NationStates Jolt Archive

Canadian-American Unification
There is a country. This country was founded and controlled by Britain. They fought, tooth and nail, to gain their independence. These people have played major roles in the Korean war, World Wars I and II, and are one of the largest contributors of peace-keeping forces to the U.N.

Our two countries both have remarkable histories, that at times intersect with each other. Both of us, founded by colonies, managed to win our independence, growing- with each other’s help- in to two of the most respected, powerful nations on Earth. Both of us have managed to integrate and accept massive immigrant populations- Canada was actually one of the first countries to accept Irish Immigrants, for which I, an Irishman, am grateful.

Today, we both share the longest non-militarized border in the world. Our armies have, through NORAD, integrated seamlessly. American’s depend on the trade of our Northern Neighbors for many of the comforts and necessities we enjoy every day. Canada has remained, and will, as far as I can see, remain each other’s staunchest allies.

Which is why I propose that Canada and the United States merge into one nation, spanning the entire length North American Continent. I propose this, not for the benefit of Canada, but mainly for our own. America, at this time, has never been in more need of a different, more moderate perspective in our government. The Canadian systems of Universal Healthcare, for instance, could be of incalculable benefit to the population of the United States. Their more moderate, and sometimes more reasonable, perspective in Government will be bought to the Senatorial, Judicial, and perhaps even Presidential offices. Canadians history of multilateralism and multiculturalism have never been in shorter supply or greater demand than they are today. By applying Canadian traditions and perspectives to today’s problems, I am confident that, new, innovative solutions to serious problems can be solved.


The value of such a unification would also be of great value to the Canadian people. It seems unfair to me that the decisions of this country should affect not only ourselves, but also our neighbors. I find it unfair not because we have no right to make decisions, but because those who share our borders have no ability to truly influence decisions that will also affect them. By unifying Canada and the United States, we allow each nation to ensure that their interests- which are, in so many cases the same- are protected. By unifying the two greatest nations on the North American continent, each will become stronger than either could be alone.

And do not think I mean to imply a loss of cultural autonomy for Canada; Canada’s culture, which often overlaps with the United State’s, could never be totally displaced. I would not seek to change Canadian traditions of multilingualism, for instance. Indeed, I seek to further integrate Canadian and American culture, so that each people may benefit. I would propose a comprise, whereby each of our countries leaders discuss and decide which aspects of each government would be best suited to the new alliance, and change our laws appropriately. For instance, the Canadian universal health-care system has, in my opinion, proven to be more effective than what is currently used in The U.S.A, as I also think that Canada’s allowance of cannabis, at least for medical purposes, is a policy superior to our own. Canada would also benefit by laxer trading standards. As Canada exports nearly twenty-five percent of it’s gross national product. Several trade disputes- such as that over the tariffs placed on softwood lumber- would be permanently resolved. Canada would be able to exert more control over the United State’s environmental policy.

I understand there will be many who would find this proposal ridiculous; I also realize that people who are able to open their minds and accept change will, at the least, give my proposal serious consideration, and perhaps, in the end, decide that it is what is best for the People of the North American continent. If any progress is to be made, I find it likely that it will be started in Canada; the traditional negotiators and peacekeepers, and the United States would also benefit by providing greater scientific research and greater government funding,
In closing, I would like to state that I propose this in the hopes that our two nations may unite, becoming one great country that spans not only from sea to shining sea, but also from the Rio Grande to the St. Lawrence.

I await the Canuks on this board responses...

I await the Canuks on this board responses...
Me too. Want some popcorn?

Because Americans are too conservative for liberal Canadians, this would never work. They would take away our universal healthcare and many of our rights and that damn war on drugs would have a greater reach. If anything, we need to put up a nice big wall around America and quarantine it until the religious right dies out and drugs are legalised.

