and knowledge gained by thoughtful posters. Your article from Psychology Today was very interesting. As written in the article, the data is evidence that "religion has little to do with ethical conduct" - I appreciate knowing about this study and it will sway my opinions. Unlike what you say however, the data does refute (i.e. disprove) my claim. Your earlier article was informative too, thanks for sharing your views and encouraging me to learn more about the topic and re-assess my opinions.

The reference supports my point. I did not claim it was proof. Do you have anything to refute my claim that religious people are less likely to be criminals? I will retract the certainty of my statement that was sloppy and I regret it. Your reference does not prove me wrong however. It compares red (religious) states with blue (less religious) states. How about within the blue states, who is giving more to charities (excluding religion) religious or non-religious people? The study does not address this question. I suspect that it is religious people. I will try to explain my point in a different way: For example let's look at: "generosity". I hypothesize that, in a large population, there will be a normal distribution of people that are on the scale from complete selfish cheap-asses at one end to those that give 25% of their income and donate organs to strangers at the other. Now split the population into religious and non-religious. I think that the distribution would be similar but that the religious population would be on average more generous than the non-religious. Note: there are still plenty of non-religious people that are more generous than religious people.

I know, I did not mean to imply that it was. Are you disagreeing with me on the point I made? I would think that anytime someone puts another down another it is a way to feel superior. Why else put someone down?