kraychik

I misunderstood your original post. My mistake. Our costs of living is higher than in the USA exclusively because of great government encroachment over out economy. We pay far more in direct and hidden taxes, including excise/sin taxes, regulatory costs, licensing feeds, and tariffs. This is why virtually everything costs more in Canada. It has *nothing* to do with a difference in culture, where Canadians are just more comfortable with higher prices. Beyond paying more, we also earn less. Bottom line - Americans are generally materialistically wealthier than their Canadian counterparts, the big difference is of course how they pay about twice as much as we do directly towards medical care for similar outcomes. As the say goes, however, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We're paying for these "savings" through massive taxation and regulations which drive up the costs of virtually all other goods and services. Again, my mistake. I misunderstood the first post of yours I replied to. I didn't realize that you were referring to the loss of income resulting from health problems.

That is a great video, thanks for posting. I can share a personal anecdote with you, I remember bullying a kid in primary school with some other classmates. Well, one time we went too far and he just punched me straight in the nose and I was knocked down and started bleeding. I learned my lesson then and there. Bullies need a taste of their own medicine. Here is another great video of a kid standing up to a bully. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEqniEvNcnk&feature=related

Considering older people in the later stages of their lives have been paying into and planning their lives around the reception of Medicare, that's not an unrealistic demand from seniors. Eventually Medicare will need to be phased out, or greatly reduced. Obama's policies are also going to be destructive to Medicare, considering he is playing a shell-game by shifting costs to the states and proclaiming that the so-called "Affordable Care Act" will reduce the federal deficit over time. Tea Party concerns about the economic destruction wrought by Obama's policies (including his gutting of Medicare) are well-grounded.

"Active bullying prevention" is just code language for another taxpayer-funded endless program. You realize that bullying has been around since he beginning of time, right? It was stopped long before some leftist manufactured fake terms like "active bullying prevention" for the purposes of supporting more leftist public policies. I thought we needed "active bullying prevention"? Here's a great video from Scott Thompson demonstrating how to deal with bullies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwOBZa4STNc Here's Scott Thompson talking about bullying with some gay magazine: “I believe the things that happened to me as a child scarred me terribly, and I wish somebody would have helped me with some of the things that happened. But you have to fight back,” Thompson told PrideSource. “So much of these bullying campaigns are part of the trend that we were just talking abou … the recasting of gay men as eternal victims and it’s like, fight back! Fathers should start teaching the boys how to punch. He does that to you, here’s what you do: You f–king punch him in the face,” Thompson told PrideSource. Want to stop bullying? It's simple, stand up to them. It's simple. Want to keep bullying ongoing as a never-ending problem that sucks public funds? It's more complicated, implement an "active bullying prevention" program as per the advice of leftists like Canuckistani.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, there are varying regulations between states that obligate employers of certain sizes to provide healthcare benefits to employees through group-benefits programs.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/news/868018287001/american-veterans-turn-to-canada-for-work/1721531255001/page/2 Lots of American veterans are looking to start working in Alberta and nearby areas to begin working on the Keystone XL pipeline. This is a nice story about economic cooperation between the two countries. Of course, the left in both Canada and America oppose this project.

While everything else in Canada costs ten to twenty percent more than in the USA. You're clearly a leftist who is unable to grasp the interconnectedness of the economy. Pick any product or service you want and let's compare the prices in Canada and the USA. Home appliances, automobiles, internet/mobile phone services, dental procedures, alcoholic beverages, Rice Krispies, gasoline, airfare, Ralph Lauren button-up shirts, anything. Virtually everything in America is significantly cheaper AND they earn almost ten percent more on average. You can't just talk about the reduced healthcare costs without talking about everything else in the broader economy considering it's all interlinked. Also, Canadian healthcare does NOT provide equal outcomes.

Aside from demonstrating your EXTREME laziness by doing a copy-and-paste for an article you clearly didn't even read, the article *does not* confirm your assertion. Thus, there's no real evidence provided. I've encountered forum participants like you on an endless number of discussion forums over the years, you provide no content and do hit-and-run posts.

What difference does it make whether the person has reduced income or whether the costs for medical treatment are too high? They're two sides of the same coin. You realize that Canadian incomes are significantly diminished because of the massive taxation that is collected for servicing the single-payer healthcare system, right? What you're saying, in an attempt to "correct" American Woman, sounds like someone explaining their obesity by saying, "I don't eat too much, I just exercise too little!". It's a stupid argument.

Trust me, the link isn't worth reading and it doesn't even confirm his assertion that Canadian healthcare is "better" than what's available in America.

Of course you don't understand the relevance of the section you underlined to the thread. The Tea Party is, in simple terms, largely a single-issue movement: they want more economic liberty. Andre Carson lied when he accused the Tea Party at the Capitol of shouting anti-black racist slurs at him him in 2010. This is typical from Democratic politicians and other leftist/socialist/communist elements in American society, which equates fiscal responsibility with racism. It's stupid, it's dumb, it's ridiculous, it's offensive, but it's how the left tends to operate.

Wow, a link. You win. *rolls eyes*.

Except for the federal and provincial governments, right?

