Canada 51st state

[scribblet]

Here's a valid question.

What does everyone think would become of us if we did become the 51st-63rd states?

What do you think would happen?

A lot of retired folks would be living in Florida

[BubberMiley]

No Canadian over 35 years old able to find an insurance company willing to cover their health care.

[Hicksey]

- Official Bilingualism, Health Canada Act, Kyoto obligations etc. all go out the window. Former Provinces required to maintain current healthcare spending for a preset length of time, after which their obligations to maintain healthcare spending become an matter of state law.

- Day to day life of 99% of Canadians unchanged.

I don't agree. The Democrats often put our system up on a pedestal as an example of the type of care they think all Amercians should be entitled to. With a nearly guaranteed Democratic White House and likely also the house and senate I submit the Democrats would not dump our system, but rather their own. They would have the numbers to push it through the house and senate and a POTUS friendly to the cause that would sign the bill.

As for bilingualism, I think that under some pressure from some of their own states like Louisiana they would ammend their official languages act to include French. I doubt that Quebec would be satified though because the USA does not have a track record of pandering to specific states like we do here.

And Kyoto I think is only good for use as recycled TP anyway. I think each region would be farther off to recognize their own environmental issues and tackle them on their own.

[scribblet]

No Canadian over 35 years old able to find an insurance company willing to cover their health care.

Nah, Canadians will be grandfathered in, we'll get to keep our health care..... should I start packing for Florida now...

Actually they divide this darned continent the wrong way, it should have been divided vertically, then we could have had Florida.... sigh.

[geoffrey]

No Canadian over 35 years old able to find an insurance company willing to cover their health care.

Nah, Canadians will be grandfathered in, we'll get to keep our health care..... should I start packing for Florida now...

Actually they divide this darned continent the wrong way, it should have been divided vertically, then we could have had Florida.... sigh.

You have a valid point, if you look at the continent culturally, it fits much better divided vertically.

[Wilber]

No Canadian over 35 years old able to find an insurance company willing to cover their health care.

I know several Canadians and their families who have green cards and have the option of living on either side of the border. They chose Washington State because the tax structure and all around cost of living made it worthwhile in spite of the cost of health care. I don't know how much this will change as they continue to age but none of them are under 35.

It's hard to make blanket statements about the economic benefits of living in either country. You have to compare individual Provinces to individual States, what company benefits you may have, whether you are paid in USD or CAD and the exchange rate to make a valid comparison. It will always be subject to change.

[geoffrey]

Obviously Americans over 35 have health care if they want to, it's an emotional unfounded statement.

[Slavik44]

I just don't see this happening, Canada and America have always had an interesting relationship, even when we get in public spats we our still on each others side behind the scenes, if Canada has demonstrated one thing in our history it is that we like the ability to choose, the fact that there is and will always be only one option is irrelavant, we enjoy having the illusion. To some extent there is no reason to mess with something that works so well. Despite what people say our relationship is probabley better as two countries inhabiting one continient then as one country in one continient.

Despite the odd bump in the road our relationship is great, even when it is bad. Really unification would improve very few things in our relationship but it most certainyl would create a number of headaches, found in sepratism, Canadian nationalism, billingualism, public health care, and the creation of the democartic dynasty (Canada, California, New York). I think this is a classic cass of a relationship being better in its current state. I think we enjoy each others company and although tensions get inflamed they always die down, but I belive space allows us to do that, the space being seperate governments. I think when we eliminate the space we may be creating a situation for a long un-ending train of abuses and usurpations, to stack up to the breaking point. So why mess with a good thing? If it ain't broke there is absolutely no reason to fix it until it is.

[Bakunin]

Free trade is a great thing IMO, i would be very happy if we could merge even more canada,usa and mexico's economy and we should have some kind of political union to unify our policy and strenghen our partnership. However, to be successfull, the unification must not be compulsory, it must be built on consensus.

[Hicksey]

Free trade is a great thing IMO, i would be very happy if we could merge even more canada,usa and mexico's economy and we should have some kind of political union to unify our policy and strenghen our partnership. However, to be successfull, the unification must not be compulsory, it must be built on consensus.

That could never happen. Too many Canadians hate the US no matter what. If you were to listen to some of them you would swear that they're not just our neighbor, but also our worst enemy. Others still call them a necessary evil.

