What things can we expect to see (economy, society, housing, food, energy, foreign relations ect..) when they do bring in the Amero?

If I were you I would start buying gold and silver coins which I am.
Because those coins will be worth more than the dollar and the Amero.

I remember going to a Fraser Institute conference where a panel of US and Canadian economists were discussing NAFTA. At one point in time a well meaning but ignorant journalist from the CBC asked if NAFTA meant that an Amero was just around the corner, and if that meant Canada and Mexico would be assimilated into the US (no doubt like some sort of borg). I distinctly remember the US economists laughing and implying that owning Canada and Mexico would be way too expensive for the people of the US.

What Harper is doing about freeing up free trade between provinces in Canada is commendable,and sorely in need of being done. This is a major lamentation to many people who market within Canada nationally and has done a great deal of damage to Canadian firms trying to grow into new markets. Now this may mean that some provincial laws get challenged, and so be it. Not all of those laws are good ones, something the articles fail to explore.

http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0056

The above is essentially about joining canadian, us and mexican policy such that the corporation has power over the laws that the government may have. It focuses on harper and his role in the SPP (may have heard about the protests recently) and TILMA (a bc/alberta project that i just heard of, that really sucks).

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807SPP.htm

The above is about the essential merging of the Canadian Forces with the US army, and having them being under the control of US Northern Command (not the joint NORAD force). Seems the only reason it hasn’t happened yet, is the patriotism that Canadians have.

I’ve been seeing more and more info floating on the web about the upcoming almagamation of Canada into the US and Mexico. There is mounting talk for a joint currency (the “amero”) to compete with the euro. In fact, some commentators believe that the us fed is purposely tanking its own dollar to expedite that. and more and more legislation is falling in favour of corporate controls. now, some has to be conspiracy theories, but there also has to be some truth too. (I mean we all know little green men are being held by the US military ;o) ). There is another good article here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57263

In fact the site usually has some interesting points to make, though I can’t vouch for all of them.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/

My main point is give us transparency and then give us a choice (referendum?). of course, then the powers-that’be wouldn’t acheive their goals.

If Harper moves forward in this, the little respect that i have gained in him would be completely removed.

Not that I trust the Liberals in this either.

The main reason I rail against socialists is because I know for a fact having studied economics and been in health care that many of the schemes concocted by socialists do more harm than good. That is the point that I keep trying to make. All these interventions are actually hurting people even though we think we are doing a good thing. When someone like me raises these points or questions certain programs with evidence we are called everything from racist to nazi by and I am sorry to say, people who you probably think are humanitarians. It makes me cringe that my money is used to hurt people.

I believe the most important right a human being should have is the right to do or say whatever he or she pleases as long as it isn’t actively harming someone else. Personal property is an intrinsic and integral aspect of personal freedom. The government is in place to protect your property not take it from you.

Hence I am and people like me are your best friend and ally because while some of your other socialist friends may one day turn on you because you believe something different or want to do something different, or while they may steal your money or put you in jail for questioning their beliefs, I and people like me will be there to defend your rights. We may not like you, we may not like what you are saying but we believe it is your right no matter how odious or incorrect it is. (And we’l still tell you your beliefs are wrong but we support you being able to say or do it.)

This is my main grief with the Conservative Party of Canada and Carlo well knows how I feel about certain individuals who demolished the libertarian ideals of the old Reform party. However I maintain that with minimal government interventions we will have minimal infringements of people’s rights. That is why I support them in general but wih misgivings, however 150 years ago I would have supported the Liberals because of what classical liberals used to stand for (free market, freedom of though and exression, property rights, democracy, free trade etc). Unfortunately at this point in time they have switched to the group of theives and human rights abusers through unintended consequences.

I used to come by your blog but you had shut it down for a while for an unfortunate reason. If you notice my links include your blog.

Well put. I’m gald to see that there is a bit of a humanitarian in you after all! And you’re right (at least in this case) that persons with drug plans do fair better. We happen to have one, and so it’s reduced our burden somewhat.

Now why don’t you pop on over to my blog and spread the love?

We already have a private public system as anyone with a drug plan can attest. Indeed people with drug plans do much better in our system as they can afford their medications, surgery, PT etc. We will undoubtable get more private money in the system whether we like it or not. People will have to accept that wealthier people will get better treatment in many cases, as they already do now. The question is what sort of basic care are people willing to pay for, for those who cannot pay. In my mind there is no reason for the public system as well intentioned people would set one up anyway. People like me would help pay for it. Would other people here help as well?

