Is the US still a democracy? Or is it a plutocracy?

[bush_cheney2004]

Your brother's an illegal immigrant?

No, he was born in Philly. Guess again.

B_C, people do not buy toasters the same way they buy health services - whether in Canada, the US, France or Red China.

First of all, your comparison is obviously simplistic, ignorant and idiotic.

Take it up with Dancer....he likes to invoke toasters.

Second, if I had to choose a comparison in rich countries, we buy health care the way we pay for car maintenance. We want a good warranty and then we pay for 8000 km servicing. IOW, we buy catastrophic insurance and pay for regular contracted attention.

Speak for yourself.....I do my own car maintenance...may as well be toasters with an extended warranty.

Under Eisenhower, the US federal government taxed and paid for the building of the Interstate system. Even Ronald Reagan would probably admit that the Interstate system, for its time and place, was a good thing.

Not correct...nearly all of the US Interstate Highway system was paid for by user fees in the way of gasoline excise taxes and tolls (state and federal). Anyone not inclined easily escaped such direct taxes. For instance, my family didn't purchase gasoline for motor vehicles until the late 1960's, as it wasn't necessary.

[the janitor]

Anyone who can't distinguish between the real America and their fantasies.

That includes Americans more than anyone else. Universal healthcare a "tyranny"? Now look who's indulging in fantasies. If Americans want to spend billions on private healthcare and still let millions of their own countrymen die without it then let them . I won't argue. It's not my country.

If they want to live with the fantasy that their system of government is better than a parliamentary system that's fine with me too. They're the ones stuck with it and the half-assed legislation it produces.

[the janitor]

ah....Good..democracy in action them.

Hey M.Dancer...Good one. I think Bush_Cheney just got owned!

[Shady]

sort of if margreace commented...

What the hell does "margreace" refer to?

ah....Good..democracy in action them.

Do you mean them or then?

Do us all a little favour, and take a bit of time before you add a reply, to make sure you're typing coherent thoughts. Thanks.

[bush_cheney2004]

That includes Americans more than anyone else. Universal healthcare a "tyranny"? Now look who's indulging in fantasies. If Americans want to spend billions on private healthcare and still let millions of their own countrymen die without it then let them . I won't argue. It's not my country.

But you already have.....so obsessed with what the Americans will/won't do about universal health care, for fear that not only will your medical professionals continue to cross the border for better pay and facilities, but completely expose Canada's two tier system charade for what it really is.

If they want to live with the fantasy that their system of government is better than a parliamentary system that's fine with me too. They're the ones stuck with it and the half-assed legislation it produces.

Note: you are sweating the Americans' fantasy...while they don't even know or care what a "paliamentary system" is. How is that Gun Registry thing going?

[Shady]

If they want to live with the fantasy that their system of government is better than a parliamentary system that's fine with me too. They're the ones stuck with it and the half-assed legislation it produces.

Their system of government is better then a parliamentary system. Please explain to us how it's not. I'd love to be able to vote for a Prime Minster seperate from my local representatives. And I'd love for out Senators to be elected, not selected, by our PM. And I'd love for our Members of Parliament to have the freedom to vote their conscience, and not have to worry about their party cutting off election funding or kicking them out of their seat altogether.

Please explain to us how their system is "half-assed." Three seperate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances over the other, is somehow inferior to our almost dictator-like parliamentary system. How so?

Edited May 25, 2008 by Shady

[bush_cheney2004]

...Please explain to us how their system is "half-assed." Three seperate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances over the other, is somehow inferior to our almost dictator-like parliamentary system. How so?

We don't have a Queen?

[the janitor]

Their system of government is better then a parliamentary system. Please explain to us how it's not. I'd love to be able to vote for a Prime Minster seperate from my local representatives. And I'd love for out Senators to be elected, not selected, by our PM. And I'd love for our Members of Parliament to have the freedom to vote their conscience, and not have to worry about their party cutting off election funding or kicking them out of their seat altogether.

Please explain to us how their system is "half-assed." Three seperate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances over the other, is somehow inferior to our almost dictator-like parliamentary system. How so?

Exactly my point. A parliamentary system produces a stronger government. If Canada's a dictatorship, it's gotta be the only one where its citizens are free to leave if they want.

[the janitor]

We don't have a Queen?

O c'mon, the old girl's over 80 and she's still hotter looking than George W. or do you find him more attractive?