Nobody wants to admit it, but without the US this socialist's wet dream of a country could not exist as it does.

[PocketRocket]

the usa wants canada as a state because of our land mass. and oil. and seafood. and lumbar.

The USA has no problem importing our lumbar, their problem was that they thought the lumbar industry was being supported by the Canadian government, hence all those tariffs.

They just need to back off accept the fact that here in Canada, we have no lumbar support.

[scribblet]

Free trade is a great thing IMO, i would be very happy if we could merge even more canada,usa and mexico's economy and we should have some kind of political union to unify our policy and strenghen our partnership. However, to be successfull, the unification must not be compulsory, it must be built on consensus.

That could never happen. Too many Canadians hate the US no matter what. If you were to listen to some of them you would swear that they're not just our neighbor, but also our worst enemy. Others still call them a necessary evil.

Nobody wants to admit it, but without the US this socialist's wet dream of a country could not exist as it does.

I don't know about you guys but my lumbar needs a lot of support these days and my obus form doesn't do iit.

[Ahni]

Hey. It's really nice seeing all these replies!

I agree that the odds of the US/CA overtly integrating politically is pretty slim, but integration doesn't have to mean we become another star on the US flag.

The agenda of the Task Force suggests, for starters, integration in Economic and Military areas, Institutions, and in General Policy -- "deep integration."

The specfic plan as introduced here (PDF), says that these are the short-term goals.

As a few of you have shown here, we can see this happening already - an example of policy integration is the timing of the issue on immigration in both US and Canada right now... Also Harper's devote contribution to the Military - and the fact that the term "PeaceKeepers" now seems to be invalid.

Another example, that most of us don't see is the behaviour of both governments internationally - especially with regard to the UN declarations, security Council decisions, and many other agreements-in-faith. 70% of the time the decisions of both are the same (Australia and Israel are often in agreement to what the US decides aswell)

Now this doesn't readily effect any of us, just like the WTO and FTAA...

(NB the only reason free trade seems good is because 'civil society' has the stick of wealth in-hand. The rest of the Nations involved, excepting the governments of those Nations who usually benefit 10-fold over the people, are utterly repulsed by all this. If anyone's interested, there's a movie called "the fourth world war" worth watching. You may also want to look up "argentine miracle." Among other things, Free Trade legalizes slave labour.)

but it's no less relevant with regard to deep integration, because we are effected by their decisions regardless of where they make them - and we are the ones who have to suffer the consequences, if there are to be any.

Finally, eventhough most Canadians won't tolerate "full integration," the fact is it's not necessarily up to us. I mean, do our voices really carry that much weight when it comes down to the government setting policy? When was the last time there was a referendum (trudeau), or were genuinely asked our opinion, besides for some inane poll for the news?

So it may not matter what we think, want, or don't want - not unless we become democratically active.

[SaintLucifer]

Free trade is a great thing IMO, i would be very happy if we could merge even more canada,usa and mexico's economy and we should have some kind of political union to unify our policy and strenghen our partnership. However, to be successfull, the unification must not be compulsory, it must be built on consensus.

That could never happen. Too many Canadians hate the US no matter what. If you were to listen to some of them you would swear that they're not just our neighbor, but also our worst enemy. Others still call them a necessary evil.

Nobody wants to admit it, but without the US this socialist's wet dream of a country could not exist as it does.

Canada is a socialist country?? News to me. We have adopted some forms of socialist policies but we are NOT a socialist country per se.

[SaintLucifer]

Hey. It's really nice seeing all these replies!

I agree that the odds of the US/CA overtly integrating politically is pretty slim, but integration doesn't have to mean we become another star on the US flag.

The agenda of the Task Force suggests, for starters, integration in Economic and Military areas, Institutions, and in General Policy -- "deep integration."

The specfic plan as introduced here (PDF), says that these are the short-term goals.

As a few of you have shown here, we can see this happening already - an example of policy integration is the timing of the issue on immigration in both US and Canada right now... Also Harper's devote contribution to the Military - and the fact that the term "PeaceKeepers" now seems to be invalid.

