why Government regulation is necessary.

[Noah Harbinger]

Australia is interesting, we have a public health system people pay a 1.5% salary levy into.

If you earn over $50K youpay an extra 1.5% unless you're in a private fund.

If you're in a private fund, the government picks up 30% of your fees.

 

Funny how liberal governments set up one system and then the conservatives

set up another to avoid a UK style money pit.

Encouraging people into private health care even with subsidies has saved the governmnet billions.

 

That sounds similar in concept to what Clinton recently proposed -- paying for people to be covered by private health care.

[Noah Harbinger]

There must be balance between, regulation and unbridled greed.

 

There must be public awareness that WE share resources in this country. WE all are accountable to how hat resource is exploited.

 

Somebody needs to watch more Seinfeld. :P

 

Ned: You got me blacklisted from Hop Sing's?

Lew: She named name!

Edited September 19, 2007 by Noah Harbinger

[JETSOLVER]

Sorry to jump in, but the title of the thread caught my eye. Then I kept reading as a Canadian Air Force vet.

 

Anyway, I recall a "classic tradgedy of the commons; Profit is private, and waste is communal."

 

Sort of sums up western civilization to me.

 

I now return you to your regularly schedualed we are more differant than you thread. :reading:

[macattak1]

Conseravtive, want tax cuts

 

dems want welfare.

 

Your statement is so broken it would be a good signature along the lines of "Expect surprises".

 

I guess that is a major difference between us.

 

I would love to see taxes lowered significantly. It would be amazing to see governments do more with less. Not the standard less with more. Welfare should be a local community issue. Not one where each state tries to get a larger share of the pie every year.

 

You know what budgets are? They are something that grow every year and are only ever forcibly reduced. No one wants their budgets cut. They will waste excess so as not to receive a cut.

 

I will never understand the idea that Taxes and Welfare should grow more and more every year. Logically, that math is impossible to add up and I will never understand people that don't see that?

[macattak1]

Yeah, giving health care to people that can't afford it is an awful thing. Ameicans have no right to complan about taxes as you have some of thelowest in the world. the level o service you are provided is only achieved because of your large population. Be thankful for what you have. And you may be entitled to your money, but people in my opinion, are entitled to gevernment services, espcially health services.

 

Oh, and despite what people think, most government money is spent very wisely. If they say they need more money, they probably do. Of course, none of that would be a problem if the US were not fighthing a was that they never should have started and instead finnished the one that was just and reasonable.

 

At what point in time do governments start owing these things to its people?

 

For example, at what point will Chili, Peru, Nigeria, Cambodia, Nepal, Rwanda, Laos, or any of the Stans start owing these things to its people? Most government money is spent very wisely? So, the billions the US is spending in Afganistan and Iraq is wisely spent? Seems at odds. Your statement do not add up.

 

I can understand a 'just' war. But 'reasonable'? That sounds like a back up cop out primed and ready to go that is there to get you out of any war you don't want to be in and into any war you think the government should get into.

[suv_guy_19]

At what point in time do governments start owing these things to its people?

 

For example, at what point will Chili, Peru, Nigeria, Cambodia, Nepal, Rwanda, Laos, or any of the Stans start owing these things to its people? Most government money is spent very wisely? So, the billions the US is spending in Afganistan and Iraq is wisely spent? Seems at odds. Your statement do not add up.

 

I can understand a 'just' war. But 'reasonable'? That sounds like a back up cop out primed and ready to go that is there to get you out of any war you don't want to be in and into any war you think the government should get into.

 

 

The money spent in Afghanistan is reasonable. There should be more money spent there. Are you comparing your own countries to those you listed? If you are, then you ought to give your head a shake. Most government money is spent very wisely, at least here.

[macattak1]

But many of the things that we have were achieved because of the government. People cannot function without a system and semblance of order. People are perhaps not denied healthcare, but how are they supposed to pay once they get it. A heart attack can run you anywhere for 80000 to 250000. Could you afford that without insurance? Can everyone afford to be insured. I think not. If the government pays for it then there is no preferential treatment, no huge bills, and it becomes accessible to all. Maybe your government could lower some of its outrageously high unfair agricultural subsidies to pay for it. the state of ND receives about 1.4 billion in agriculture subsidies per year. Western Canada's 4 provinces receive only about 1 billion all together. There are always ways to fund something, and not all of them involve large tax raises.