Wow. An arbitrarily-defined list with no context or explanation of the methodology. You really are a valuable contributor to this forum's quality of discourse. After reading the article linked, which contains very little substantive information, it appears that the conclusion from the headline of the article is drawn from one metric - the rate at which patients in either system died. Assuming the methodology of the study was on-point (and that's a big assumption), that's a pretty narrow metric. Even the article you posted, which I don't think you actually read, has a researcher question the validity of comparing the overall quality of these two healthcare systems based on this single metric. I'm probably wasting my time replying to you, as forum participants that just do hit-and-run posts like yours tend not to actually have any capability or intent to have a serious or honest discussion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/05/Muslim-Congressman-Wants-American-School-Curriculum-To-Follow-The-Koran At ICNA-MAS (Islamic Circle of North America/Muslim American Society) 2012: Congressman André Carson advocated the American school system should be modeled after "madrassas" where the foundation is the Koran. This is the same congressman that lied about the Tea party throwing anti-black racist slurs at the Capitol, and suggested that the Tea Party wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Apparently, in the minds of socialist Muslim Democrats, fiscal responsibility is now akin to anti-black racism.

You're taking it much too seriously.

Well said. You've totally exposed the hypocrisy of certain people in this thread who are pretending to be offended.

So all of the women participants are low-lives for choosing to participate? The moral grandstanding from someone with no stake in the events of the Holocaust is quite rich. Obviously these women and the organizers of the event are doing it to spread awareness of the Holocaust and to give these women another chance to share their stories, while celebrating their survival and enduring beauty. As DogOnPorch said, it's weird. Let's leave it at that.

Isn't it hilarious that leftists adore nonsensical and arbitrarily-defined lists like this "Global Peace Index"? I know I'm not the only one who has never heard of this list. Leftists love charts and graphs and statistics, but hate to actually take a moment to examine the methodologies behind their composition. What this seems like to me is a slightly-veiled attempt to smear the current Canadian government. I can see it now, a bunch of hippie arts students in Starbucks are reading this story from their favourite hard-hitting news outlet, The Guardian, and are SHOCKED, I repeat SHOCKED to discover that Canada has lost ground on the "Global Peace Index" (which they've never heard of until now), they immediately hit Twitter to spread the news of another Harper administration catastrophe! So the nearly two hundred Canadian soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of the campaign (which would amount to about two thousand Americans when considering proportion, considering our population is about a tenth that of America's) were "ignored"? What relevance do the YouTube Taliban propaganda threats have over the real events occurring in Afghanistan? I'm not even sure it's worth getting into the fact that Canada *was* threatened by Islamist propaganda from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other such groups.

There's no such thing as a "global problem". Every single problem that affects an individual can be said to be a broader, or "global", problem. Considering we're all interlinked in one way or another (societies and economies are like ecosystems, all components affect one another to one degree or another), this "global problem" rhetoric can be attached to every problem. This is, of course, exactly what happens. The UN's tentacles are trying to wrap themselves around everything: food, housing, healthcare, education, historical sites, the projection of military power, control of natural resources, basic freedoms (or lack thereof) regarding speech and expression, the environment, and so on. There is *nothing* that the UN and other leftists like yourself will *not* define as a "global problem", and that's why people like yourself need to be kept as far away as possible from roles of political leadership as possible. As Derek L has already stated, this is a frightening scenario that you envision.

Agreed. The ideal scenario for the UN envisioned by Signals.Cpl is frightening, one where Canada's voice is further diluted by the introduction of "equality" for inferior third-world societies like Zimbabwe, Yemen, or Cambodia. It would be a dark day for freedom and prosperity around the world should even more power be given to the forces of tyranny, as Signals.Cpl clearly desires.

So it's your contention that the UN be given more power and influence? If this is what you're saying, and it's pretty clear that it is, you are advancing the leftist argument in support of further erosion of Canadian sovereignty and placing our interests in the hands of our enemies. Unfortunately, this suicidal attitude is very prevalent in Canada.

That's not really true, considering that the UN is primarily funded by the USA and Europe, as well as Canada and Australia. Free nations around the world are funding an anti-freedom force embodied in the UN. Canada shoots itself in the foot by funding this abomination year after year. Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of Canadians still have a positive view of the UN and its mandate, and even a small portion of those who have a negative view of the UN believe that this is because the UN has too little influence. What Canada needs is an information campaign telling the ugly truth about the UN, so as to wake Canadians up to the evil of this organization. Canadian political leadership cannot move strongly against the UN while such a large portion of the electorate is still brainwashed regarding the imaginary good work of the UN. Canadians need a reality check, and then our political establishment can make the moral choice to withdraw from the UN.

Why should the UN be reformed? The entire premise of the UN is flawed, it is essentially League of Nations 2.0, except it is far worse than its predecessor considering its scope of influence is greater and growing every day. What the UN needs is abolition, and Canada should lead the way by ceasing funding to this monstrosity immediately. The UN isn't simply irrelevant, flawed, or broken. It is, on balance, harmful to the interests of freedom and prosperity. It doesn't need reform, it needs abolition. Considering that the current POTUS is a radical leftist intent on increasing American involvement with this evil organization, acquiescing to the pressures of anti-freedom elements (Islamists, socialists, communists, etc) in order to make nice these forces, concurrently eroding American sovereignty and the broader interest of promoting freedom and prosperity around the world, the role for global leadership on this front falls on the shoulders of countries like Canada.