Machjo

I've been looking into health care systems recently, and have found that many of the best systems in the world are two-tier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care I liked the Singaporean model, which the WHO ranks sixth in the world. According to the WHO's ranking in 2000,(http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html), Canada's Health Care ranked 30th worldwide: 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada Why would the US be stupid enough to try to model its system on the Canadian one? The Canadian one is barely two-tier, mostly socialized. The best ones have proven to be two-tier systems. If the US were smart, it would be looking abroad to better models. Then again, if Canadians weren't so dogmatic, we'd be looking abroad too.

I do agree with two-tiered healthcare. As for taxes, I'd like them to be relevent. Carbon taxes make sense since it relates to asthma. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol make sense too owing to their health effects. This woudl still ensure universal coverage while still ensuring that those who are most likely to contribute to the burden will still pay more for it. We cold possibly consider extending the tax to junkfoo? Just an idea. After all, no one would be forcing us to buy it, right?

Yes, forgot about that. But still, even as PM, he still would have no vote in Parliament.

Technically, you're right. But to be a voting Member of Parliament, you do. And when was the last time you've ever seen a PM who wasnt' an MP.

No man is ever without a country. His country may change at times, but he is enver without a country. I remember the story of Verda Majo (pen name. her real anme was Hasegawa Teru. If you can read Esperanto, French, Japanese, or Chinese, you can read her story here: http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verda_Majo In summary, she worked on the Chinese side in the Sino-Japanese War, not out of imposition, but out of conviction. She was convinced that China was right in this war and that Japan was wrong. Was she a traitor? Well, to her nation, on a superficial level, yes. But to her deeper principles, no. Could she have gone back to Japan to run for office. Certainly not. Even today only a handful of Japanese respect what she did. At that time, an even smaller percentage of Japanese would have resepcted her. Zhou Enlai, though, when he'd met her, once said that she was a true patriot, a true lover of her nation, referring likely to the idea that by standing up for her principles against her nation, she was essentially holding her nation to a higher standard and, in this way, doing her nation a great favour. By the way, few Chinese even know of her, but those who do have a great respect for her. Even though many Chinese hate Japan, she can serve as a bridge between them, a kind of Japanese Bethune if you will. My point in all of this is that we should look at a wider patriotism beyond our own borders. Here's what Verda Majo once wrote in her 'En Chinio Batalanta" (In China Fighting)... Oh, good news. I just found a short version of her story in English here: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/149180.htm OK, as I was saying, in her 'En Chinio Batalanta', she wrote... Sorry again, a more detailed version: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/esperanto/41972 Now as for her quote: "For us Esperantists, nationality is not absolute. It means only difference of language, custom, culture, skin color, etc. We look upon ourselves as brothers in one great family, "mankind." For us this is no theory, it is a feeling. Externally, we are joined by a common language; internally, by a common feeling. We may love our own nation. But this love is not such as cannot coexist with love and respect for other nations." I do believe that one's place of residence and one's love of country are by no means necessarily linked. Hasegawa Teru even fought against her own nation out of principle. Now I'm certainly not equating Iggy with her by no means. She is considered a hero by many, had sacrificed her life for a cause, and in the process laid the groundwork for a possible future friendship between China, Korea, and Japan. Iggy doesn't even compare. All I'm saying though is that Iggy's place of residence bears no relevence to his qualities as an MP. The content of his character, and only the content of his character, should be judged in the process. Based on that, he still fails in my book. But at least on a relevent footing.

You have some point there. But again, in principle, a canadian could live abroad and still genuinely care, giving some of his money to charities, etc. I'm not saying this is the case with Iggy, but still. Or it could also be simply that he has many friends in the US and is used to it there. Though then I'd agree that the US should change its policy requiring runners up for prez to be born in the US, thus allowing him to run for US prez. You do have a point there. It would make more sense for an immigrant to Canada to run for MP than for an ex-pat Canadian. The same principle applies.

I'm not very impressed with Ignatieff. besides, I vote candidate, not party, and Iggy's not in my riding. Last election, I leaned Green. I agree. Unfortunately, Canadian politics has indeed lost much substance. I see your point. If Quebecers rejected a person just because he'd lived out of province would be silly. They should vote on his character, not on where he's been. As for political cheap shots, I can agree. If I lived in Igggy's riding, I'd be hard pressed to vote for him, but where he's lived woudl play little role in that. If anything, having lived abroad coudl be advantageous in giving the candidate a different perspective that other MPs could lack. For example, Iggy could have applied soem good American ideas to the Canadian system. Instead, he just comes across as a miltarist. I'll agree that formal education should play little role in the quality of a candidate. After all, remember Goebels? He had a PhD! And look at Tolstoy. He was a university drop out, yet his phylosophical works had a strong influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. It's not the degree that counts, as that's just a piece of paper. What really matters is the content of his character, reflective of a deeper moral education, not academic. I agree, and that's a shame. I woudl like Canadians to vote on the content of the character of their local candidates, and not worry about stereotyped perceptions of party leaders. But, alas, what can we do? I agree.

