I don't see how there could be anything other than "positive outcomes" with a universal system in the United States. Canada's system also provides a competitive advantage in world trade and productivity, this week the country paid $10 billion (in US per capita terms $100 billion) on the national debt, and has best financial management in G7. Comparing with the old Soviet Union is silly.

Canada is looking for improvement at the European systems, particularly France. Canadians often think of themselves as "muddling through" on the big issues. That's what the US is doing now, finding a way to care for all of its citizens, bless them all. If it chooses an universal system--private, public or a mix---the tactics, specifics come later with the electorate deciding whose program it will support.

It's political poison to provide specifics of substantive issues in electoral campaigns i.e. the Democratic aspirants promising to kill or renegotiate NAFTA. As main supplier of oil and gas to the US, Canada for starters could renegotiate the deal-clincher that our oil is regarded equally as US oil.

Talk of killing NAFTA is really camouflage for getting at US-Mexico labour-market problems. It's loose talk. McCain supports free trade. He knows that American multinationals who invested in Canada on the basis of free trade---most of our Oil Patch for starters---would fight opening NAFA to the bitter end.

So do Clinton and Obama. That's why campaigns don't get into specifics.

Last edited by King Brown; 02/28/08 03:24 PM.