[Oleg Bach]

O c'mon, the old girl's over 80 and she's still hotter looking than George W. or do you find him more attractive?

George is a girly man. Plutocracy would insinuate that there is a quiet and powerful bunch that are occulted by the fraud that is govnernent and operate like the wizard of god damn frinking OZ...Noooo..that's not it. The way it really is will bother some but I will say it anyway. If your great grandfather or grandfather was a mafia boss...Irish - Italian - Anglo - Jewish - and so on and so on ...all groups have mafias. CONTINUED. If you decent from arch crimminals and your dad is smart enough to launder you by sending you to law school and inserting you in the political arena..then suddenly after a generation or two - YOU ARE NOW ESTABLISHMENT AND NOT THE LOW LIFE YOU REALLY ARE> America - Mexico - and Canada are mafia fiefdoms.

[Shady]

Exactly my point. A parliamentary system produces a stronger government. If Canada's a dictatorship, it's gotta be the only one where its citizens are free to leave if they want.

You're point is wrong. A stronger government (whatever that's suppose to mean), doesn't make it a better government. More power centralized in one individual (The Prime Minster) is not necessarily a good thing. Senators should not be appointed to office. They should be voted into office. Supreme Court Judges should not be selected by the Prime Minster, they should be advised and consented on, as they are in America. And if I want to vote for the Prime Minister of one party, and vote for a local representative of another party, I should have that freedom. It's only common sense.

[M.Dancer]

What the hell does "margreace" refer to?

Do you mean them or then?

Do us all a little favour, and take a bit of time before you add a reply, to make sure you're typing coherent thoughts. Thanks.

eahy srue, hwatever....

[Shady]

eahy srue, hwatever....

Touche.

[g_bambino]

I think a lot of people, especially A,ericans have a misunderstanidng or what a republic means. It certainly doesn't imply non democratic or is the antinom of democracy. It's closer to non monarchy than any thing else..res pubica means commonwealth...or state.

To say simply that America isn't a democracy it's a republic is a non sequitur. And as the Ameican experiance has amply shown, from it;s inception it has been democratic (limited in our perspective) and has evolved into the one of the longest continous democracies in history.

I think you mean closer to a non-absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchies - Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and the like - could technically fall under the definition of a republic; a state where the people have a say in the operation of their governance. On the other hand, some "republics" aren't republics at all. The US has been a successful republic, but, so far, it's constitutional monarchies that outnumber it in terms of continual democracy.

[Leafless]

I think you mean closer to a non-absolute monarchy. Constitutional monarchies - Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and the like - could technically fall under the definition of a republic; a state where the people have a say in the operation of their governance. On the other hand, some "republics" aren't republics at all. The US has been a successful republic, but, so far, it's constitutional monarchies that outnumber it in terms of continual democracy.

The citizens of Canada are not the 'sovereign'.

What say do Canadians have in the operation of their government outside of the initial right to vote a government to power?

[Argus]

Really? My brother hasn't paid social security taxes through the past 20 years of employment. Instant pay raise!

Sure they do.....money talks.....even Canadians walk to the USA to buy faster access and services. Health care is a business....not a right.

There is a massive disconnection in the US between what something ought to cost, and what the health care industry charges for it. Doctors and pharmaceutical execs drive around in limos and health insurance owners get enormously wealthy while people die for lack of basic health care services.

You can say it's not a right, but the US does not allow people to starve to death in the streets and it should not allow them to die of basic, curable illnesses either.

[Argus]

Ummm...no they can't. That's what a "constitutional republic" is all about, including majority tyranny for such things as mandatory / universal health care and restrictions on insurance for medical procedures.

The voters can change the constitution any time they want. As I said, they can vote in whatever and whoever they want if they ever decide to do so.

[Argus]

But you already have.....so obsessed with what the Americans will/won't do about universal health care, for fear that not only will your medical professionals continue to cross the border for better pay and facilities, but completely expose Canada's two tier system charade for what it really is.

There is certainly room for improvement in the Canadian system. But even while spending a huge amount less than the US does we still provide, overall, better health care. If we spent what the US spends of course, there'd be no waiting, because our government run health care bureaucracy is hugely smaller than your privately run health care bureaucracy. I know that's odd, but in this rare case, the government actually does things for a lot less paperwork than the private sector.