 

Yes, people achieved a great deal, but have you noticed the advances over the last 50 years, as government has become more and more involved? We make great strides every day because of our governments. taxes are necessary and Govt. is necessary.

 

Do you know how much 'break your leg' health insurance is for a family? Most anyone can get a policy that would cover anything say over $10k in medical expenses for their family. But do they? No. Why? Because they don't want to! They do not want to budget it because it is Not that Important to them.

 

So the government should pay for it because? People won't get it and won't pay for it themselves and refuse to set aside $30 a month for it?

 

Why should the government pay for something that even a minimum wage earner can afford? Welfare is no longer so much about taking care of people that do not have the resources to take care of themselves. It is now about taking care of people that will not take care of themselves. All one need do is look at those that made it through the depression and see how they saved verses those that came later. Pretty easy study. money, it is they do not want to pay the $30 a month for this or because they are too lazy to search it out and get it? Or could it be, because those that loose their house due to a 'heart attack' are few and far between?

 

Perhaps schools need to start teaching self responsibility and self reliability. But that would hurt the feelings of the 30% of the kids that are on free lunch programs in most every school across the country. Amazing.

[macattak1]

WHO ratings of world health care systems From 1 to the US. Great system you have, though ours doesn't rate much better. Then again, 2 years ago we were in the spot just above you, so things have inproved greatly.

 

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

31 Finland

32 Australia

33 Chile

34 Denmark

35 Dominica

36 Costa Rica

37 United States of America

 

The reality is, that you spend more of your GDP than most of these countries. Yous system is expensive and the cost is passed on to you. You have for profit health care. Most of these system eitehr have publily funded hospitals or a combination of for profit and public bringing in competition keeping the price down.

 

That is a really stupid list. First of all one would have to trust the agenda of the WHO. And if one is not sure what that means one should be very very careful about quoting the WHO.

 

And the 3rd world nations are on this list.....no where. And people travel to the US for health care because...it is so much better than Every where else.

 

The problem with the US health care system is not anything to do with taxes and the government helping out more. And again, if your unaware of this...

[macattak1]

Oh there still are waiting lit's they are just significantly shorter. A massive cash injection was made. Most of what Canada has isnot paid for by taxes, but rather the money from trade surplses. Some patients are sent to the US or out of their home province to get treatment. Some provinces, like mine, have things very under control while others don't.

 

And "if" your Trade Surpluses evaporate? Then you would be all over raising them taxes more?

 

So your system is based upon your trade surpluses, but your an expert in US health care funding from taxes?

 

US should address its trade imbalances that are based upon other countries improper and inapropriate protectionism. Adjust accordingly, then our trade surplus could fund our health care. I would go for that.

 

Of course that would mean a recession for the world and then the Canadian trade surplus would evaporate and... Do you see the math adding up?

[macattak1]

I don't see Americans going to Canada for treatment, but I do see Canadians here by the droves. How did they convince you that waiting was appropriate treatment for any medical condition?

 

I have a great idea. Let's tax the hell out of all of the medicines invented in the US. We will only drop the taxes with countries that have equivalent medicines for trade. We can use the money to fund our health care system. What were there, something like three new medical patents out of Canada last year?

 

Let's start with the OPEC countries.

 

Man, perfect example of how the US is so fair to Other countries and Their people and how the US economy pays for Their system. I can just here ever other country but England screaming bloody murder.

 

And I would not blame them. The US should not do these types of things very far. But we should not hold up other systems costs either.

[macattak1]

I agree with everything that you said but I was not getting smug. I didn't start it. i was simply reminding him that the US is not the world and we don't all depend on you for everything. Yes the protection that you give s very important. I suppose I may see things differently because I live where I do and things are undergoing cnstant improvement. And, the waiting lists have gotten significantly shorter. People die under the care of both countries health systems all of the time. Accidents, misdiagnosis, it happens all of the time, we jsut pray it doesn't happen to us.