Another example, that most of us don't see is the behaviour of both governments internationally - especially with regard to the UN declarations, security Council decisions, and many other agreements-in-faith. 70% of the time the decisions of both are the same (Australia and Israel are often in agreement to what the US decides aswell)

Now this doesn't readily effect any of us, just like the WTO and FTAA...

(NB the only reason free trade seems good is because 'civil society' has the stick of wealth in-hand. The rest of the Nations involved, excepting the governments of those Nations who usually benefit 10-fold over the people, are utterly repulsed by all this. If anyone's interested, there's a movie called "the fourth world war" worth watching. You may also want to look up "argentine miracle." Among other things, Free Trade legalizes slave labour.)

but it's no less relevant with regard to deep integration, because we are effected by their decisions regardless of where they make them - and we are the ones who have to suffer the consequences, if there are to be any.

Finally, eventhough most Canadians won't tolerate "full integration," the fact is it's not necessarily up to us. I mean, do our voices really carry that much weight when it comes down to the government setting policy? When was the last time there was a referendum (trudeau), or were genuinely asked our opinion, besides for some inane poll for the news?

So it may not matter what we think, want, or don't want - not unless we become democratically active.

Most interesting. I see you are not too fond of NAFTA. One of the most ridiculous statements I have seen would be 'Free Trade legalises (not 'legalizes', we are not Americans) slave labour'. However did you come up with that? You do understand Canada experiences huge trade surpluses thanks to Free Trade yes? As a result, our economy continues to grow at a nice clip although if we were to remove the ridiculous presence of socialism within our business ranks, we could do far better. This is what the left fears hence their desire to make such ridiculous statements as I quoted you uttering earlier.

Accept the ideals of fascism and watch Canada's economy grow by leaps and bounds with the shackles of stagnant socialism removed.

Canada must NEVER allow ourselves to incorporate with the U.S.A. We have been a sovereign nation and we shall always remain a sovereign nation. I for one cannot condone any plans or even discussion of joining the U.S.A.

[Hicksey]

Free trade is a great thing IMO, i would be very happy if we could merge even more canada,usa and mexico's economy and we should have some kind of political union to unify our policy and strenghen our partnership. However, to be successfull, the unification must not be compulsory, it must be built on consensus.

That could never happen. Too many Canadians hate the US no matter what. If you were to listen to some of them you would swear that they're not just our neighbor, but also our worst enemy. Others still call them a necessary evil.

Nobody wants to admit it, but without the US this socialist's wet dream of a country could not exist as it does.

Canada is a socialist country?? News to me. We have adopted some forms of socialist policies but we are NOT a socialist country per se.

We may as well be. We know we've travelled far enough down the road to socialism to be closer to it than where we started when we start handing out free drugs and alcohol to addicts. When the government keeps more than we do there is a SERIOUS problem. When social programs start taking more of our income than we get to keep to live our lives I think we're pretty damn close to socialist.

The government doesn't control business directly as they would in a socialist country, but if you have seen the regulations business is beholden to they may as well be. The government does not hold the titles, but are very much in control.

[BubberMiley]

Obviously Americans over 35 have health care if they want to, it's an emotional unfounded statement.

That's because they got it before turning 35. Check out how much it costs if you try and get it later in life.

[scribblet]

Obviously Americans over 35 have health care if they want to, it's an emotional unfounded statement.

That's because they got it before turning 35. Check out how much it costs if you try and get it later in life.

Or many of those who don't have it prefer to have a second car or a larger mortgage - whatever. Sometimes people make choices.

[Hicksey]

Obviously Americans over 35 have health care if they want to, it's an emotional unfounded statement.

That's because they got it before turning 35. Check out how much it costs if you try and get it later in life.

Or many of those who don't have it prefer to have a second car or a larger mortgage - whatever. Sometimes people make choices.

Didn't you know that this is supposed to be consequence-free world? Someone who forsakes health coverage for a bigger house or car should not have to deal with the consequences of that decision -- you and I should have to pay for it.

[Black Dog]

Or many of those who don't have it prefer to have a second car or a larger mortgage - whatever. Sometimes people make choices.

The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies. Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma. Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty. People with pneumonia who don’t have health insurance are less likely to receive X rays or consultations. The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insurance.*

Given all that, are you people seriously claiming that people are making the rational choice not to get insured? Even if one accepts that, what evidence is there that they are choosing luxuries such as a second car or more expensive house over health care?