There is a country. This country was founded and controlled by Britain. They fought, tooth and nail, to gain their independence

lol :p

what’s that over there is it the British commonwealth do you think it wants America to join or does it seek a loose union of former empire nations designed to be a strange superpower so that the glory of the old empire lives on

It would never work. Americans outnumber Canadians 9-1, so the legislature would be America-dominated. Canada would never go for it. If anything, Quebec would fight it tooth-and-nail, and the Canadians would feel completely shut out of the political process. Their guy would never be elected President, and they would have only 20 Senators to the Americans' 100. I would guess they would only have about 45 House members as well.

There are some levels of integration that may work. They may use the same money at some point, and American measurements may appear in Canada alongside metric in the U.S., but the two nations are too different for it to work.

Because Americans are too conservative for liberal Canadians, this would never work. They would take away our universal healthcare and many of our rights and that damn war on drugs would have a greater reach. If anything, we need to put up a nice big wall around America and quarantine it until the religious right dies out and drugs are legalised.
Surely you could stick most of Alberta* with that too?

*Being the parts which aren't the Abathascawhatever Oil Sands.

Hell no.

We can trade a bit, you give us Alberta, you take Michigan, Quebec goes back to France, but otherwise, no.

An excellent first post, and a thought-provoking point. I can't think of any critiscism in the idea: the problem lies in getting anyone to accept it.

One thing, though: should Americanada remain a commonwealth member or recognise the British crown?

Me too. Want some popcorn?

Cheers!

I've done House & Senate representation too. There's no way either side would accept it.

Of course, if we unite America and Canada...let's just overlook all the details such as drug laws, Imperial/Metric measurements, tax rates, ties to the Crown...we might as well take it to the next step and unite the United States of Canada with Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Militarily, few would fuck with such a union. Politically, it's a fucking mess, and many laws would have to be determined locally. Also, I'm not sure where the capital of the Commonwealth would be.

Cheers!
No probs. I've got plain and salted.:D

Surely you could stick most of Alberta* with that too?

*Being the parts which aren't the Abathascawhatever Oil Sands.

Alberta's the rogue, motorcycle riding Bible spouting cowboy cousin that that shows up for the late for the family reunion that no one talks about, but still loves anyway because they inherited all that money from our senile millionaire uncle.

Alberta's the rogue, motorcycle riding Bible spouting cowboy cousin that that shows up for the late for the family reunion that no one talks about, but still loves anyway because they inherited all that money from our senile millionaire uncle.
A bit like our Surrey then.

A bit like our Surrey then.
What's 'Surrey', eh?

What's 'Surrey', eh?
One of our counties.

This might not be as far away as you might think.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm

How would all of this affect you, your family, and your community? Let us count the ways. One of the most striking features of the proposed Super Highway is the plan to do away with our borders, as evidenced by the joint U.S.-Mexico Customs facility already under construction in Kansas City, Missouri. A U.S. Customs checkpoint in Kansas City? But that's a thousand miles inside America's heartland; isn't the purpose of U.S. Customs to check people and cargo at our borders?

Ah, but the mere asking of that question shows that you're still operating under the old paradigm that sees the United States as an independent, sovereign nation. However, that paradigm began to change following passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. NAFTA, which was sold to the American public as a simple trade agreement, was actually far more than that, setting in motion a process for the gradual social, economic, and political "integration," or merger, of the three NAFTA countries - Canada, the United States, and Mexico - into a North American Union.

In 2005, this merger process became more explicit and aggressive when President Bush, Mexico's President Vicente Fox, and Canada's Prime Minister Martin launched what they call the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Any serious study of the SPP will clearly reveal that its ultimate aim is the dissolution of the United States into a North American Union patterned after the increasingly dictatorial regional government now running the European Union. Henceforth, under this plan, the borders between our nations will be incrementally erased in favor of a joint "perimeter" around all three countries.

One of our counties.

Ok, gotcha.

This might not be as far away as you might think.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/nafta_superhighway_coming_through.htm
For the love of god, don't do anything like the EU.

page-stretching post

No.

Ok, gotcha.
It has a bit of a reputation (or at least from us reverse snobs in Essex), but sans le oil.

Because Americans are too conservative for liberal Canadians, this would never work. They would take away our universal healthcare and many of our rights and that damn war on drugs would have a greater reach. .