 

I love my country, and I don't hate yours, but people too often look down on Canada, Canadians included. I have been trying to change that. Its not what I'm doing here. This all started with arguents over health care. More gvernment is not bad government. You jsut have to have the right checks and balances in place.

 

Both countries as you say are wonderful, but neither of them have a whole lot of negtaives, and really hav a great deal of positives. There is a better solution to healthcare. France has it, and no atter what people say it works. We are currently trying to move to that model, I hope it works for us like it did for them.

 

Who complains about Canada? The worlds hate for the US is incomparable. I would be fine with that if we were not supporting all those countries that have such contempt with in them for us.

 

France has the best health care I would not argue. However, France is stuck in a mired economy, old world ways, and they could not defend others let alone themselves if needed.

 

It is not France, Canada, Spain, or other countries that could do Afghanistan, Serbia, etc.

 

The US spends a huge amount of its economy on the millitary and the entire Western world and most of the rest benefits from it. So, if France had to take care of itself, and after going through the lessons they 'should' have learned in WWI and WWII and Vietnam, etc. they would not have that health care because they would be spending it on defense.

 

France only works if you keep one eye closed during your comparison.

[macattak1]

Most of Canada's healthcare systems were way over spending 20 and 30 years ago it is just how the system was set up. Spending was out of control with little or no checks and balances. The Feds scaled back funding in an attempt to get the provinces to better manage the monies spent The provinces in turn (especially Alberta And Ontario) cut back to the bone and further. Patients suffered for it and people died cause of it. I will not kid you on that.

 

But now we are seeing a balance finally being achieved cost effective with appropriate levels of service. It has been a 40 year learning experience to fine tune our healthcare. Yes there are still issues but they are being fixed. Progress is being made.

 

Medical practitioners here can not charge what ever they like. They have a schedule of fees they can charge for services. The fees are adjusted per region and province. Basically all medical personal here are Gov't employees either directly or indirectly. Bottom line their pay checks come from the tax payers.

 

As for cost, Canada's system is far cheaper than the U.S's per capita and delivers a higher standard of care.

The U.S Gov't spends more per capita on health care than any other nation on the planet. Yet only 40% of U.S citizens are covered by the Government funded system.

By all rights the U.S should have the best health care on the planet and be able to cover 100% of the citizens.

 

Our cure and survival rates are better than in the U.S for basically everything. I think the main reason for this is, that the physicians are deciding what treatments will and can be used and not an Insurance company or HMO that has to be cost conscience so they can insure that they show profits to share holders.

 

The single biggest cultural difference between the states and the U.S is that most all Canadians regardless of status. Find the idea of corporations and share holders profiting off the care of the sick and the ill distasteful and for some down right disgusting. Illness affects every body regardless of age, status, or health.

 

Some comment that universal health care will promote people to not take care of them selves with either diet or exercise. But the opposite seems to be true the U.S has about the most out of shape and over weight citizens on the planet. The is could be argued 2 ways I suppose , that citizens are that way do to the fact that they do not readily go to the doctor unless some thing is seriously wrong due to costs, There for physicians do not see patents regularly and are not able to intervene when a patient is starting to show signs of excessive weight gain or able to give them information on lifestyle changes or able refer them to the appropriate Gov't funded specialists (dietitians ETC). It could also be argued that the people in the U.S are prosperous enough that they are more idle and have better or richer diets than most places. That angle holds up to most of the planet, until you make the same comparison to Canada.

The facts speak for them selves. The Canadian and most universal systems costs less per capita, and Deliver a higher standard of care over all. Canada and other national systems have a higher success and survivability rate over all for curing illnesses. That is why Canadians and many nations with Universal coverage have longer average life spans than Americans.

 

Is the Canadian system perfect. Absolutely not. It is not the most cost effective or the best. But we are trying to move towards a perfect balance between cost and appropriate levels of care. Some thing that has just been concentrated on in the last few years.

