Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better.
I guess I fail to see that as putting something in your power. I know of far too many people in the US who are unable to get health insurance because of conditions that they have. The average US citizen doesn't have the power to convince an insurance company to cover them. I recognize that this is something that our countries Just See Differently, but there it is.
Further, I guess I've always seen health care as one of the most important human rights
I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US.
I guess that's something that's always struck me as a contradiction in the US: the idea of individual responsibility. In Canada, we often find it hard to understand some of the thinking behind your case law. Litigation in the US doesn't look, to my outsider eyes, like it believes that individuals need to take responsibility for their well-being.
Also, the idea that health care is an individual responsibility sounds very foreign to my ears. Health care is so often about the stuff you can't control or plan for -- accidents, chronic illness, etc.
And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters.
I think that's a true statement, and a real disconnect between Americans and Canadians. And it's also something that seems extremely paradoxical to me. For example, I think that the USA PATRIOT Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and that it grants the wrong kind of power to the government. I think that it stands in stark contrast to the US Constitution. And meaning no offense, I think that it's a far more topical than the "What if the monarch attempts to reclaim political power?" question. Will the public rise up against the government that passed the USA PATRIOT Act? Will it cause civil war? Well, no, it hasn't. Most of my American friends are vehemently against the USA PATRIOT Act, but it doesn't seem like most of the US is. And I genuinely don't know what to make of the fact that a country that makes such a big deal about the importance of its de jure rights has enacted such a piece of legislation. It's something that looks like a complete contradition to me.
By contrast, in Canada, where our constitution allows laws that infringe upon rights (the key phrase is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"), our government and our citizens did not feel comfortable with the initial versions of Bill C-36 (which is the closest equivalent to USA PATRIOT) and it didn't get passed until significantly rewritten.
I think Canadians generally trust the government (and are thought naive for doing so), but we didn't trust them with C-36. My American friends remind me that it's important that they distrust their government and yet the US comes out with USA PATRIOT (I believe the vote was 356 to 66 -- weren't these lawmakers afraid of public outcry?). It makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I agree that there are just some fundamental differences in outlook between our two countries. I grew up in a border town and am very familiar with the depth of difference between our countries, even if I don't fully understand them.
And no problems asking questions. It's interesting stuff to talk about.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
Re: This is why I am confused by Canadian Politics
Date: 2004-05-24 06:40 pm (UTC)Personally, I like the idea of privatization of nearly everything except protection and infrastructure services. I think that anything that puts more control of his own life into the private citizens hands is inherently better.
I guess I fail to see that as putting something in your power. I know of far too many people in the US who are unable to get health insurance because of conditions that they have. The average US citizen doesn't have the power to convince an insurance company to cover them. I recognize that this is something that our countries Just See Differently, but there it is.
Further, I guess I've always seen health care as one of the most important human rights
I think that is one of the deep cultural divides between the US and much of the rest of the world. There isn't the same faith in the free-market and the same obligation placed on the individual to be responsible for his own well-being elsewhere as there is in the US.
I guess that's something that's always struck me as a contradiction in the US: the idea of individual responsibility. In Canada, we often find it hard to understand some of the thinking behind your case law. Litigation in the US doesn't look, to my outsider eyes, like it believes that individuals need to take responsibility for their well-being.
Also, the idea that health care is an individual responsibility sounds very foreign to my ears. Health care is so often about the stuff you can't control or plan for -- accidents, chronic illness, etc.
And Americans distrust their government too much to handle what are seen as private matters.
I think that's a true statement, and a real disconnect between Americans and Canadians. And it's also something that seems extremely paradoxical to me. For example, I think that the USA PATRIOT Act is a horrible piece of legislation, and that it grants the wrong kind of power to the government. I think that it stands in stark contrast to the US Constitution. And meaning no offense, I think that it's a far more topical than the "What if the monarch attempts to reclaim political power?" question. Will the public rise up against the government that passed the USA PATRIOT Act? Will it cause civil war? Well, no, it hasn't. Most of my American friends are vehemently against the USA PATRIOT Act, but it doesn't seem like most of the US is. And I genuinely don't know what to make of the fact that a country that makes such a big deal about the importance of its de jure rights has enacted such a piece of legislation. It's something that looks like a complete contradition to me.
By contrast, in Canada, where our constitution allows laws that infringe upon rights (the key phrase is "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"), our government and our citizens did not feel comfortable with the initial versions of Bill C-36 (which is the closest equivalent to USA PATRIOT) and it didn't get passed until significantly rewritten.
I think Canadians generally trust the government (and are thought naive for doing so), but we didn't trust them with C-36. My American friends remind me that it's important that they distrust their government and yet the US comes out with USA PATRIOT (I believe the vote was 356 to 66 -- weren't these lawmakers afraid of public outcry?). It makes no sense to me.
Anyway, I agree that there are just some fundamental differences in outlook between our two countries. I grew up in a border town and am very familiar with the depth of difference between our countries, even if I don't fully understand them.
And no problems asking questions. It's interesting stuff to talk about.