As beautiful as this idealistic dream may be, I could not agree with you more. Why would our wonderful northern neighbors want to soil themselves with our religious fanaticism, jingoistic White House mentality, and narrow minded, self serving foreign policies?


If anything, we need to put up a nice big wall around America and quarantine it until the religious right dies out and drugs are legalised.

I'll bring the bricks if you bring the mortar. :cool:

The main opposition seems to be stemming from perception rather than reality. Americans aren't as bad as they've been made out to be;there is a significant movement among United States citizens for both Universal Healthcare, and for complete legalization of cannabis. In fact, because of George Bush, neoliberals have begun to gain even more power, and I suspect our next president will be quite liberal.

I'm not even going to contemplate pretending to be very knowledgeable about Canadian tax laws; I am confident that the United States would be able to come to a perfectly agreeable solution. The integration of the Canadian and United State's militarise would not be such a significant problem. In several cases, they already work together, and NORAD has bought our country's air-forces closer together than those of any other countries in the world.

In spite of the claims seen here, most Americans are not ultra-conservative, gun-toting cowboys who like to kill hippies and take money from poor children.

And I don't think Canada would be swallowed by the United States. Texas, which was composed mainly of mestizos, who's culture and population were far more separated from most of the Americans at the time, were not destroyed, belittled, and ignored by America; we even have a (bad) Texan president in office. America has a long history of allowing other's cultural and governmental practices to combine with our own.

With most other countries, I would agree with you; this would not work. Because of our countries histories, however, I feel the situation is beneficial to all parties.

As beautiful as this idealistic dream may be, I could not agree with you more. Why would our wonderful northern neighbors want to soil themselves with our religious fanaticism, jingoistic White House mentality, and narrow minded, self serving foreign policies?

They would because Harper is bending over backwards to anally satisfy President Bush. ;)

(Of course, there are still decent Americans. Anything I say from this point on is because American politicians are self-serving asswipes who have anything bit common sense when it comes to making laws).

I'll bring the bricks if you bring the mortar. :cool:

I have some in my closet. I was going to use it to build a fort around my computer, but, this is a more worthy cause.

no thanks...although if a few states wanted to join us we'd be able to absorb them without f***ing up our country to much...I'm thinking some of the NE states Maine, NH, Vermont and Washington and possible Oregon in the North west, but they all would have to give up their silly handguns and learn to accept pot and gay marriage...:)

*snip OP*

For the love of all that's good, please no. The US is already far too big, we don't need it to get any bigger.

They would because Harper is bending over backwards to anally satisfy President Bush. ;)

(Of course, there are still decent Americans. Anything I say from this point on is because American politicians are self-serving asswipes who have anything bit common sense when it comes to making laws).



I have some in my closet. I was going to use it to build a fort around my computer, but, this is a more worthy cause.
I was under the impression that, in general, all politicians were self-serving asswipes.

But I think your judging an entire country and their leaders by the actions of a single administration, and perhaps even a single man, seems to be the actions of a fanatic. In fact, it makes you seem quite like the people you admonish.

If any progress is to be made, I find it likely that it will be started in Canada;

Quite fortunately, this move would be political suicide.

no thanks...although if a few states wanted to join us we'd be able to absorb them without f***ing up our country to much...I'm thinking some of the NE states Maine, NH, Vermont and Washington and possible Oregon in the North west, but they all would have to give up their silly handguns and learn to accept pot and gay marriage...:)
I don't think that gay marriage and pot are the huge issues you are trying to make them out to be.

But you are also failing to realize the freedoms states have. Most of the complaints Canadians have could be responded to by pointing out state's rights.


I understand Canada's entire cultural identity can be summed up with the phrase "We aren't America", but this country is honestly not composed of the type of people you seem to think it is.

Why stop with America and Canada. I for one would like all countries to merge into one.

Why stop with America and Canada. I for one would like all countries to merge into one.

Oh and Ireland would be the what? The province where everyone goes to celebrate St Patrick's day and get blown three sheets to the wind on moonshine? (nothing against Ireland, I love that country!)