At some point and time U.S citizens have ask why is your government spending more per-capita than any other nation on health care to cover only 40% of the population.

 

There is some thing seriously wrong with the current U.S System. Strait for profit private healthcare it seems does not work. Not from a cost perspective nor from a quality of care or coverage perspective.

Matthew

 

I am not someone that yells out Stats and Facts please. But if your going to claim that much....

 

We spend more. But how much more? How much richer is our nation in comparison?

We are also a nation of gluttony. How do they factor that in to mortality rates? They do not.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51128192726.htm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8693

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php

[suv_guy_19]

Who complains about Canada? The worlds hate for the US is incomparable. I would be fine with that if we were not supporting all those countries that have such contempt with in them for us.

 

France has the best health care I would not argue. However, France is stuck in a mired economy, old world ways, and they could not defend others let alone themselves if needed.

 

It is not France, Canada, Spain, or other countries that could do Afghanistan, Serbia, etc.

 

The US spends a huge amount of its economy on the millitary and the entire Western world and most of the rest benefits from it. So, if France had to take care of itself, and after going through the lessons they 'should' have learned in WWI and WWII and Vietnam, etc. they would not have that health care because they would be spending it on defense.

 

France only works if you keep one eye closed during your comparison.

 

 

Well we aren't comparing militarys are we. While were on it though, if the US hadn't abandoned Afghanistan, Canada would not have had to take over. We have state of the art equipment there, the best mine hardened stuff money fcan buy, yet we are still taking losses. We are the ones that are fighting the war in Afghanistan. The US does have more troops there, but they are not on the same mission. We are finnishing the war that should hve been finnished before the US went on to Iraq.

Edited September 22, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[Mark8LSC CE0464]

I love my friends in the great white north......... but man, your military is not capable of pulling off the missions that the US does day in and day out. Sorry man, you guys don't have the technology or the stomach for it. If you have the technology, it is because we sold it to you! After all, all of your tax revenue goes into your socialist health care system, with very little left over for national defense.

[silvrsvt]

Well we aren't comparing militarys are we. While were on it though, if the US hadn't abandoned Afghanistan, Canada would not have had to take over. We have state of the art equipment there, the best mine hardened stuff money fcan buy, yet we are still taking losses. We are the ones that are fighting the war in Afghanistan. The US does have more troops there, but they are not on the same mission. We are finnishing the war that should hve been finnished before the US went on to Iraq.

 

 

Your forgetting one thing, you had citizens killed in 9/11 also and the main reason that Canadian and other European Troops are in Afghanistan is because of the commitment to NATO. No matter what way you slice it, the United States was attacked and Afghanistan was the primary "entenity" that had to be handled. I forget the article number, but it states: An Attack on One Country is an Attack on all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization members.

[matthewq4b]

I am not someone that yells out Stats and Facts please. But if your going to claim that much....

 

We spend more. But how much more? How much richer is our nation in comparison?

We are also a nation of gluttony. How do they factor that in to mortality rates? They do not.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51128192726.htm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8693

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php

 

 

All the figures for the stuff I mentioned were posted here last time this topic came up, straight from the W.H.O. 's Wold Health Statistics.

Not really in the mood to do it all again, you can check them your self.

on the W.H.O web site In the World Health Stats for 2006.

 

 

But I digress.

 

here are Just a couple to make you scratch your head.

Maternal mortality rate per 100 thousand live Births U.S.A 14 Canada 5

The infant mortality rate per thousand live Births is higher in the U.S by 20%.

Ya ok 5 for Canada and 6 for the U.S still 20% right?? lol

Anouther corker is that Canada has a higher number of hospital beds per 10,000 people.

Some thing that even surprised me.

 

The ratio of doctors is higher in the U.S, but only by .3

Canada has more Nurses per 1000 than the U.S does by 0.6. Our RN's tend to have a much higher level of training than in the States.

 

Those are articles that provide no source for their figures. But like most statistical information it can be twisted what every way suits your need if you do not provide a source for it. Idid not compare their stats tot he W.H.O ones. They may be correct for what ever source they used.

