Then why does nearly anyone who can afford it come from Canada to the United States for medical treatment?
Quote: klinton said: Because they don't wish to wait on a list. It's not a matter of mooching, as they are encouraged by these facilities to come, as they can't be bothered treating thier own countrymen with no cash.
Which would appear to indicate problems with your system that are alleviated solely through, if not mooching, a certain unstated reliance on our system.
Quote:
G-man: And, of course, there's the whole issue of whether or not Canada could exist in its current form if its only land neighbor was anything other than the United States. For example, what would Canada's military have to be like if it didn't border a friendly superpower?
Quote:
Klinton: I'll agree with you there. This has been, until recent years, a huge element in the formation of our system.
Which, again, would seem to indicate that Canada does have a certain dependence on us.
Quote:
Klinton: But if you really want to go there, we can discuss the concessions granted you by us that even let your country exist to begin with.
I'm not sure how an historical issue weighs on current dependence.
Quote:
G-man: How are those Quebec separatist these days?
Quote:
Klinton: And you did exactly what in helping us with that situation?
Why would you want our help? That could be seen as "mooching"?
Furthermore, my point was addressed at the fact that you seemed to be implying that terrorism is caused by US actions. If that were the case, you wouldn't have terrorism in Quebec.
Quote:
G-man: Canada has had some significant issues with censorship of broadcasting, including state mandated content, prosecutions for politically incorrect speech and, of course, censorship of English in Quebec.
Quote:
Klinton: Nothing like the media blackouts you are party to. And state mandated content, prosecutions for politically incorrect speach....these are most often the topics of American media outlets. Everything from ball players to exposed nipples to television shows with gay content. The last time I recall anything like this was the 'Bush doll' incident. It aired as planned and the content was debated in public forums. You'll note that Don Cherry was merely chastised for his ignorance, not censored.
A lot of what you seem to think is government run "censorhip" in the US is actually individual station owners exercising their private right to air or not air something. That isn't censorship. Unlike a number of the incidences in Canada, in which the government was engaged in the restraint.
Furthermore, even if what you say is true, all you've done is concede that Canada isn't really the "free speech" haven that your originally made it out to be. In which case, you really dn't have any business attacking the US for its' alleged lack of free speech.
