A breath of fresh air. If Canada is willing, it could work. With all of the paranoia about "death panels" and such, I'm not terribly optimistic this healthcare reform is going to occur anytime soon.
Bettethe Redde, it is fantastic to "see" you. I hope all is well.
Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Bette, as a fellow-Canadian, I'll second that motion! We did pretty well when we gave safe haven to those young Americans who chose not to go to Vietnam. They've become solid Canadian citizens.
"God is no captious sophister, eager to trip us up whenever we say amiss, but a courteous tutor, ready to amend what, in our weakness or our ignorance, we say ill, and to make the most of what we say aright." from 'A Learned Discourse on Justification', a sermon by Richard Hooker (1554-1600).
As the bickering goes on, and nothing gets fixed, I've recently been inspired by what I feel is a truly great idea.
I think Canada should offer refugee status to Americans who cannot get health care, or who spend more than, say, 20% of their take home pay on premiums.
Most of these people would be hard-working, well-educated Americans, with skills that we could use to further develop Canada's infrastructure - in specialized trades, in education, in our health care infrastructure, particularly the long-term care system. We would gain their skills and experience, and also their need for housing, food, utilities and other consumables which would boost our manufacturing and service industries.
They would be able to get decent, affordable health care, which I propose is truly a human right. We'd need only a little re-jigging of our health care system (probably a much more extensive role for nurse practitioners and midwives) to accommodate quite a few more people. It would be a win-win situation, and then Congress could continue to fiddle while Rome burns.
"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."
