posted on December 12, 2003 09:48:35 PM new
Any Canadians here, Kraft? what do you think of this? Do you agree with this author?
Think Canada's the place to be? Think again
It has been said that Seattle mirrors Canada in its tolerant attitudes, but there is a dark side to this utopia across the border.
My husband and I left Canada six years ago to start a new life in the United States. Tens of thousands of university-educated, middle-class Canadians leave Canada for the U.S. every year. The Canadian government even has a name for us — "The Brain Drain."
Why do we leave?
Taxes — Ever wonder why you see so many rusty cars up north? It's not just because they salt the roads in the wintertime. People can't afford new ones.
Fifty percent of the Canadian paycheck goes to taxes. And, in Ontario, for example, there's a 15-percent tax at the cash register. Think about paying that every time you buy a car, a fridge or clothes. The Canadian middle class has almost been taxed out of existence.
Official bilingualism — This is what most of the taxes pay for.
Learning and speaking another language may seem like fun to most Americans. Forget about that textbook Parisian you learned in high school. My husband speaks French fluently but not by Canadian government standards. He'd be passed over in employment by someone who speaks a government-approved level of French.
Canada is officially bilingual and that means everything must be in French and English. Everything. It's the law.
If you or your company do not comply with regulations then the official language "police" will be at your door. If you want to pursue a career in retail, the police, the post office, government, business and even the military, you must be bilingual.
The U.S. has its issues with African Americans and Canada has its issues with French Canadians. Affirmative action in the name of official bilingualism has resulted in a great deal of conflict.
Employment — If you are English-speaking in Canada, it's difficult to find a job.
Salaries are much lower than in the U.S. When we moved to the U.S., my husband almost tripled his salary.
Our standard of living is beyond what we could have ever achieved in a lifetime living in Canada. Our relatives can't believe how well average, middle-class Americans live. Our son, who has a learning disability, is getting the best education ever in an American public school.
Meanwhile, it is the norm for Canadian schools to have at least 40 kids per class — that is, if the teachers are not on strike.
Speaking of strikes. There are a lot of unhappy workers in Canada. I remember one summer when the bus drivers, postal workers, movie projectionists and government workers were all on strike. Even the doctors have "worked to rule" — offering minimum health care to their patients to force the government to comply with their demands.
Health care — Speaking of doctors, every Canadian has experienced or knows of a family member who has a nightmare health-care story. It may be free but that doesn't mean it's good.
Hospitals are miserable. There are long waiting lists for the most basic treatments and operations. When we went to an American hospital, it was like entering a five-star hotel. I hear Americans complain about the cost of medical bills but I would rather my child be alive and have a bill to pay than to be dead at no charge.
In Canada, there is one system of health care for everyone — except the elite or government bureaucrats, who go to the U.S. and pay for decent health care.
Political oppression — Imagine an American president and one political party in power for over 10 years. That's what's happened in Canada. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's regime has been in control for more than a decade and the average Canadian is fed up and glad to see him go. Even then, it was his decision to allow an election. Hopefully, Canada will be able to make amends and repair its relationship with the U.S.
Living in Canada made me feel like a barn animal in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." My only worry is that someday the United States will resemble Canada. Sort of like one giant Seattle. That would be my nightmare.
P.S. One difference between Canadians and Seattlelites is coffee. A Canadian would never choose Starbucks over Tim Horton's. That's one of the few things the Canadian government can't control.
Jennifer Meeks is a Canadian living in Seattle while she and her husband are waiting for their green cards. Her husband works in marketing for a sports memorabilia company.
posted on December 13, 2003 07:24:01 AM new
i am in texas and we have 'press 1 for english and press 2 for spanish'.
our medical system is not perfect,leaving us in a limbo,between life and death,is that good??
i was at costco a few days ago ,i have been trying to fill a prescription for weeks,the pharmacist told me it would just take 5-10 minutes.while i waited i found out 6 more people in line were all told to wait 5-10 minutes.
while we waited,we chatted and they all want to order their precription drug on line from canada ,they dont mind paying 10 dollars shipping .
after 40 minutes,the pharmacist said she cannot fill my prescription as the dosage has changed and since it was a saturday,she will call my doctor on monday.
i told her dont bother as i will order online from canada.