 

As for the cost aspect of it. With the average exchange rate of U.S dollars for 2006 the U.S spent $5711 per capita on health care (the highest on the planet BTW) Canada $2699 Per capita

France in the top spot quality care wise spent $ 2981 per capita.

 

Out of pocket expenses for French citizens are nearly on par with Canada. A little higher in France but not by much. The French are doing some thing right.

 

The U.S is spending almost twice as much per capita as the nation with with the best rated health care system on the planet and more than twice as much as Canada does.

 

Any one who thinks that the Canadian system or any Universal Health System is more expensive to the tax payers than the U.S's private for profit system is either completely brain washed or smoking crack,or both.

 

Thereis no valid argument for retaining the current as it is for profit health system in the U.S.

 

 

 

As for the Canadian Military we are small nation population wise. About one tenth the population of the U.S. with a much larger land mass. If you dropped our military in a region of equivalent population like California they would be considered armed to the teeth.

 

As for tech wise there is pile of technical experience and equipment that goes out of Canada to the U.S. More than you could even dream of.

Absolutely do not underestimate the technical know how that comes out Canada. We have solved many many problems that have stumped U.S engineers.

A big Part of the reason the U.S made it to the moon in the 1960's was because of Canadian technical know how.

 

The best aircraft of certain U.S models were almost always the Canadian built equivalents.

Things such as the Canadair CF 86 Saber, the Canadair CF 104 Starfighter, and the Twin Huey,

Not quite second rate.

 

As for stomach for it tell, that to the Germans that faced us in WW 1 and 2. And the colonial expansion dreams of Madison. That was a bad enough waxing it pretty much nutted U.S military expenditures for almost the next hundred years.

 

The RCAF CF 18's and their Canadian pilots flew 5,700+ hours, including 2,700 combat air patrol missions during the Gulf war with just 26 aircraft. Canadian CF 18's conducted ten percent of the NATO strike sorties during the war in the former Yugoslavia. And this with just 18 Aircraft commited to the conflict. Yes we are short on equipment. Always have been but our Military personals dedication, commitment and no quit attitude make up for our lack of equipment. When our military is properly out fitted we are a force to be reckoned with. As the Germans found out in 2 World Wars

In WWI we did what no others could.

 

The Americans that come up here for war games regularly get waxed by our inferior and out dated equipment, what always surprises me is how often we wax the U.S pilots in arial combat. Considering our newest fighter aircraft is on the short end of 20 years old.

 

couple centuries ago the U.S had a cocky attitude, thinking we would be a push over and came up north for a little colonial expansion,and we all know how that turned out. I do not think Madison had actually planned on having to rebuild the white house during his term.

 

Our Military has done more with less for decades we have had to be creative to say the least. But our Military personal are some of the best, hardest working and bravest soldiers on the planet. Yes we have had a marginal military for the past 50 years. But the U.S troops that come up here for training exercises will say different about having the stomach for it and about not being capable.

 

Matthew

[matthewq4b]

Your forgetting one thing, you had citizens killed in 9/11 also and the main reason that Canadian and other European Troops are in Afghanistan is because of the commitment to NATO. No matter what way you slice it, the United States was attacked and Afghanistan was the primary "entenity" that had to be handled. I forget the article number, but it states: An Attack on One Country is an Attack on all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization members.

 

 

This is true bit we do NOT have to be there, and infact our commitment there expires in 2009. And there is a better than average chance it will not be renewed. There is starting to be some resistance here in the population and even within the hard core conservatives in the House of Commons over the whole thing. Not cause of the justification for it. But due to the fact that we are carrying the bulk of the responsibility and our soldiers are being killed while the U.S pisses around in Iraq.The U.S has not fulfilled it's responsibility or followed through on the promises made in regards to Afghanistan. And not for reasons like not capable of. But more like can not be bothered and apparently not the priority. And if it is not a priority to the U.S why should it be to anyone else ? Most of all to the nations doing the actual fighting.