And again, a person who leaves Ontario to work in Quebec, does that mean he doesn't like Ontario? Same parallel.

I've worked aborad too. Does that make me less Canadian? In fact, I'd even done some volunteer work on the side while abroad. Does that make me hate Canada even more? A person may want to make more money so that he can give more of his time and money, which would be a positive trait. I'm not saying this is the case with Iggy; I'm just saying though that working abroad to make more money is not bad depending on what he intends to do with that money. I don't kow what he intends to do with it, but tht's his business. The only thing that would matter to me if he were in my riding is his policy stance, which is not too impressive at the moment.

I see nothing wrong with it in the least. What's the difference whether he works in Canada or the US? He'll be paying his taxes and making a contribution to society either way, wouldn't he? What if an Ontarian moves to Qubec to work? Does that make him a traitor to Ontario? Should Canadians forfeit potential opportunities abroad just so they can be Canadian? Some Canadians who may have become successful abroad owing to their particular skills being in demand there might not succeed in Canada since those same skills might not be in as great a demand here. Should we sacrifice opportunity in the name of blind nationalism? If a Canadian university really wants him, could it not offer him a competitive salary? Now don't get me wrong; I'm all for people paying their taxes, and have no issue with raising taxes on the more successful to help the less fortunate. But at the end of the day, we have the freedom to leave.

Well, Iggy's not in my riding anyway, so it's not like I have any way in it anyway I suppose.

So what specific policy statements of his do you have an issue with, and how does his citizenship affect that?

So what if he were an American citizen, as long as he's a Canadian citizen too. All that matters is that his constituents voted for him. OK, maybe not too bright of his constituents to have done that, but they have spoken none-the-less.

I can agree with scrapping fractional reserve banking. I'd add to that that the government should ensure that any stimulous spending can be recovered at the end of the recession. An example of how such a ssytem could work would be: 1. Counter deflation exclusively via reduction of the bank rate as long as the bank rate is above 0%. 2. If, after having dropped the bank rate to 0%, deflation persists, then 'print' just enough money to counter the deflation, spending the extra money in the following areas, prioritizing according to need: a. pay off the debt, b. invest in training the unemployed in trades and professions, perhaps through job-training vouchers to be cahed in at vocational colleges, c. Invest in global ethical funds. The 'printing' of money would stimulate the economy during the recession, but would place the government in an ideal position to fight inflation and high interest rates come next recession, mainly in the following ways: a. The low interest rate would give the Bank of Canada much wiggle room if and when it needs to increase them to counter inflation, b. The lower debt at the end of the recession would allow the government to put less money into the economy in the form of debt repayments after the recession, c. A better trained workforce would be more capable of producing work of higher value, thus allowing it to sustain the higher tax rate, government spending cuts, or both, to take money back out of the economy at the end fo the recession, and d. Government-owned investments could be sold, the money gained to be taken out of the economy. Such a strategy would allow the government to put money into the economy during the recession while simultaneously placing itself in an ideal position to come out of the recession with sufficient control over the economy so as to thwart any threat of a coming bubble economy.

Just a point here. I used to call myself an Ottawan, then a Victorian, then a Montrealer, and now an Ottawan again. So, does this mean I'm a traitor who shouldn't be allowed to participate in the democratic process anywhere just because I've moved a little and developed an affinity for the local population? If anything, I'd be concerned with the guy who is incapable of developing an affinity for his new cultural environment. And what about double standards? We keep harking on immigrants to 'become Canadian', yet expect a Canadian who'd lived abroad to remain Canadian? Looking at it that way, Ignatieff's ability to develop an emotional affinity with the people surrounding him is a positive. There are many issues I have with Ignatieff, mainly with his excessively hawkish militaristic stance and a few other points. But his ability to identify with his local or national community is certainly not among them. Why can't we focus on the issues instead of character assassination? Canadian politics at its lowest again.

No big deal. It does happen sometimes if you live among a people that you begin, even if only subconsciously, to identify with it. It may have been a matter ofstylistics to help the listeners more closely identify with him. No big deal there. What I'd be more concerned about is his one time support for the Iraq War.

OK. I still don't see the economic impact.

How would that help get us out of recession while avoiding a future bubble economy. Sorry, but I just don't see the link.

Honestly, it's easy to get a country out of recession. I could have gotten it out of recession within a month at most just by legalizing counterfeiting of money. We'd have such a labour shortage within a month after that that the recession would be a fading memory. The problem though is getting us out of recession without throwing us into a bubble economy. Any proposals here on ideas for doing just that, getting us out of recession into a stable economy, all the while avoiding a bubble economy?