Oh and Ireland would be the what? The province where everyone goes to celebrate St Patrick's day and get blown three sheets to the wind on moonshine? (nothing against Ireland, I love that country!)

Poteen, we call it poteen. It's made from potatoes. We like potatoes. :)


Oh, and OP, are you planning to annex Mexico into your supercountry? Because otherwise you won't be spanning North America, at least not from north to south.

As beautiful as this idealistic dream may be, I could not agree with you more. Why would our wonderful northern neighbors want to soil themselves with our religious fanaticism, jingoistic White House mentality, and narrow minded, self serving foreign policies?




I'll bring the bricks if you bring the mortar. :cool:
All foreign policies, from all nations, are self-serving. Our "religious fanaticism" isn't really fanaticism either; we maintain a firm wall of separation between church and state, with the only gap being our recognizance of marriages, nor or we absurdly nationalist.

Poteen, we call it poteen. It's made from potatoes. We like potatoes. :)


Oh, and OP, are you planning to annex Mexico into your supercountry? Because otherwise you won't be spanning North America, at least not from north to south.
"The river has, since 1845, marked the boundary between Mexico and the United States from the twin cities of El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, to the Gulf of Mexico. "

I never said from north to south.


If you wanted to criticize my geography, you should have gone for the Saint Lawrence, since it doesn't mark the end of Canadian territory in the north.

On Canadian Healthcare

Supposedly, Canada has this wonderful healthcare system. It is the shining example of what a healthcare system should be. But, what are the costs? Not just price, but things besides dollars?

Waiting Time -

In Canada, the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

If you're a girl in British Columbia, you can expect a 14.3 week wait to get you gynecological needs met. Gee, suppose you had the beginning stages of Cervical cancer? Would you want to wait 14.3 weeks to find out?

Got a heart problem needing a bypass? In British Columbia, you'd have to wait 22.9 weeks to get any surgery done. I wonder what the survival odds are of waiting 22.9 weeks for a heart bypass?

But, these numbers are just one province and do not reflect the initial wait to get a referral from your GP to see the specialist in the first place. For Canada overall, 50% of the time you have to wait at least 8.3 weeks after getting a referral before seeing a specialist (it was 3.7 weeks in 1993).

However, this wait is for any service. If you needed any sort of eye exam, the wait from referral to specialist is median of 13.9 weeks. This is just to see the specialist. If you needed any surgery, the median additional wait would be 16 more weeks. So, to get that corneal transplant could take 30 weeks; almost 8 months. Could a needed eye operation wait that long?

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Complete%20Publication-wyt2003.pdf#

In a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," she wrote that, in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Source;
http://cf.townhall.com/linkurl.cfm?http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf

Self-pay -

Some patients would avoid long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. However, in 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On first glance, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so (so, even a rich uncle would be barred from paying for your surgery). The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Oh%20To%20Be%20a%20Prisoner!-Jan04ffesmail.pdf

This is the wonderful and sublime Canadian healthcare system?

They would because Harper is bending over backwards to anally satisfy President Bush. ;)

(Of course, there are still decent Americans. Anything I say from this point on is because American politicians are self-serving asswipes who have anything bit common sense when it comes to making laws)..


I agree with you there, but... Who do you think elects said self serving asswipes? We have no one to blame but ourselves (Americans) there.

I have advocated such an idealistic union before, but from an economic poitn of view, Canada would contribute slightly less than California, as California is the 7th largest economic power in the world, and Canada is 8th, right ahead of Italy and Texas. (California's GDP is 1.6 trillion I belive and Canada's is 1.5 trillion or so... ) In perspective with the rest of the world, Canada is a powerhouse of an economy and would benefit from something a little more than NAFTA. The problems are ones that have been outlined before: Health Care; Taxes; Currency; The Metric System; Quebec. One of the stranger issues where taxes is concerned has nothing to do with GST: it is stadium funding. In the US, the public is allowed to be taxed (for good or ill, and many in my home city of Arlington have been fighting our contribution to the new Cowboys Stadium) for stadium construction. There have been problems with this in getting new stadiums built for Canadian NHLAand NBA teams especially and has contributed to teams fleeing to the US (it also helps that, like the Grizzlies, they stink.). How many new stadiums are being built right now for Canadian sports teams? (1, I think, for Toronto FC, but do correct me, I could most certainly be wrong). And only 2 CFL teams have a stadium that are comprable to US stadiums (and some might only argue Rogers Centre, built in 1989). This is not to say that our system of professional sports is better (I think that the owners and the leagues should cough up the money or most of it at least), but is a clear example of economic priorities in the US and Canada (and the difference in GDP).