[Argus]

Their system of government is better then a parliamentary system. Please explain to us how it's not. I'd love to be able to vote for a Prime Minster seperate from my local representatives. And I'd love for out Senators to be elected, not selected, by our PM. And I'd love for our Members of Parliament to have the freedom to vote their conscience, and not have to worry about their party cutting off election funding or kicking them out of their seat altogether.

Please explain to us how their system is "half-assed." Three seperate but equal branches of government, each with checks and balances over the other, is somehow inferior to our almost dictator-like parliamentary system. How so?

The founders wanted a system which limited the power of any individual or group, so they set up their republic with opposing centres of power. That serves well to limit power, but it also makes it extremely difficult to achieve the necessary consensus to get important matters attended to. In most cases you have government by bribery, with the executive branch cutting deals with individual senators and congressmen and groups of senators and congressmen, to get their backing on votes. And, of course, you now have corporate lobbyists writing legislation and bribing both branches of government to put it in place.

You are wrong about the power of the Prime Minister in Canada, btw. While realistically he can get a lot done, there are limits. If he was to decide to do something drastically against the public will his own cabinet and party would reign him in. It isn't as easy to get anything you want through cabinet as you seem to believe. Trudeau and Chretien themselves had to back off at times because they couldn't get cabinet agreement.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is a massive disconnection in the US between what something ought to cost, and what the health care industry charges for it. Doctors and pharmaceutical execs drive around in limos and health insurance owners get enormously wealthy while people die for lack of basic health care services.

I will let my doctor know this....he will wonder where his limo has been all these years.

You can say it's not a right, but the US does not allow people to starve to death in the streets and it should not allow them to die of basic, curable illnesses either.

That's a noble idea....but ideologically flawed. Food is not a right either. Many Americans (and Canadians) are too fat to starve to death.

[bush_cheney2004]

The voters can change the constitution any time they want. As I said, they can vote in whatever and whoever they want if they ever decide to do so.

No they can't....see Equal Rights Ammendment, history of.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is certainly room for improvement in the Canadian system. But even while spending a huge amount less than the US does we still provide, overall, better health care. If we spent what the US spends of course, there'd be no waiting, because our government run health care bureaucracy is hugely smaller than your privately run health care bureaucracy. I know that's odd, but in this rare case, the government actually does things for a lot less paperwork than the private sector.

The US has both private and single payer systems, dwarfing anything in Canada. America's excess capacity is used by Canadian provinces to make up for shortfalls from all that wonderful "efficiency". The right to patiently wait in queue for services is laudable; those who don't wish to wait, vote with their feet and wallets abroad.

[g_bambino]

The citizens of Canada are not the 'sovereign'.

What say do Canadians have in the operation of their government outside of the initial right to vote a government to power?

No, the sovereign is the sovereign, and we give allegiance to the monarch as the ultimate authority in the country. However, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and thus the sovereign swears at his or her coronation to "govern the peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs." In other words, the Canadian monarch promises to follow laws and customs in order to reign; the monarch has, since at least 1215, held the crown by the consent of others; today, it is by the consent of we Canadians (unless you believe Elizabeth would call her CF troops to arms if a referendum on a republic were to be successful).

As for the government and Canadians: Canadians don't vote a government to power; they vote a party to a majority in their legislature and the Governor General appoints a government that will be supported by the legislature. That support is how Canadians have a say in the operation of the government; in our system (and unlike the American), the Cabinet must face the elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons. If the Cabinet makes a decision unpopular with the legislature, then the government falls and a new one is installed.

Edited May 27, 2008 by g_bambino

[Argus]

The US has both private and single payer systems, dwarfing anything in Canada. America's excess capacity is used by Canadian provinces to make up for shortfalls from all that wonderful "efficiency". The right to patiently wait in queue for services is laudable; those who don't wish to wait, vote with their feet and wallets abroad.

This is the propaganda spiel put out by the health care industry in the US but it's a massive exaggeration. And while Canadians often wait for service at least they know they'll get it, and not be cut off by their insurance company in the middle of treatment, nor have treatment denied by a bureacrat in an office a thousand miles away whose bonus depends on how many claims he refuses.

There are what, 50 million Americans with no health care insurance, and probably 100 million who are underinsured, who risk being booted, or having their claims denied, whose doctors have to get permission for every test they want to perform, every operation they think is needed. And as I said above, they have to get that permission from employees who get bonuses for saying "NO!" regardless of legalities or necessities.