Then i went to another pharmacy inside a supermarket and they said they dont have it in stock but they will order for me,they are not sure how much it would cost,depending where it comes from.
i said if i order a turkey in the store,would the store said we dont know how much it would cost you as we dont know where it would come from ?
all the pharmacies i went to-walgreen,HEB,costco,eckerd have foreign pharmacists,so where do all the american ones go?
did they go to canada??
Thank you for letting me vent-merry xmas to all you turkey eating web surfing americans.
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on December 13, 2003 09:12:00 AM new
Stopwhining, I hear where your coming from, about the Canadian drugs. I don't know what I think about the 'ban' on them.
I lived in TX too long ago, but here in Seattle, they also have press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish. BUT, its NOT the law.
As far as I could read in this article English and French is the law, which I can't imagine. I mean sure it would be great to be able to speak French fluently, but not because the gov't told me I had to.
I was just reading about the former Prime Minister up there, Chrétien, he did finally 'step down' and 'allow' the new PM in. I read that in a totally different article, he 'allowed it' which I don't understand. I knew he was socialist, but I didn't know it was that bad, until I read some more on it.
The taxes? 50%??? Just a bit excessive, I can see why the person writing this thinks its great to be here.
Where she says 'I would rather my child be alive and have a bill to pay than to be dead at no charge.'
Well YEAH, if its that bad, I would definitly be thinking the same.
I guess I don't know that much about Canada as I thought. I live in a border state and have been up to B.C. a lot, but never knew the system as this article describes it.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 13, 2003 09:21:09 AM newThe taxes? 50%??? Just a bit excessive
Those excessive taxes are the reason the prescription drugs are so "cheap" in Canada. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 13, 2003 09:47:49 AM new
Sure, that is where a lot of those taxes go, it also has to go to the socialized healthcare and the bilingual law, ^^ the author above has you read it that way? I don't know.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 13, 2003 10:13:32 AM new
I can't believe I hear myself saying this because I am truly more liberal than this, but I am sick and tired of the layoffs around here and the sucky economy:
Until our economy improves and until layoffs stop and hiring begins - STAY AWAY. Stay in Canada, stay in Mexico, stay in Iraq (you're probably better off there now anyway), stay in the UK, stay where you are. You are coming here and taking jobs away from Americans who desperately need them. We do not have the job market or the economy to support an influx of people from Canada or anywhere else. I'm sorry it stinks, in your opinion, to live in Canada. I'm sorry your taxes are so high and that you have to learn French, but at the moment it's not much better here. Let Americans get back on their feet before you start flooding our crappy ass job market. PLEASE.
posted on December 13, 2003 11:11:43 AM new
And then, you can do google searches and find unhappy Americans moving to Canada. The son or daughter of a former AW moderator moved to Canada recently because of a good job opportunity.
Actually, I would like to see the Canadian health care system here. I don't have health insurance -- along with 44 million other Americans. Although I've heard complaints about wait times in Canada, at least there is some care which is not the case here. By the time I'm old enough for Medicare, it will be abolished.
posted on December 13, 2003 12:07:36 PM new
canada has less people than we do,i dont know how the govt afford to pay for all these freebies?yes.high tax.weak currency and a bigger deficit??
so if we have the same system,would we be paying more tax??
it has to come from somewhere??