You do have some points there. I'd say that whereas the European left is more social democratic, the Canadian left is more Labour socialist, focussing more on the interests of labour unions.

I could agree with that, but could also see that it would not be politically feasible in Canada. Also, the Swedish system does not force schools to participate in the voucher ssytem, so a school could charge more than the value of the voucher, but then the parent would have to pay all of it out of pocket. Is it just? That's debatable. But like I said, it's not likely to go anywhere politically in the foreseeable future. I'm as yet undecided which I agree with, but I can't agree with both statements as they contradict one another. You do have a point there. But then which culture do we impose among the options available? Like I said, Canada has many cultural layers owing to its history. Also, language segregation is different from that based on ability, in that in each school, different-abilitied students could work together. While ability segregation might be acceptable in post-compulsory education, it's hard to agree with in compulsory education for all. What would happen in a town where all schools refused to accept a child who didn't meet their standards? Rejectied? No education for him? Again, the Swedish system would allow for that if the school accepts not to participate in the voucher syste,. And again, is it just? I don't know. We have to avoid making our predictions true too though. Is English important because we've forced everyone to learn it or is everyone forced to learn it because it's important? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? From that standpoint, if more students should choose an alternative language, then clearly there' be more jobs for that language in those schools. They could still choose to teach English as a second languge. If English is that important in the community, that will likely naturally reinforce their learning too. And if not, then English-speakers might find themselves out of the local job market just as unilingual French-speaking Quebecers are shut out of the English job market and vice versa. All should be equal here as a matter of principle, It should be up to the FN themselves, not their paternalistic guardians, to impose English on them if that's what they want to do.

A few thing here: 1. as for not allowing schools to 'top up', though I personally might be open to the idea of a school charging more money, I can see too that seeing how politically unpalatable any voucher system would be to voters, I could imagine one that allows 'topping up' to be even more unpalatable. From that pragmatic standpoint, this condition would likely be absolutely necessary for such an idea to fly. And there is another phylosophical element, being that all children should have the same opportunity, so this restriction could make richer parents more open to increased public funding for education. I'm guessing this might in fact have been one of the strategic considerations in this restriction. I think the same strategic consideration is applied to opposition to two-tiered healthcare in Canada (though Europeans seem to be open to it). 2. As for selecting students, seeing that one purpose of education is in fact to teach students to live in society, it would seem that selecting them on any basis other than first-come-first-served would defeat that goal, so there is in fact a societal function to that restriction. 3. Unlike Sweden, where there is generally but one language, and the majority language is also the indigenous language, in Canada, we have two founding languages plus many First Nations languages, with different majority languages in different parts of the country (e.g. English in Ontario, French in Quebec), and the majority language is usually not the indigenous language. That being the case, a voucher system could help to put all these languages on an equal footing, as an extention of social justice for Canada's indigenous and majority language communities, as well as the deaf (sign language), while also recognizing Caanda's international communication needs in the global markets.

If you look at StatsCan, few Ontarians succeed in learning their second language anyway. Also, would it not save the government money to integrate policies? Why spend so much money to have so many pupils fial at French and then spend even more money trying to develop the local Aboriginal languages. If they would just offer it as an option in school instead of French, then it could kill two birds with one stone and in that way either achieve the same results with less money or better results with the same money. I remember hearing of one non-Aboriginal woman who'd learnt Cree because many of her friends were Cree. So why not allow schools to exploit the local environment so as to increase the pupils' chances of success in their second language. That non-native woman, by the way, taught Cree full time too, so for some it could give employment opportunities. As for Latin, I don't know; but I have met some Christian families that do have their children learn Greek. Again, why not just let them do it in school, killing two birds with one stone? That's why government is so expensive today; everything is dealt with piecemeal rather than in an integrated manner with policies re-inforcing each other as they should. We should look at policy as an integrated whole rather than thousands of unrelated parts.

I agree with this. Moderation i all things. But also there could be different forms of socialism. For instance, the grades could have been personal, but part of the grade could be based on the person's teamwork, willingness to help others, etc. That could have promoted collaboration through incentive. Sweden is a prime example of thsi kind of socialism. THey have an excellent safety net, they're often revered by the left as a model of socialism, they pay high taxes, have quality government services, but... Sweden uses a school voucher system and private schools can participate! So Sweden's socialism still incorporates some capitalism too.

I agree. I'm just saying though that that wasn't factored in in the expetiment in the OP. Some students would have studied hard not for the grade but for the knowledge. Other students would have helped their classmates just out of frendship. While I agree that for most students the reults of that experiment woudl have held true, there would have always been exceptions.