As for Health care, I have no easy answers, and the issue is far too complex and too many idealogues will argue this one to death. With the metric system, I think a compromise can be reached considering how many scientists use it. Politically, there are always stumbling blocks, and if the EU can do it with countries that have been murdering each other for centuries, surely we can come to an accord in an ideal world, and it would have to be an ideal world.

Finally, I think the union should let Quebec go its own way. They have the right of self-determination, and many Quebecois want independence. They should join this proposed union as an associated power, or not. But the simplest way to deal with Quebec is let them decide. Also, I think the western provinces would be more likely to join than Ontario. Ontario is the heart of Canada (though Quebec might argue) and would have the most trouble aceding to a union.

In any event, these are mere thoughts on the subject and are not wholly pragmatic, and to an extent as idealistic as the poster themself. it would take a lot of work to get this done, but might, in the end, be beneficial to both our great nations.

Poteen, we call it poteen. It's made from potatoes. We like potatoes. :)


Oh, and OP, are you planning to annex Mexico into your supercountry? Because otherwise you won't be spanning North America, at least not from north to south.

I am all about union with our southern friends as well... it would be no worse than trying to integrate Eastern Europe into the EU, or perhaps Turkey. A true North American Union would easily rival the EU eventually. It, again, would be a lot of work, and is far from pragmatic, but I would be for it in the long run.. (heck, a good chunk of Mexico is living in Texas anyways :)

Self-pay -

Some patients would avoid long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. However, in 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On first glance, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so (so, even a rich uncle would be barred from paying for your surgery). The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.
Good, allowing a two tier system to form would only cause the public system to rot from the inside out, or in BC's case rot even more.

However, you have to consider that health care costs twice as much in the US. Your government spends more money per capita on health care than ours does. Your goverment forces you to pay more, yet doesn't guarantee you acess.

Also, you expect competance from the BC government? Government competance is illegal in this province.

American's don't want universal healthcare.

We don't want sucktastic canadian gun laws

We don't want Maple syrup trees in our backyard

We like our sovereingty.

We like Hockey

We are religious

We are conservative

We execute our criminals

:p

Your goverment forces you to pay more, yet doesn't guarantee you acess.

The government doesn't force anything. Except that indigents and illegals get healthcare.

Hospitals set their prices, not the US government.

Go hard on the unification front...my people will continue to assert our right to sovereignty, confounding your best attempts :p

Good, allowing a two tier system to form would only cause the public system to rot from the inside out, or in BC's case rot even more.

However, you have to consider that health care costs twice as much in the US. Your government spends more money per capita on health care than ours does. Your goverment forces you to pay more, yet doesn't guarantee you acess.

Also, you expect competance from the BC government? Government competance is illegal in this province.
I don't understand this argument. Why shouldn't people be able to pay for faster, better service if they want to?

I'm completely willing to concede the point that medical care should be provided, but if you allow those with the ability and the want to pay, it can't cause very much harm.

The government doesn't force anything. Except that indigents and illegals get healthcare.

Hospitals set their prices, not the US government.

Never heard of taxes eh?

Our systems are too dissimilar, and we certainly wouldn't be willing to adopt yours, nor can I envision USians embracing our Parliamentary system. The US is NOT in fact based on the English system, you carved out your own system...we were slowly weaned from the teat of Britain. The fundamental differences between our systems of laws and governance would be insurmountable. Well, that and any such move would spark a deadly Canadian resistance...you think you love guns? Ha...you don't know from guns...