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on December 13, 2003 12:20:25 PM new
Helen, this is from Canada's own gov't report, there is good and bad in socialized healthcare, I bolded one part that has something to do with the 'lifespan' of Canadians:
Transformation of the healthcare system is inescapable
For months now, the healthcare system has been in the print and broadcast news almost daily. Horror stories (about overcrowded emergency rooms, poor quality of care, inequitable access to resources, financial scandals, medical errors) have been reported alongside news on the wonders of modern medicine and technology (new medications, potential breakthroughs in treatments for major diseases, genetic miracles, the possibilities offered by alternative medicine, grafts, remote diagnosis and treatment by means of telemedicine, universal access to quality medical information on the Internet, and so on).
Each group involved interprets the situation from its own perspective. The physicians are complaining about constraints imposed on them by the government or health insurance, preventing them from offering quality service. The nurses are demanding their work be more highly valued. The hospitals want more resources and equipment. The pharmaceutical industry is trying to ensure its share of the healthcare market continues to increase, governments protect medications over the long term through patents, and regulation of prices is kept to a minimum. The managers would like the physicians to report to them; they would like more information on physicians' clinical activities so they can monitor the application of standards of good practice. Numerous social groups (right-wing political parties, employers' associations, insurance companies) think the only way to reform the healthcare system is to give in to the logic of the free market and privatize it. The unions are mistrustful of both government, with its rationalization measures reflected in the number of job cuts, and of the business world, which would like the negotiated working conditions reviewed. The governments strongly support the underlying principles of public health insurance systems (universal access to quality service), on which their legitimacy in the public eye is based, but are also subject to the pressures of economic globalization and forced to cut public health spending. The general public is almost absent from the debate, except when organized groups (people with HIV, families of children with leukemia, associations representing people with specific illnesses) rally their members around a specific issue or fundraising event or when some scandal breaks out (a patient dies in emergency, a child receives inadequate care...).
This flood of contradictory information contributes to creating a strong feeling of concern. The question being raised more and more is whether we will be able to count on a quality healthcare system, with universal access, in the future.
To answer this question, we must first try to understand why the Canadian healthcare system, like that of all developed nations, is experiencing serious difficulties and why its transformation is unavoidable.
In the late 1950s, Canadians thought that, in light of the spectacular successes of modern medicine, they could improve public health and eliminate disparities among social groups by making all medically required health services available to all citizens, under a government health insurance system.
To achieve this goal, the federal government passed legislation on two occasions -- in 1956 for hospital services and in 1968 for medical services -- to encourage the provinces to set up universal hospital insurance and health insurance plans by funding half the cost of the programs. The specific form health insurance took in Canada was influenced by the division of power between the federal and provincial governments. The criteria defining what was covered by health insurance had to be as simple as possible so the federal government could ensure its financial contribution to health insurance was not diverted by the provinces, which have full jurisdiction over health services.
It was decided that all hospital and medically required services dispensed by physicians would be covered, provided the provinces complied with five basic principles (public management, full coverage, universality, accessibility -- additional charges for insured services were not permitted -- and transferability). The commitment of the provinces was embodied in laws prohibiting private insurance from covering services insured under public health insurance.
Today, 30 years later, the Canadian health insurance plan is still based on these principles. And despite its undeniable success, it has become increasingly clear that its transformation is inescapable.
Observers are now saying that despite considerable healthcare spending, disparities in health are as great as when health insurance was first introduced and that the increase in life expectancy is not reducing health problems but, on the contrary, fueling their growth and evolution
posted on December 13, 2003 12:23:39 PM new
The company my husband retired from was a Canadian owned, US company. We knew many Canadian people, who moved to the states to work down here. We became friends with several of them. In the 20+ years we knew them, never heard any of them speak French....and to this day am unaware if they knew how to.
But they didn't think very highly of the French Canadians. Always jokingly referred to them as being 'nuts'.
So maybe???? it's only in the French Quebec parts of Canada where one is forced to learn to speak both languages??? I don't know.
-----------
I've posted articles in the past showing the numbers of Canadian doctors that have left Canada to work in the US. Better wages in the US were quoted as the reason why they headed south.
-------
And on Canadian drugs being cheaper. Do we all want cheaper drugs? Sure...but there's a price to pay for getting them cheaper.
