Machjo

I remember talking to oen member of the AFN, and according to her, many fo them don't consider themselves Canadian except as a matter of practical necessity under the circumstances.

Ignore this post.

And it's not about democracy, but an agreement between two peoples. Americans don't get to vote in Canadian elections either, nothing to do with democracy.

If a foreigner lives on Canadian soil, he still pays Canadian taxes and does not get the vote. What's the difference?

The birthrate is still high in some countries. Nothing immigration can't handle. As for medicare being more expensive than a strictly private system, of course: after all, it's coverage is wider too.

But wouldn't that increase in demand eventually attract more doctors? So what you're describing could only be a temporary state of market disequilibrium owing to initial increase in demand. The increase in demand would raise the value which would eventually attract supply until equilibrium is met with more physicians than before. So do we sacrifice future potential just for short-term stability?

Nothing to do with race, but rather peoples. It's a treaty between distinct peoples.

Actually, we could flip your argument around and say "the rich will use medicare whether they like it or not,e ven if it means less healthcare for everyone".

Now that's for a two-tier system. For a pure socialized system, that option above would not be available to the rich man, meaning that he must suck up resources from the public ssytem that could otherwise have been used to help the others instead. What is the sense of forcing a rich man to suck up resources from the public system if he'd rather pay his own way and still pay his taxes? Any sane person would agree that he's actually doing the others a favour by doing this. And yet we ban it?

OK, let's simplify this: Let's say the population of the land of Mapleleaf has ten people, and the government invests 1,000 dollars in healthcare. Now that's 100 dollars per person. Now one man decides to pay his own way, yet still has to pay his taxes. This would leave 111.11 dollars for each of the rest of them. It may be that the rich man takes the best physician. But with the money saved, the system can now spend more money per patient to hire other physicians. Thus, while the rich mans' health care improves, so does tht of the others. Sure, his improves more than theirs, but then again, he's also payng twice, for himself and them, to be fair. Does that make more sense?

I could agree to that.

Yes, but then they take the best, they also pay for it, thus leaving the public system off the hook in having to support them, thus allowing more public funds going towards supporting the rest, Sure, the rich still get the best, but they pay for it and pay in addition to taxes, thus reducing the overall burden on the poor, thus benefitting the poor too. So both the rich and the poor benefit.

There is the British perspective. But the First Nations in many cases have never relinquished their lands and reject claims that they are Canadian, beyond practical considerations out of necessity for survival under current circumstances. I've met a few First Nations, and I remember one from the AFN claiming that the Harper government was trying to pressure the First Nations to 'become Canadian' (her words, not mine), but that the First Nations would never accept that. Seems to me that though the British claimed those lands, the First Nations never relinquished them, or at least the Algonquin didn't anyway. This essentially means that in their eyes, it's occupied territory. So, waht do we do? Exterminate them?

Fair enough.

So why are they ranking higher overall? IN a two-tier system, the rich pay into medicare but choose to opt out, thus leaving more funds for the rest. This actually helps the poor. That's what I meant by dogmatism. Prepared to hurt the poor just to keep the rich down.

So I'd forgot about Turner. Thanks for the reminder. I was out of country for a few years too.

Nothing to do with race, but nationality. Just like a treaty between Canada and another nation. The Treaties were between the British Crown and the First Nations. Had the crown considered them subjects, it would never have written the treaties. Thus the simple existence of treaties stands testimony to status indians essentially having their own nationality, even if not officially recognized at the international level. So I ask you (though I know you'll avoid this at all costs), why did the Crown sign treaties with its own subjects if they were indeed subjects of the Crown? Nothing to do with racism. If the Canadian government should treat a Zambian differently from a white Canadian, it woudl have nothing to do with race, but legal status. Or are you suggesting that we should scrap the outdated idea of nationality and just say we're world citizens? If so, I could agree. If not, then all historical records prove that it is an international treaty between the Crown and the First Nations.

Who cares what polls show. I'd rather know what works. Health care shouldn't be a popularity contest.

interesting. Your link points out criticisms of the last one because it included all deaths regardless of causes. This would still suggest then that Canada ranks 30th on that front. Whether health care is responsible or not, why the poor performance by Canada?

This is another issue. While I have no issue with a counter-deflationary policy, did the government take into account how it would fit in with a later counter-inflationary policy to make sure the two work together? Had the government planned for this recession years ago, ready to implement it as soon as deflation strikes, we could have had plenty of time to debate it, discuss it, plan it, etc. Of course we could never know when the deflation would strike, but at least we'd know we had a good plan in place ready to implement. But instead, the whole thing ws ad hoc, government governing by the seat of its pants, and I thik that's why our current stimulous package proved to be a fiasco. Now had the government planned ahead for this recessio, not only would we have had a well-dezigned non-partisan plan to execute, but woudl then have had plenty of time during the recession to discuss plans for the upcoming inflation, whenever it should strike. Instead, the government is now too busy fumbling over the recession.

Treaties, wheaties; contracts, schmontracts. What do you think we are? Honourable?

Who? I'm a Canadian. A PM who's not a sitting MP does not get a vote in Parliament.

The treateis are international treaties. As such, we and Aboriginals are just as equal as Americans and Canadians. We each have different rights on the lands. Unless we dont' respect treaties?

Of course as long as deflation continue, we should continue with a counter-deflationary policy. All I'm saying is that a counter-inflationary policy should be established and ready to be implemented at a moment's notice when inflation kicks in, even if it is in a few decades. In like manner, we should plan for the next recesion immediately after this one is over. We should always be ahead fo the game and never be taken off guard like we were this recession.

I haven't read the entire thread, but here's may take on it: To try to get the government to respect Aboriginal rights is next to a lost cause. The government must listen to the will of the majority, and the majority in Canada is racist to varying degrees. I've concluded that a better solution would be for me personally to go out and learn their language and culture. But lo and behold, I've looked on Amazon.ca, Chapters.ca, even the AFN, and no decent self-instruction book is available for these languages! Where has all the government's money gone? If the government were serious in promoting First Nations' cultures, all it would have had to do would have been to produce such self-instruction materials. The fact that even those don't exist suggest a clear intent on the part of the government not only to not help the Aboriginal cultures, but even to hinder their development by ensuring that those like myself cannot participate at the grassroots in the learning of their cultures. It truly is shameful that such books don't even exist.