Boy, is Obamacare getting hot or what? Have you seen footage of some of these Townhall meetings springing up across the country? The government is asserting this is all a conspiracy driven by the insurance companies who have too much of a vested interest in letting health care reform take place. Personally, I think the White House has lost its mind. When a government speaks openly about conspiracies and actively asks people to spy and snitch on one another well…

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

Obviously, Canada is in the middle of the debate. Yay! Attention! Despite some inaccuracies, I like this video because these guys actually secretly filmed their experiences within the system here. Be forewarned, it’s from Pjamas Media - a conservative media outlet. Ooooo, so scared, mommy!

Both sides are presenting their side of the story, and while each make valid points, I still feel the left paints waaayyyy to nice a picture and under estimates just how difficult it is to run such a massive operation while the right paints waaayyy to scary a picture.

All I know is, A) good luck in trying to control costs and B) the Canadian system IS under severe strain. These facts are well-documented and can be seen in plain view when you visit a hospital.

The video is valuable for one reason: It takes a secret camera inside clinics in Quebec. The picture is stark inside a semi-private clinic imagine public! See, I told you Mike we should have done this years ago when I suggested it.

Like most videos of this sort, it suffers from some factual errors. But still far less egregious and outrageous than anything Michael Moore puts out about the subject relating to Canada.

For example, they interview someone about his experiences with dermatology. Who cares? Like dentistry, dermatologists have private practices therefore they’re irrelevant to the discussion.

An important distinction is not made: As someone (Paul say hello) keenly point out to me, these are semi-private clinics. Not public hospitals. Public hospitals never close. Just as importantly, the Quebec system is not indicative of what goes on in other provinces since health care falls under provincial jurisdiction. For instance, Quebec allows private clinics to operate while Ontario doesn’t.This leads to different results.

These are just a couple I spotted. I feel the video was at its best while they were inside the clinics. Nonetheless, it still makes some valid points.

Generally speaking, despite provincial control, nationally we all experience, long wait times, rising expenditures, drops in overall quality of care, lack of accessibility to GPs and advanced equipment, experiencing doctor and nursing shortages and fiscal mismanagement. Canada’s performance in the OECD isn’t exactly something to write home about either.

None of this can and should be disputed. If we do, then all we do is defer to another time to make meaningful changes in enhancing and improving our frustrating Canadian public system.

What kind of changes? Man, that’s the million dollar question. So far, the best we’ve come up with is to expand private services to help alleviate strain on the public side.

Rather than sit back and take glee that the Americans want to have some type of universal care - has anyone read the bill? - maybe we should take this opportunity and assess our system properly and with conviction.

Which begs these questions: Is government responsible for providing care to all its citizens? Are there other ways to get care to the most vulnerable (children and elderly)? Is it feasible to run a universal system over time?

I find we don’t debate immigration issues enough in this country. If someones does open a discussion, it sometimes takes on a negative connotation for no justified reason.

It’s possible to meaningfully pontificate about such matters without paranoid assumptions often associated with adherents of anti-immigration or politically correct minions.

A perfect example of where the law, politics, immigration and racism all conspire in a confused dance is with the problem of illegal Mexicans pouring into the United States.

The question revolves around exactly how to handle illegal immigrants presently working and living in the United States.

For many, there is a legitimate argument with the notion that illegal aliens must be forced to follow the rules. If it means deportation so be it. Those who go for this approach aren’t anti-immigration or racist; they just want to maintain the integrity of the law.

Is it fair for illegals to be granted amnesty? Not when measured against the reality that thousands of people are patiently and legally waiting in line.  Indeed, how is this fair to them?

So America has to wrestle with its own immigration issues including Muslim immigration and racial profiling.

At least the debate is in the open in the United States. Not so here in Canada. This is unfortunate because once in a while we need to vigorously question and challenge our leaders. It’s the only way to really keep democratic public discourse alive.

Is discussing immigration in Canada a taboo subject? Does the media offer a fair and balanced picture of it?  Is Canada’s  immigration department is secretive and non-transparent?

Sometimes I wonder if we simply shy away from facing questions that force us to look into the mirror.

Who we are has a direct correlation in what we become. But if the road is littered with misguided ideas or faulty immigration policies, what we become may mean we won’t care about who we are.

Here are some links regarding immigration:

Immigration Watch Canada

CanadaVisa.com

Refuge

Canada and Immigration by Freda Hawkins (Google Books)

Double Standard: The Secret History Of Canadian Immigration

The problem I have with multiculturalism is the strict and steadfast adherence of preserving cultural identities (through taxpayer funding) at the expense of forging a unified, albeit elusive and confusing,  national Canadian identity.

I much rather prefer a pluralist society free of state intervention where citizens are the driving force. And yes, there’s a difference between pluralism and multiculturalism. Creating a “community of communities” organically from a grass roots level is far more meaningful than legislating culture through a bureaucratic hand. But that’s just me. I’m a sucker for power residing in the sovereign individual. Lost concepts of a time…aw forget it.

Of course, thinkers, politicians and people alike have been divided about multiculturalism since it was made a policy in 1971 (and inserted into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 27) by the Liberal party.

Lire le reste de cet article ››