American's don't want universal healthcare.

We don't want sucktastic canadian gun laws

We don't want Maple syrup trees in our backyard

We like our sovereingty.

We like Hockey

We are religious

We are conservative

We execute our criminals

:p

Of course, that only applies to some parts of the US. Up here we already have maple syrup trees in our backyards, we would like universal healthcare but can't afford it, we're kinda liberal on the whole and we don't execute our criminals. Also, we're not nearly as religious as you people down there are.

Oh, and we don't like hockey, we love hockey.

Still, I'd be completely opposed to any union of this sort. The current Union we do have is iffy at best, we don't need another one.

I have advocated such an idealistic union before, but from an economic poitn of view, Canada would contribute slightly less than California, as California is the 7th largest economic power in the world, and Canada is 8th, right ahead of Italy and Texas. (California's GDP is 1.6 trillion I belive and Canada's is 1.5 trillion or so... ) In perspective with the rest of the world, Canada is a powerhouse of an economy and would benefit from something a little more than NAFTA. The problems are ones that have been outlined before: Health Care; Taxes; Currency; The Metric System; Quebec. One of the stranger issues where taxes is concerned has nothing to do with GST: it is stadium funding. In the US, the public is allowed to be taxed (for good or ill, and many in my home city of Arlington have been fighting our contribution to the new Cowboys Stadium) for stadium construction. There have been problems with this in getting new stadiums built for Canadian NHLAand NBA teams especially and has contributed to teams fleeing to the US (it also helps that, like the Grizzlies, they stink.). How many new stadiums are being built right now for Canadian sports teams? (1, I think, for Toronto FC, but do correct me, I could most certainly be wrong). And only 2 CFL teams have a stadium that are comprable to US stadiums (and some might only argue Rogers Centre, built in 1989). This is not to say that our system of professional sports is better (I think that the owners and the leagues should cough up the money or most of it at least), but is a clear example of economic priorities in the US and Canada (and the difference in GDP).

As for Health care, I have no easy answers, and the issue is far too complex and too many idealogues will argue this one to death. With the metric system, I think a compromise can be reached considering how many scientists use it. Politically, there are always stumbling blocks, and if the EU can do it with countries that have been murdering each other for centuries, surely we can come to an accord in an ideal world, and it would have to be an ideal world.

Finally, I think the union should let Quebec go its own way. They have the right of self-determination, and many Quebecois want independence. They should join this proposed union as an associated power, or not. But the simplest way to deal with Quebec is let them decide. Also, I think the western provinces would be more likely to join than Ontario. Ontario is the heart of Canada (though Quebec might argue) and would have the most trouble aceding to a union.

In any event, these are mere thoughts on the subject and are not wholly pragmatic, and to an extent as idealistic as the poster themself. it would take a lot of work to get this done, but might, in the end, be beneficial to both our great nations.

8th biggest economy, but add to that our total potential resource wealth we're far ahead of California.

stadiums-they're nice to have but up here we think why the hell should we fund a stadium for millionaires owners...we have better things to spend our money on, it's a very contentious issue building a new stadium here.

joining the US, never happen we're to different and not about to let that happen.

*snip bashing Canuk healthcare*
Well, I never have to worry about the financial strain of seeing a doctor, or needing any sort of treatment...and it's not because I'm rich. Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.

Go hard on the unification front...my people will continue to assert our right to sovereignty, confounding your best attempts :p
I find it somewhat humorous that the multicultural, "liberal" ones are the most resistant to change and the one who are most opposed to the consideration of other ideas. I don't think you're as liberal as you claim to be.


And no one is disputing your claim to sovereignty. If anyone one here was, then there would be a call for war, and there isn't.

Of course, that only applies to some parts of the US. Up here we already have maple syrup trees in our backyards, we would like universal healthcare but can't afford it, we're kinda liberal on the whole and we don't execute our criminals. Also, we're not nearly as religious as you people down there are.

Oh, and we don't like hockey, we love hockey.