 

Matthew

[Blueblood]

I love my friends in the great white north......... but man, your military is not capable of pulling off the missions that the US does day in and day out. Sorry man, you guys don't have the technology or the stomach for it. If you have the technology, it is because we sold it to you! After all, all of your tax revenue goes into your socialist health care system, with very little left over for national defense.

 

Who do they need to defend themselves from? why do people like you live in constant fear?

[macattak1]

All the figures for the stuff I mentioned were posted here last time this topic came up, straight from the W.H.O. 's Wold Health Statistics.

Not really in the mood to do it all again, you can check them your self.

on the W.H.O web site In the World Health Stats for 2006.

 

Not a problem. Facts and stats can be a pain to find. Not because they don't exist. But because it can be hard to remember and find who did what and studies and reported on what. Regardless, common sense often works as well if you know the starting numbers as some studies do based upon the same numbers.

 

 

But I digress.

 

here are Just a couple to make you scratch your head.

Maternal mortality rate per 100 thousand live Births U.S.A 14 Canada 5

Again, what impacts this? I don't need a study to tell me that there is a much larger drug problem here in the US. That our diets are much worse here. That this generation is a greedy selfish one with limited wisdom on looking towards the future and planing for it. Hence the huge number of birth control abortions...

The infant mortality rate per thousand live Births is higher in the U.S by 20%.

Again, see the above for simple causes.

 

Ya ok 5 for Canada and 6 for the U.S still 20% right?? lol

Anouther corker is that Canada has a higher number of hospital beds per 10,000 people.

Some thing that even surprised me.

Really? That is surprising. But this country has also grown significantly in the last two to three decades. And more or fewer beds is not any indication. That would be a by product of other things more than anything else. For example, duration and quality of services provided.

 

The ratio of doctors is higher in the U.S, but only by .3

Canada has more Nurses per 1000 than the U.S does by 0.6. Our RN's tend to have a much higher level of training than in the States.

 

Those are articles that provide no source for their figures. But like most statistical information it can be twisted what every way suits your need if you do not provide a source for it. Idid not compare their stats tot he W.H.O ones. They may be correct for what ever source they used.

Stats are twistings of the facts. That is what they are for. I would not trust those sites anymore than I would trust the WHO.

 

 

As for the cost aspect of it. With the average exchange rate of U.S dollars for 2006 the U.S spent $5711 per capita on health care (the highest on the planet BTW) Canada $2699 Per capita

France in the top spot quality care wise spent $ 2981 per capita.

 

Out of pocket expenses for French citizens are nearly on par with Canada. A little higher in France but not by much. The French are doing some thing right.

 

The U.S is spending almost twice as much per capita as the nation with with the best rated health care system on the planet and more than twice as much as Canada does.

The US currently runs its health care system on capitalism. France runs it on socialism. So we would need to be careful how we compare. There are great things about France's health care system as my best friend/neighbor will tell me. Of course, there are some other things that do not meet their needs. Look at France's education system. Just like their health care system. Education is free as well. He became a Dr. However, he can basically, never go back to France and go to school and change his career path. They already paid for it once and only pay for it once. In France he may pay maybe $20 a month for malpractice insurance but $30k a year in the US. He also will make $300k a year to start here in the US but would make very low teacher salary in France...where they take 50% of your paycheck in taxes.

 

Any one who thinks that the Canadian system or any Universal Health System is more expensive to the tax payers than the U.S's private for profit system is either completely brain washed or smoking crack,or both.

Maybe. I will certainly admit that our system is getting worse and worse. But I can think of several easy and simple corrections for it but politics won't allow that until things get much worse. Just like one will say that Canada has improved from where their Med system was 40 years ago, well, the US looks like it will have to do the same thing.

 

Thereis no valid argument for retaining the current as it is for profit health system in the U.S.

? Designing a Stawman?

 

As for the Canadian Military we are small nation population wise. About one tenth the population of the U.S. with a much larger land mass. If you dropped our military in a region of equivalent population like California they would be considered armed to the teeth.