The reason they're cheaper is because their companies don't spend the money for Research and Development for NEW drugs, like our drug companies here do. My biggest concern in this area is that if we do the same as Canada does, there will be no $$ to come up with NEW drugs to treat illessnes.
-------
And on the 50% taxes....many here in our country pay at the 50% rate, some even higher when other taxes such as state, local etc taxes are counted in there. Maybe those with middle to low incomes in the US would find that outrageous compared to the taxes they now pay.
And IF socialized medicine should ever pass here, we will all be paying higher taxes to support this entitlement. Many are complaining now about the cost of this latest Medicare bill that just passed. Just wait until they see their 'new' tax bills. Plus I hope I never live in a time when the government is making my medical decisions for me...anyone can look to any of the large entitlement programs now to see how well they're run. [not] Waste...fraud...overhead costs...etc.
-------
Another I have a problem with is people who CAN afford to pay for their own medical care, but choose not to do so. Spend that money in some other way...more fun. Then expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab.
posted on December 13, 2003 02:28:12 PM new
What a sad commentary Near. I can agree with her on some things, especially taxes, but don't most of us feel the grass is greener elsewhere once in awhile?
Here's an example of our tax system.. if you made $40K a year, you would keep about $25K after income tax. You have to pay 15% tax on everything you buy (even houses) except some food items. Our property taxes are very high as well but 60% of all property taxes support our education system. Our deficit is low because of this system.
Our medical care system needs a tune-up. We need to adopt a user-pay system to avoid unwarranted hospital/doctor visits. I could go into Emergency with a pimple and get looked at by a doctor. I could ask for a CT scan and blood work if I wanted. This BS takes time and money away from really sick people. Just like Americans think they deserve to own a gun, Canadians think they deserve to see the doctor 24/7 for ANY reason. Doctors fees are capped so tightly, they have a hard time making money and giving quality care at the same time, so they're moving to the U.S. in droves. They strike for a reason.
Bilingualism is encouraged. We have French, you have Spanish. No difference really.
For this lady, the trade off seems to be for her & her family's material gain - bigger salary, bigger house, fancier cars, etc., so I agree, if that's what you're looking for, you'd have better luck in the U.S.
"There have been raging debates in Quebec about the efficacy of the "language police" and whether fast-food outlets should be "Kentucky Fried Chicken" or "Poulet frit Kentucky." Coffee shops have been firebombed because of signs that said "Second Cup." Shopkeepers have been hauled into court because English words on outside signs were more than half the size of the French words."
"...The first laws governing the use of French in Quebec were passed early in the 20th century. The first was the Lavergne Law, passed in 1910, which required that tickets for buses, trains and trams be printed in both French and English.
In 1937, Premier Maurice Duplessis passed a law requiring the French text of Quebec laws to prevail over the English, reasoning that the French would better reflect the intent of the law-makers. Anglophones in Quebec resented the law and it was repealed the following year.
In 1974, the Quebec Liberals passed Bill 22, which made French the province’s official language. It also restricted enrolment in English schools in Quebec. Three years later, the newly elected Parti Québécois, under the leadership of René Lévesque, introduced what it called the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101 as it became known.
Within that bill was the declaration that French was to be the only language allowed on commercial signs in the province. With few exceptions, the use of English was banned.
Many retailers were upset by the new law. Morton Brownstein, owner of a Montreal shoe store, took his case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1988, the court said that English could not be prohibited altogether, but that requiring the predominance of French on commercial signs was a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. "
[url]
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
"A Quebec Superior Court judge said that the owners of the store broke the law when they displayed a sign with English and French words of the same size."
" Quebec's language authority is playing the grinch this holiday season. It's banned a colourful alien-like doll because the doll speaks English – but not French.
The Ooglie is an interactive toy that can sing, gurgle and chatter. It lights up and talks when its feet are tickled. But the province has banned it from store shelves.
