From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:11:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.173510.2214@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>>Write a letter to your MP.  Have your company president write to 
>>>his/her MP esp. if the MP is in Cabinet -- on letterhead -- we 
>>>don't make enough of a stink on this.
>>
>>why? so i can be labelled a basher of unemplouyment benefits?
>
>I'd be proud ...

i'd be proud to bash unemployment "insurance". what happens though,
is that if you bash unemployment "insurance", you are made to look like
you are bashing the unemployed by all the people who want to steal your
money.

>
>>you think they even give a crap? i'm only one vote...
>
>And there are other votes that you can influence.  Why shake your
>head and nod like everyone else?  You're falling into the Canadian
>complacency trap there ...

wrong. you are, by justifying and rationalizing all the crap that goes
on up there, as you have made abundantly clear in previous posts. i am
merely sick of trying to win a game played on a tilted field. and i can
influence more votes in a forum like this, if my arguments make sense,
than i can writing them to an MP who is an integral part of the system,
and will no doubt use my hard-thought words to line his bird cage.

>>>David Peterson had a lot of spending commitments momentum going back
>>>to the Bill Davis/John Robarts Conservative dynasty and couldn't ...
>>
>>that is bull. david peterson was almost as big a socialist as rae.
>
>Looks like I can't help ya there ...

that's right. you can't. because he was.

>
>>>Health insurance.  In Quebec, private insurers have warned against 
>>>any thought of reprivatizing portions of their provincial plan last
>>>spring.  I've not heard a peep out of London, ON about reprivatizing
>>>the basic health portion ...
>>
>>poor reasoning. the fact that they don't want to have it reprivatized
>>is not the same as "instigating" it.
>
>Remember my little history lesson ... Paul Martin, Sr. was the MP from
>London, Ontario and crafted the Canada Health Act with the cooperation
>of the private insurers headquartered there.  Since there was no high
>tech medicine at the time, basic health insurance was unneccessary
>anyways and everyone could get by paying cash (I'm now 30 and I even
>remember those days ...).  Things have changed since then ...

more deception. if he was an MP, then he was acting for the government,
not for private industry. i'll grant that he *may* have tried to be
friendly to the companies. but he may also have gone to them with a carrot
in one hand and a stick in the other, and said "we're putting socialized
medecine in. we need you to tell us how to do it (since we know nothing
about it). co-operate and we'll be nice to you. otherwise..."

>
>>misleading anyway. the reason they are not interested in reprivatization
>>is that it would be accompanied by a slew of regulations. in other
>>words, it wouldn't be true privatization: the gov't would say
>>to the companies: "ok, you guys provide insurance, but use our
>>rules, don't dare not cover anyone because it's their fundamental
>>right, and try not to make any money -- it makes us look bad". 
>>if you don't believe this, look at car insurance.
>
>Even American private insurance is now saying that this will be
>necessary (they're now feeling the heat from pseudo-socialized
>medicine HMO programs, with accountants and lawyers breathing
>down the doctors' necks like in Britain with their district NHS
>bureaucrats ... we don't have that in Canada, we don't have any
>socialized medicine).  They're dealing their cards carefully.

so what is down here now is bad. that is not an excuse to make it
worse.

>
>>>Did you ever look for an R&D job in the mid-80's?
>>
>>you are living in a dream world. you sound like george bush a year ago.
>
>Sorry, I've got a batch of notes in my jobhunting file(s) that say
>otherwise.  Sounds like you never did check out the Canadian high
>tech job market in the mid-80's (I'm talking development, not just
>hooking up RS232 to a couple of PC's and a ribbon in the printer).

more optimistic extrapolation games. if you want to think that the
canadian job market is looking wonderful because of the thickness
of your personal file, or based on one industry, fine. canadians
in canada know what is really going on up there.

--
charles