Sorry, that is just another super idea of yours thrown out there that sounds good but has no bases in reality. Where did you hear this? Do you know anything about that statement? I sure don't. But looking up world military expenditures and country geo and population numbers Canada is nothing special and in fact falls way behind countries that you would call armed to the teeth for their size.

 

Just look at Japan, Italy, France, UK, Germany, etc. Take their land size and populaton and you will find Canada spends significantly less. Now, if you want to compare Canada's military expenditures verses 3rd world nations size and population...

 

As for tech wise there is pile of technical experience and equipment that goes out of Canada to the U.S. More than you could even dream of.

Absolutely do not underestimate the technical know how that comes out Canada. We have solved many many problems that have stumped U.S engineers.

Huh? Well so has Isreal, S. Korea, Australia, and most every other country in the world. Now you just sound like your an Anti American because of an inferiority complex.

 

A big Part of the reason the U.S made it to the moon in the 1960's was because of Canadian technical know how.

 

The best aircraft of certain U.S models were almost always the Canadian built equivalents.

Things such as the Canadair CF 86 Saber, the Canadair CF 104 Starfighter, and the Twin Huey,

Not quite second rate.

 

As for stomach for it tell, that to the Germans that faced us in WW 1 and 2. And the colonial expansion dreams of Madison. That was a bad enough waxing it pretty much nutted U.S military expenditures for almost the next hundred years.

 

The RCAF CF 18's and their Canadian pilots flew 5,700+ hours, including 2,700 combat air patrol missions during the Gulf war with just 26 aircraft. Canadian CF 18's conducted ten percent of the NATO strike sorties during the war in the former Yugoslavia. And this with just 18 Aircraft commited to the conflict. Yes we are short on equipment. Always have been but our Military personals dedication, commitment and no quit attitude make up for our lack of equipment. When our military is properly out fitted we are a force to be reckoned with. As the Germans found out in 2 World Wars

In WWI we did what no others could.

 

The Americans that come up here for war games regularly get waxed by our inferior and out dated equipment, what always surprises me is how often we wax the U.S pilots in arial combat. Considering our newest fighter aircraft is on the short end of 20 years old.

 

couple centuries ago the U.S had a cocky attitude, thinking we would be a push over and came up north for a little colonial expansion,and we all know how that turned out. I do not think Madison had actually planned on having to rebuild the white house during his term.

 

Our Military has done more with less for decades we have had to be creative to say the least. But our Military personal are some of the best, hardest working and bravest soldiers on the planet. Yes we have had a marginal military for the past 50 years. But the U.S troops that come up here for training exercises will say different about having the stomach for it and about not being capable.

 

Maybe your not aware of this. But any military can go to any other country and run games and learn a whole lot from the host nation and get schooled on tons of things. That is why they do it. Of course your above statements make it sound like the US could not have gone to the moon with out Canada, that Canadian military is significantly better across the board than the US, etc. etc. blah blah blah. It is clear how you think and the more you post the less objective you become...

 

Matthew

[macattak1]

Well we aren't comparing militarys are we. While were on it though, if the US hadn't abandoned Afghanistan, Canada would not have had to take over. We have state of the art equipment there, the best mine hardened stuff money fcan buy, yet we are still taking losses. We are the ones that are fighting the war in Afghanistan. The US does have more troops there, but they are not on the same mission. We are finnishing the war that should hve been finnished before the US went on to Iraq.

 

Well, we wont have much to debate once the US, Canada, and Mexico become one nation. So pretty soon our healthcare issues will be your healthcare issues and Canadians will be able to fix it.

 

Abandoned afghanistan? Wow, it is now the Canadians fighting the war in Afganistan? I don't think most Americans even look at it like it is us over there. It has been NATO since the start.

 

27k out of 47k are US troops.

The US looses more troops in a year than Canada has lost total.

 

You Canadians sure are showing your Little USA complex.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

Well, we wont have much to debate once the US, Canada, and Mexico become one nation. So pretty soon our healthcare issues will be your healthcare issues and Canadians will be able to fix it.

 

Abandoned afghanistan? Wow, it is now the Canadians fighting the war in Afganistan? I don't think most Americans even look at it like it is us over there. It has been NATO since the start.