The problem is it speaks only in English, or what the manufacturer calls Ooglish.
Ooglish apparently violates Bill 101, the province's law that requires French to be the dominant language for all communications and products. " Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 13, 2003 04:05:59 PM new
I would certainly hope that anyone who 'thinks' socialized medicine sounds good, would take just a little bit of time and do an internet search on all the countries [Canada, France, Finland, New Zealand and even Australia's Medicare system [which combines both private and government care] that currently operated under socialized medicine.
See the enormous costs to the taxpayers ....see how the systems are failing the people who use them...read the reports that many doctors who work under these systems have written.
They're all failing. Read some of the reports on how few pieces of diagnostic equipment these countries have, compared to our country.
Canada is the nation that spends the most, per person [31 million citizens] for medical care, of any of the countries who have socialized medicine. And their system is failing even though they keep raising taxes to pay for it. Just imagine the cost for all our 280+ million citizens.
15,000 French citizens died because of an un-usual heat wave. Their system couldn't take care of that many at once. Then think of our system with the flu epidemic we're currently dealing with. You want it to be your child or yourself that needs to get in to see a doctor, *right now*, in any of these systems? I sure wouldn't. And in a government controlled system like Canada, there is no other choices like there is in say Australia. You're stuck.
posted on December 13, 2003 04:41:41 PM new
Here's a Canadian site where much info is available. This page shows the cost of their "Official" bilingualism
program. Both the governments figures and one from 'taxpayers.com'.
posted on December 13, 2003 05:43:37 PM new
Do you consider medicare and medicaid Socialized medicine, linda? If so, would you be in favor of eliminating those programs?
posted on December 13, 2003 06:33:17 PM newDo you consider medicare and medicaid Socialized medicine, linda? If so, would you be in favor of eliminating those programs?
Yes I do. And I don't think they could ever be eliminated now. Too many are dependent on them to survive now.
But it has very much concerned me each time they've been expanded...by adding more and more receiptants to the programs. [to be clear ] like Social Security was when it first passed, vs. how and who it emcompasses today.
And yes, helen, I feel this last medicare bill is way too costly. But the democrats would have only passed another, more expensive bill anyway. So...it's a push.
posted on December 13, 2003 06:35:19 PM new
Having traveled in Quebec I will never do it again. The attitude is that you will never ever be able to satisfy them with the quality of your French and is you are from an English speaking culture you are a low class person. They are snobs plain and simple suffering with an inferiority complex that is displayed in a backlash of rudness and predjudice that makes the foreign visitor regret ever coming. One can not buy a cup of coffee at a McDonalds without a smirk and a snide remark on your pronunciation.
The rest of Canada bent over backwards to accomadate their demands and now I am sure many of them are wondering why they feared the Province leaving and didn't just tell them to not let the door catch them in the butt.
posted on December 13, 2003 06:37:24 PM new
To add to my above post. Just like Canada is now realizing this socialized medicine program is costing much more of everyone's income than they ever realized when the 'dream' first started.....they have been struggling for years to make changes to the program to get back to a payment plan ...and don't appear to be able to make that happen.
Same thing will happen here.
But I guess mostly I question why would anyone want socialized medicine when we can easily see it isn't working well in the countries that have had it for 30 years or so.
posted on December 13, 2003 07:18:02 PM new
When I asked you if you considered Medicaid and Medicare Socialized medicine and If so would you be in favor of eliminating them, you answered, "Yes I do. And I don't think they could ever be eliminated now. Too many are dependent on them to survive now."
You say that people depend on such programs to survive. So, even though you consider them socialized medicine, you see value in these programs and you would not consider eliminating them. That's interesting.
The Kucinich plan is much like Medicare...or will be eventually. The other plans, however are not so radical and I am sure that most Americans will be very happy with any one of them.
Kucinich is in favor of getting rid of the insurance industry. LOL! What a dreamer!
posted on December 13, 2003 07:29:46 PM newSo, even though you consider them socialized medicine, you see value in these programs and you would not consider eliminating them. That's interesting.
Value??? More like facing the reality of the situation. No political party will EVER take away any entitlement program...it would be a *guaranteed* election failure. The fact is that as with any government entitlement program they only GROW...and become more expensive.
And on the socialized medical care, if you read you [collectively] will see that even the systems proposed by some of the other democratic candidates don't work in countries that currently use them. Read about Australia's Medicare 'gap' program. Their medicare is not like ours here...for the elderly or disabled...it's even for young pregnant women, etc. That program is failing many in their country and is NOT working as it was projected to do.
I vote no on anymore entitlement programs. While we are a Capitalist country, we also have socialized programs. No surprise there. I just don't want to pay any more taxes.
So...vote for Dean....he'll be sure and raise all our taxes. Just like he's done in his own, very small, state.
posted on December 13, 2003 07:33:51 PM new
it is not up to the politicians to get rid of the insurance industry.
that industry serves as a private sector watch dog on the cost and services of the medical providers.
-sig file -------The thrill is gone!!
posted on December 13, 2003 07:47:23 PM new
When people depend on a program to survive and that program is helpful we can conclude that the program has Value. I suspect that even so, you would like to dismantle all such programs if there were no political repercussions. Am I right about that???
Does Bush have a health plan...other that the subsidy that he just gave the pharmaceutical and insurance industries?
What in your opinion is a good health plan??? With forty four million people uninsured, you must agree that we have a crisis.
posted on December 13, 2003 08:01:48 PM new
helen - I'm sure you realize that we're 'off topic' in this thread.
we can conclude that the program has Value.
YOU may conclude that, let me make my own conclusions, okay?
You continue to ask questions where it's my opinion we're wasting our time discussing them. Mainly because, as I said, they've already been in place for years....and to make any major changes...will never happen.
What I am against, and think I've made my position quite clear on, it I want less government, not more. I don't like seeing the programs we already have expanded. Certainly don't want/won't support starting a new massive government run program like National Health Care.
You dems complain about the deficit now. But you want to add the HUGE cost of a health care system to that? funny....
And helen....do you consider yourself poor? I know you've posted that you have no insurance and that to buy it would cost you approx. $700 - $800. a month...so therefore you CHOOSE to go without insurance. Imo, that's your choice, your risk....just don't as me, as a taxpayer, to pay for what you could afford to purchase for yourself. There are many insurance companys that would charge much less that your above quoted price. My friends have just such insurance. The programs have high deductibles...so you pay all the bills up until the first $2,000.- $5,000 [whichever plan you choose]....then they pay after that. You telling me you can't afford to pay, say $2,000. a year for medical bills?
That's what I mean when I say some people choose not to be insured, but would very much like to see programs where the rest of the taxpayers get to pay for their benefits. I don't want to pay YOUR share, and I don't want to have the government making decisions about what medical treatments/diagnostic avenues are taken with my care. That's part of the problem with HMO's. Clerks making decisions doctors should be making on how/what is in their patients best interests. Look at Canada....just what their docs are complaining about.
posted on December 13, 2003 08:14:12 PM new
Helen
Not disputing your stats on immigrating Canadians. In 2002 you state above: From Canada to U.S.....19,519 or 1.8 percent of total legal admissions
That probably sounds about right, according to the first author, the DIFFERENCE is that those 'immigrating' here are the college educated, and that is why they named it the 'Brain Drain'
As for U.S citizens leaving here for Canada, your stats show a 10 year period, its a big difference in totals over 10 years than in 1 year.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 13, 2003 08:22:27 PM new
You continue to avoid answering my questions by changing the subject. Oh well. I guess it's tough to admit what most would consider greed and callous disregard for those who need help.
In my case, I can afford to take care of myself. I am concerned about those who cannot.
I'm just trying to understand how you justify your lack of concern.
So...it's a push.
