Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!ubc-vision!alberta!cdshaw From: cdshaw@alberta.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: definitions of culture, really Brad, Brad, Brad....wake up Message-ID: <238@pembina.alberta.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Feb-87 16:25:53 EST Article-I.D.: pembina.238 Posted: Fri Feb 27 16:25:53 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Feb-87 08:37:40 EST References: <192@fornax.uucp> <744@looking.UUCP> <202@fornax.uucp> <745@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) Distribution: can Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Lines: 102 In article <745@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: (Just the > and >>> lines) >>> Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour. >>> (The techniques, not the actual practice) OK, 51% qualifies as most. Big deal. A 10-to-1 population ratio has something to do with it. >Do you make the assertion that the USA does *not* lead the world in health >care research and the development of new health care techniques? No, you did, using the old rhetorical-question ploy. >They do pay a lot for it, and one of those costs is a private health care >system, but *somebody* has to do it. The public health care systems exist on >the backs of the private ones -- that's the point I was making. And a bogus point it is, too. There are at least two reasons that health care costs are much higher in the US than in Canada: 1) The outrageously high cost of malpractice insurance (Due to excessive malpractice settlements), which ends up making a doctor's visit expensive. 2) Private-hospital profiteering. (You know, the old excessive tests to increase hospital revenues routine). Neither of which has very much to do with medical R&D, except that the funding of such R&D (if it comes from private hospital revenues at all) comes at the expense of individuals who happen to get sick. I think that the private hospital situation in the US sucks, simply because it makes individual victims pay through the nose for innovations that end up benefitting all. As far as this crap about "public health care systems exist on the backs of the private ones" ..is concerned, I suspect that most (more than 75%) of US medical R&D money comes from the feds and private funding organizations anyway. In any case, funding the public good off the backs of those experiencing individual hardship is grossly unnecessary in a land as prosperous as ours (or theirs). >We forbid (or hinder) free trade and exchange between Canadian residents >and foreigners. This is as much a restriction on the foreigners as it is >on the Canadians. These restrictions are put in place for various reasons, >including control of the Canadian economy, volleys in trade wars and control >of foreign economies. You don't think our tariffs affect the US economy... "Affect" does not equal "control". The original point Chapman was making was that Canada does not try to control foreign economies, while the US does. Witness the United Fruit Company's dealings with certain Central American countries from the 1880's to the 50's. US foreign policy manouvers from the time of President Monroe have been predicated on the furthering of US commercial concerns. Such a policy has more often than not resulted in interference and intervention in foreign affairs. >>> >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is >>> > "best" for the rest of the world. >>> This I doubt. Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what >>> is "best" for the rest of Canada. Given the authority they would surely >>> do the same to the world. Lets's speak about the observable facts rather than your unfounded speculation, Mr. Templeton. >The point I'm making is that your whole definition of Canadian culture stems >from the idea that Canadians are more collectivist. OK, go on... >That's another way of saying that we like to meddle in other's affairs. No it isn't. This is a gross misreading of the term "collectivist". Mr. Templeton, you should really take the time to develop some intellectual rigor about political issues. (Otherwise, your breathlessly-awaited book will come off as mere cant). What I mean is that it takes a certain amount of blindness to see collectivism as "meddling in others affairs". This blindness is perhaps caused by your habit of wearing glasses with a heavy Libertarian tint. Marxists have the same problem, except their colour is red. The point I'm trying so desperately to get to is that as far as Canadian social policy is concerned, most people here accept the idea that we are all in this together. So social programs such as medicare are seen as benefitting all while "meddling" in no-one's affairs. >Why should this stop at the border if you feel it is right for those in >Halifax to control those in Vancouver? Only someone who has lived all his life in Ontario could say this with a straight face. But that's a whole different kettle of fish. (regionalism, I mean). Anyway, I submit that Canadians don't feel they have the "right" to fiddle in foreign affairs the way that American foreign policy manifestly does. >Our relationship to the USA is one of the biggest parts of Canada and >Canadian life. True. But that doesn't make us "Nice Americans" per se. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !