a gift from canada

hello mr Patrick Basham.

I am writing in response to your article in the Washington Times of December 2 entitled "Gift From Canada", found at the link above. I'm happy that you are paying attention to what may indeed be a critical election for Canada-US relations. For some reason, however, I'm having nostalgic flashbacks to the American elections last November when many "conservative" journalists asked Canadians to stop sticking our collective noses into US business.

I disagree. Say what you want. The more opinions available to the masses the merrier. However, I do believe that writers for large imprints such as the Washington Times should at least check some facts before indulging in such ludicrous opinions as demonstrated by your piece.

I like the section where you say that Harper will cut "the regulatory burden on Canada's business sector." Does that mean that we will get to enjoy the corporate standards employed by Enron, Exxon, and Haliburton? Sign me up.

You emphasize the Liberals too much in your article. Simple research (ie: Google) will tell you that there are five (5) official parties which are running candidates in this election. It's not quite as simple as Right versus Left, as exists with the American electoral system. By the way, I will agree with you that Liberal rhetoric is crudely "anti-American". I don't like the Liberals either, and they will not get my vote (neither will Harper's Conservatives). But please remember that like all other Canadians who slander Americans, they mean to vilify the American government and not American citizens. But hey, through their actions in Iraq and against the American population, the US government is vilifying itself. History will view Iraq as a war crime, no matter what you believe about democracy and terrorism.

My favourite part of your otherwise well written article (grammatically speaking, that is; your content was largely fecal matter) is the following: "Canadian taxpayers will continue footing the bill for an expensive welfare state epitomized by its archaic government-run health-care system. Social policy experimentation on issues such as drugs and homosexual rights will continue in an incremental but decidedly progressive direction."

To get the relatively less important part out of the way first, homosexual rights is not in any way "social experimentation". It's called freedom and equality. You might want to look into it, despite all your talk of supporting such beliefs. Was the civil rights movement in the US "social experimentation"? No, it's called not being a complete jerk to people.

Health care spending in this country is pegged at about $121 billion for 2003, which represents nearly 10% of our GDP. I won't deny that is expensive. Shouldn't the healthy lives of a citizenry be worth ten percent of what the country is worth? I mean, if i had $100 i would pay $10 to have access to medicare. By the way, America spends 14.6% of its GDP on medical care. While all that money is footed by taxpayers, many Americans lack the quality of care that EVERY SINGLE CANADIAN RECEIVES. Interestingly enough, the OECD found that while the USA spends nearly twice as much per person on health care, Canadians live on average two years longer. Now, I realize this last fact might have a lot to do with crime statistics and environmental protections, and might not reflect wholly on health policy.

You might hear about wait times in Canada, which many conservatives espouse as representative of an "ailing" health care system. Well, that's not during life-threatening situations, except when organ donations are required. The wait is for elective surgeries, like hip replacements and such. Health care needs to prioritize. It's more important to save a person's life than it is for one to get a new hip. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Conservatives in Canada complain because they can't access health care the way they can access the mall. They want service they can pay for, and because many of them are wealthy they think they "deserve" it. Tough. Despite some elements to the contrary, the wealthy do not represent the centre of human rights in Canada.

This whole ideology that you espouse which leaves everyone to their own devices in terms of fending for themselves when they are sick is an abject failure. You will not see the results of that failure if you concentrate your studies on affluent Americans who don't seem to have any problem buying into adequate health coverage. You will see it in the disenfranchised who do not have any coverage at all (the US Census for 2003 states this to be 15.2% of the total US population, or about 43.6 million Americans -- ten million more than the entire population of Canada!). You will see that failure in the low-to-mid of the middle class, who do not have coverage which equals the coverage every single Canadian is assured by our constitution. You see it in the record number of bankruptcies that are filed every year when families have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical treatments out of their own pockets. This is not my brand of patriotism, an us-versus-you type of argument. These are facts, and most reasonable Americans have had enough of your kind of beliefs. They are sick of paying ridiculous prices for medicine. They are sick of getting turned away from hospitals which do not recognize their insurance. And most especially, they are sick of insurance companies who do everything they can to get out of paying for medical treatments.

It's time that people like you begin to realize that in this capacity, America represents a travesty. The USA has enough wealth that every citizen should have the best treatment in the world. Instead, you get a reality where a family must seriously consider the consequences of paying $200,000 for heart surgery and possibly face bankruptcy or allow a family member to die. That is unacceptable in the modern world.

Learn from every other country that has universal health care. Universal health care is more important to the development of the freedoms of individuals than any amount of televisions or cars they might have the opportunity to purchase. Those poor who don't have access to health care? Yeah, they don't really get to participate in consumerism either. Here's a tip for allowing a "welfare state": STOP BUYING EXPENSIVE MILITARY HARDWARE. Do you realize that a dozen stealth bombers and few naval vessels will pay for healthcare for the 43.6 million uninsured Americans? Cut the choppers, not your citizens. That action might also help your country with its war crime problem.

You want to know why universal health care works? Because it is a monopoly owned by the public. Every corporation would dream of such market share. Monopolies keep things cheap when everybody buys in bulk together. They are not corrupt in and of themselves. Corruption only occurs when entities are not held accountable to the public trust (Enron, for example). Along with price controls and a lack of middlemen, a publically held monopoly keeps our medicine cheaper than it is in the US while simultaneously allowing every single citizen access. Did you know that even the desolate poor in Canada have coverage? In an emergency, they can get picked up in an ambulance and receive proper medical treatment in the same hospital as a wealthy person. I think that's what civilization is for.

It's time for your country to join the modern world and get away from the archaic traditions of "fend for yourself or die". The right to freedom includes the right to life. A key component of life is health care.

By the way, I have a friend who can sell you Viagara from Canada at a cheaper rate than can be obtained in the US. By the look of your haircut, it looks like you need an upper or two.