One thing we should consider is the benefits for sincerely disabled people are very low. This is something I am glad to see the Conservative party address, its good that conservative ideals are alive. Are people who destroy their own health through selfish actions deserving of our care, and do these same people take resources that should be going to disabled people who deserve the help?

It goes both ways. The patient isn’t always wrong. In Sudbury, my BH’s chart read broken tibia and femur, NOT broken tibia and fibula (what it actually is/was). The ortho techs came into her room one day and tried to fit her for a splint that went up to her hip. She told them that it was a broken tib/fib. No, no they assured her, the charts read boken tibia and femur and that was what they were going to rectify.

The mess got cleared up eventually (with my intervention along with a few nurses I recruited). We mentioned the error to her vascular surgen and he was most apologetic (he really was a swell guy). When we arrived in Hamilton, the nurse read the chart and said, “Broken tibia and femur eh?” Apparently the change was never made.

Either way it is still a story and you don’t know the truth.

More heresay than a story, but yes, I don’t know the truth. But you don’t know either and it may indeed be true. If however the physician lied because it was more convenient, then this was disengenuous and a sh!tty thing to do.

In any case, I think most perons in this thread agree that there have to be changes to our healthcare system. If this means having parallel private/public systems then so be it. However, I perhaps like the other self-proclaimed idealist here, Carlo, do not want that to happen if it’s at the expense of universal accessibility for all. Although I beleive thaat for the good of the country we have the share the burden, I’m in full agreement that we also have to bear our own responsibility for our life style choices.

People often get the story confused after speaking with a physician, it may be due to poor communication. I find it happens all the time, you ask a person a question and then you look in their chart and two different stories stare you in the face. In the US doctors get to use the excuse that the private insurer won’t pay when they don’t want to perform a useless operation. If a doctor in the US is convinced of the necessity of a treatment plan he can advocate for the patient and have second or third opinions done, insurance companies realize such a claim is legitimate. In canada we get to use the excuse that the public insurer won’t pay in the case of expensive medications, or we have to act as the barrier to prevent bad care and a bad outcome and in that case we get the blame, however in the case of the public and private disability in canada if we feel that a patient’s claim isn’t reasonable yet we don’t want to get blamed by the patient we will not fill out a very strong recommendation which the disability provider will use to deny a claim. Then we have the easy excuse to blame it on the insurer. In the states if you have money and a negligent physician you can attempt to have a high risk poor likelyhood of outcome operation.

Either way it is still a story and you don’t know the truth.

The fact remains that in Canada if the public insurer says “no” then you have no recourse. In the US you can always pay for it yourself if it is worth that much to you. Or if you are a Canadian you can drive down to the US or India and pay to get it.

For example at a certain hospital, a small number of drug eluting stents are available for cardiac operations (the drug eluting ones last longer and prevent re-operation). Once these are used up for the year on a generally first come first served basis everyone gets a normal stent. If you have the money you cannot upgrade yours. Why?

Actuarial Science is how you figure out the risks when it comes to insurance. That is how you attach a dollar value to it. Its done for all other insurance plans. It is unlikely that rock climbing would void your insurance, but participating in criminal activity or military operations would just like it does in the US.

high risk behaviour should be included in the higher user fee scale. it is in life insurance. value should be ranked in some way similar to life insurance - the more likely something will cause disease/injury/death - the higher the cost to the user. well, i guess death doesn’t need to be included, because then there isn’t any medical care. so sports like sky-diving, where failure usually equates death may not cost as much to the user as, say, downhill skiing, which could involve any sort of bone breaks, concussions, etc.

the only thing i don’t think should be equated into the fee equation, is genetics - you don’t choose your genetics. however, people should be better educated on the likely results of their own matches and be better informed of their decisions. i’m not quite as draconian as the romans and greeks of pre-christian times, but i don’t really fall that far out either. as a geneticist or evolutionary biologist (or at least someone who understands some of the principles), the one bad thing about modern medicine is the capability of previously “unfit” individuals to procreate, thus prolonging that the “unfit” genes are allowed to remain in the genome. now before I get equated with the nazis, i only mean severe genetic disorders and I only mean enabling reproduction between people who carry such disorders.

oh, and redheads…. i mean, who wants to be a redhead anyway? jk