I'm not a liberal - as I'm sure anyone here can attest, but your system is actually closer to socialist than ours is. In fact, the bogeyman of socialized medicine raised by the health care industry when Clinton was trying to put in national health care has come to pass in the US - but ironically enough, it is the private sector that must approve what doctor you see, what hospital you go to, what test gets run, what operations are or are not performed - and not the government. Meanwhile, Canadians go to whatever doctor or hospital they want, and their doctor doesn't have to get permission from a weasel in an office tower before deciding on an operation.

You do indeed have excess capacity. Every hospital feels it has to have every fancy gizmo invented, because it's in competition with every other hospital. But this just means you have ten machines when you only need three or four. You still wind up, as an economy, paying for ten machines which are often idle. That's gross inefficiency. And the cost, of course, is passed on to the public.

We pay taxes, you pay health care insurance. What exactly is the difference other than ours costs less and guarantees service and yours only guarantees the right to ask?

Edited May 28, 2008 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

This is the propaganda spiel put out by the health care industry in the US but it's a massive exaggeration. And while Canadians often wait for service at least they know they'll get it, and not be cut off by their insurance company in the middle of treatment, nor have treatment denied by a bureacrat in an office a thousand miles away whose bonus depends on how many claims he refuses.

If they don't mind doing their civic duty and waiting for that hip replacement, then they should support your current system. But many Canadians don't want to wait, and seek treatment abroad. This is not an exaggeration. Claims in the US are adjudicated by the rules of the private, group, or government program policies.

There are what, 50 million Americans with no health care insurance, and probably 100 million who are underinsured, who risk being booted, or having their claims denied, whose doctors have to get permission for every test they want to perform, every operation they think is needed. And as I said above, they have to get that permission from employees who get bonuses for saying "NO!" regardless of legalities or necessities.

You are being inconsistent....on one hand we have all this "wasteful" capacity, but then you claim we can't use it. Health care providers have every right to expect payment for products and services...this argument is more about who pays than anything else.

I'm not a liberal - as I'm sure anyone here can attest, but your system is actually closer to socialist than ours is. In fact, the bogeyman of socialized medicine raised by the health care industry when Clinton was trying to put in national health care has come to pass in the US - but ironically enough, it is the private sector that must approve what doctor you see, what hospital you go to, what test gets run, what operations are or are not performed - and not the government. Meanwhile, Canadians go to whatever doctor or hospital they want, and their doctor doesn't have to get permission from a weasel in an office tower before deciding on an operation.

I think you are lumping all patients and services into one group, when there are many channels for health care in the USA....and Canada. The private sector works quite well for those who can afford to pay, and government programs serve a targeted demographic with Medicare and Medicaid at both the federal and state levels. Yes, Canadians go wherever they want (facilities are spotty in some areas), and go through a screening process to set up the queue (wait times); Many Americans (and Canadians) with coverage/cash refuse to accept those conditions, so the market will always be there to serve them. You know as well as I do that Canada already has a two-tier system.

My doctor is only restrained by the provisions of my group health care policies (I have two of them) if that is the only payment/fee structure available. My monthly premiums are very reasonable for family coverage and include dental. Cash and credit provides other options.

You do indeed have excess capacity. Every hospital feels it has to have every fancy gizmo invented, because it's in competition with every other hospital. But this just means you have ten machines when you only need three or four. You still wind up, as an economy, paying for ten machines which are often idle. That's gross inefficiency. And the cost, of course, is passed on to the public.

So what? Health care is a business, not a right, and constitutes about 15% of US GDP. We do brain surgeries to boob jobs, and lots of 'em. I know that when push comes to shove, a Canadian with a family member who is suffering in queue thinks about their options in the wickedly inefficient US of A.

We pay taxes, you pay health care insurance. What exactly is the difference other than ours costs less and guarantees service and yours only guarantees the right to ask?

My group policy premiums run about $96 per month for family coverage with dental. It meets my needs as well as the needs for the majority of Americans who are employed. That's why Billary failed in 1993....they did not convince Americans or the health care provider/insurance/pharms infrastructure that the change was beneficial to those who worked and used the current system.

Hell, we all know that Canada's single payer system is the worst and costliest example among industialized nations with national programs, and while I am not advocating any changes for Canada (it's your business, not mine), the US sure as hell would not copy the CHA. France does far better in that regard with a mix of private and public.

Why do your doctors and other medical professionals continue to come south? Didn't they drink the Flavor-Aid?