[Hicksey]

Or many of those who don't have it prefer to have a second car or a larger mortgage - whatever. Sometimes people make choices.

The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is unpaid medical bills. Half of the uninsured owe money to hospitals, and a third are being pursued by collection agencies. Children without health insurance are less likely to receive medical attention for serious injuries, for recurrent ear infections, or for asthma. Lung-cancer patients without insurance are less likely to receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation treatment. Heart-attack victims without health insurance are less likely to receive angioplasty. People with pneumonia who don’t have health insurance are less likely to receive X rays or consultations. The death rate in any given year for someone without health insurance is twenty-five per cent higher than for someone with insurance.*

Given all that, are you people seriously claiming that people are making the rational choice not to get insured? Even if one accepts that, what evidence is there that they are choosing luxuries such as a second car or more expensive house over health care?

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness.

The rest of the study can be found HERE

Wow, Black Dog. Only about 1% of a country without government sponsored health care filed bankruptcy as a result of medical expenses?

[sarcasm]Thats a statistic worthy of a wholesale condemnation of their system[/sarcasm]

[BubberMiley]

Didn't you know that this is supposed to be consequence-free world? Someone who forsakes health coverage for a bigger house or car should not have to deal with the consequences of that decision -- you and I should have to pay for it.

But if you're a Canadian over 35 years of age and, if this hypothetical merger with the U.S. were to happen, you would want health coverage. That's what we're talking about, not all the blah-blah people make choices/consequences for your decision/bigger house/nice car talking points that are repeatedly dredged up. You didn't get health care before because you were Canadian before and you didn't need it. Now (in this hypothetical thread we are discussing) you do. Who's going to cover you? Private companies who need to make money from the deal because they aren't charities. How would they do that?

They would be forced to charge you more money than most people would ever be able to afford.

It's basic mathematics. Once you're over 35, your paying premium years are statistically fewer. Therefore your premiums need to be higher than if you had been paying premiums since you were in your twenties.

[Hicksey]

Didn't you know that this is supposed to be consequence-free world? Someone who forsakes health coverage for a bigger house or car should not have to deal with the consequences of that decision -- you and I should have to pay for it.

But if you're a Canadian over 35 years of age and, if this hypothetical merger with the U.S. were to happen, you would want health coverage. That's what we're talking about, not all the blah-blah people make choices/consequences for your decision/bigger house/nice car talking points that are repeatedly dredged up. You didn't get health care before because you were Canadian before and you didn't need it. Now (in this hypothetical thread we are discussing) you do. Who's going to cover you? Private companies who need to make money from the deal because they aren't charities. How would they do that?

They would be forced to charge you more money than most people would ever be able to afford.

It's basic mathematics. Once you're over 35, your paying premium years are statistically fewer. Therefore your premiums need to be higher than if you had been paying premiums since you were in your twenties.

I'm still trying to figure out how we end up with their system.

I made the point above that with a Democrat controlled house, senate and executive our system was more likely to win the day than theirs. Because of that I think the question is moot.

If a union between us meant a likely Republican majority, your point would be a good one.

But in reality, if you haven't a job that would provide for that by the time you're that age, you're doing something wrong.

[BubberMiley]

I'm still trying to figure out how we end up with their system.

Read the thread title. It's hypothetical.

But in reality, if you haven't a job that would provide for that by the time you're that age, you're doing something wrong.

Like raising kids, or being sick, or working at one of the growing number of Mcjobs provided us by conservative policies?

[Black Dog]

Wow, Black Dog. Only about 1% of a country without government sponsored health care filed bankruptcy as a result of medical expenses?

Which does nothing to undermine the point that medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Or support your point that lack of medical insurance is a choice driven by greed.

The 2004 Census Current Population Survey (CPS) identified 44.7 million non-elderly uninsured

in 2003. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association contracted with the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) to provide a detailed analysis of the uninsured identified by the Census Bureau, which found:

Nearly one-third were reachable through public programs, such as Medicaid and the SCHIP

program for children

One-fifth earn $50,000 or more annually and may be able to afford coverage

Almost half may have difficulty affording coverage because they earn less than $50,000

per year. Many of these people work for small firms that do not offer health coverage

Who are the uninsured?