 

27k out of 47k are US troops.

The US looses more troops in a year than Canada has lost total.

 

You Canadians sure are showing your Little USA complex.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

IIRC, per capita we have lost more troops in Afghanistan than even the US in Iraq. We have bought newer and newer equip to deal with this and are no longer unequipped ground force wise. Canada has been doing the bulk of the military work in Afghanistan. The US has 13000 troops there, not 27000. Canada only has 2500 but those 2500 have been carrying a very heavy load.

 

Really, we aren't becoming one country. That is paranoia at its best. There is no North American Union, at least not in that sense. Canada and the USA are both wonderful countries. There are differences. Your military is quite obviously better and our health care system is in many ways better. I don't see a problem with that criticism or either side. It's not like I'm saying Canada good, USA bad. We are probably the two most alike countries on earth. We should all be thankful for what we have in these two great countries.

Edited September 22, 2007 by suv_guy_19

[macattak1]

IIRC, per capita we have lost more troops in Afghanistan than even the US in Iraq. We have bought newer and newer equip to deal with this and are no longer unequipped ground force wise. Canada has been doing the bulk of the military work in Afghanistan. The US has 13000 troops there, not 27000. Canada only has 2500 but those 2500 have been carrying a very heavy load.

 

Really, we aren't becoming one country. That is paranoia at its best. There is no North American Union, at least not in that sense. Canada and the USA are both wonderful countries. There are differences. Your military is quite obviously better and our health care system is in many ways better. I don't see a problem with that criticism or either side. It's not like I'm saying Canada good, USA bad. We are probably the two most alike countries on earth. We should all be thankful for what we have in these two great countries.

 

NATO web page puts Afgan forces at about 30k. I doubt they are telling the real numbers and I would guess it is much more. The 50k wiht 27k US seems real easy.

 

Canadian losses are light compared to US losses. The fact is that since WWI the US lays down significantly more life for other nations than any other entity. Period. That is something I am personally proud of. You can state what Canada provides and be proud of it. But frankly, it is not on the scale of the US. And lets remove the population argument. If Canada's population was the same as the US' I do not believe that Canada would be near the US in this. That is not insult. That is simply comparing the two countries world positions. Canada is much more like pre WWI US in its policies. That is for better or worse.

 

Trying to confuse the death of 450 v/s 70 makes me feel a little uncomfortable. There are 1.3 billion Chines and 1.2 Indians. I don't count one of their deaths in war as less than one Americans.

 

Currently puts Canada at 2500 troops. 54 troops and 1 diplomate killed 2nd to the US. Only lost 8 prior to 2006. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/22/news/canada.php

 

Good information. You can click on country names for list of casualties.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationali...x?hndQry=Canada

 

Read up on North American Union. You will be surprised at what has already been put in place.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

NATO web page puts Afgan forces at about 30k. I doubt they are telling the real numbers and I would guess it is much more. The 50k wiht 27k US seems real easy.

 

Canadian losses are light compared to US losses. The fact is that since WWI the US lays down significantly more life for other nations than any other entity. Period. That is something I am personally proud of. You can state what Canada provides and be proud of it. But frankly, it is not on the scale of the US. And lets remove the population argument. If Canada's population was the same as the US' I do not believe that Canada would be near the US in this. That is not insult. That is simply comparing the two countries world positions. Canada is much more like pre WWI US in its policies. That is for better or worse.

 

Trying to confuse the death of 450 v/s 70 makes me feel a little uncomfortable. There are 1.3 billion Chines and 1.2 Indians. I don't count one of their deaths in war as less than one Americans.

 

Currently puts Canada at 2500 troops. 54 troops and 1 diplomate killed 2nd to the US. Only lost 8 prior to 2006. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/22/news/canada.php

 

Good information. You can click on country names for list of casualties.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationali...x?hndQry=Canada

 

Read up on North American Union. You will be surprised at what has already been put in place.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

There will not be a North American Union for a long time if there ever is, not in the sense of one country anyway. This as I said is paranoia.