Still, I'd be completely opposed to any union of this sort. The current Union we do have is iffy at best, we don't need another one.

They're your neighbors!

8th biggest economy, but add to that our total potential resource wealth we're far ahead of California.

stadiums-they're nice to have but up here we think why the hell should we fund a stadium for millionaires owners...we have better things to spend our money on, it's a very contentious issue building a new stadium here.

joining the US, never happen we're to different and not about to let that happen.
Too different?

Oh, your liberal? We have that philosophy hear to. You support universal healthcare? So do several of our citizens[1]. Legalization of cannabis? Us to[2].

The difference is, your cultural identity is "we're not America".


1.)http://www.amsa.org/uhc/
2.)http://lasvegas.about.com/cs/state/a/Marijuana.htm

I find it somewhat humorous that the multicultural, "liberal" ones are the most resistant to change and the one who are most opposed to the consideration of other ideas. I don't think you're as liberal as you claim to be.


And no one is disputing your claim to sovereignty. If anyone one here was, then there would be a call for war, and there isn't.

My people are aboriginal, and you bet people are disputing our claim to sovereignty. My point about sovereignty is that we, in the US or Canada, will continue to dispute the 'right' of both colonial governments, regardless of whether they merge into one or remain two.

As for 'liberal', that's YOUR magic marker writing on my placard, not mine.

Baby, the kind of change I work for would blow your mind.

My people are aboriginal, and you bet people are disputing our claim to sovereignty.

As for 'liberal', that's YOUR magic marker writing on my placard, not mine.

Baby, the kind of change I work for would blow your mind.

Sorry about the category. Allow me to rephrase:

I don't think your very tolerant.

Why stop with America and Canada. I for one would like all countries to merge into one.

Open borders.

And no one is disputing your claim to sovereignty. If anyone one here was, then there would be a call for war, and there isn't.

By her people I believe she means the Cree people, not necessarily the Canadians.

They're your neighbors!

Yep, but we're still Americans and your listing of American characteristics doesn't really fit. Now, if that was a list of Texan characteristics it'd be quite accurate I think. Except maybe the hockey thing.

Sorry about the category. Allow me to rephrase:

I don't think your very tolerant.

Of what exactly, do you expect me to be tolerant? Of this idea? I could care less what two colonial governments decide to do, merge, not merge, dress up in frilly clothes and call themselves Nancy.

Don't pretend you know me, or my politics.

Not necessary, Canada's doin fine. :)

Well, I never have to worry about the financial strain of seeing a doctor, or needing any sort of treatment...and it's not because I'm rich. Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.

Nice to know you are willing to make others pay for your own well being :rolleyes:

8th biggest economy, but add to that our total potential resource wealth we're far ahead of California.

stadiums-they're nice to have but up here we think why the hell should we fund a stadium for millionaires owners...we have better things to spend our money on, it's a very contentious issue building a new stadium here.

joining the US, never happen we're to different and not about to let that happen.

Too true, just was pointing out the numbers... I am sure at some point down the road, Canada will move on up... but having a GDP over a trillion is never bad (and we are but a mere 13 billion or so away in Texas :)

It is just as contentious here... still contentious, and it has caused more than a few teams to move for one reason or another.

At least we speak the same language most of the time... The EU nations are far more different culturally than Canada and the US will ever be. I would have thought integrating the US and Canada and Mexico for that matter would be easier than say the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and 20 some-odd other disparate nations... guess I am wrong.

Ya know, if the ancient Greeks couldn't unite (and they were virtually the same people, remember), I doubt Canada and the US would/could unite. Our economic systems are too different for unity unless one is willing to go through a radical change in economic policy, but I doubt it.

I find it somewhat humorous that the multicultural, "liberal" ones are the most resistant to change and the one who are most opposed to the consideration of other ideas. I don't think you're as liberal as you claim to be.


And no one is disputing your claim to sovereignty. If anyone one here was, then there would be a call for war, and there isn't.
There is a difference between tolerance of other points of view and allowing then to be forced upon you.

Nice to know you are willing to make others pay for your own well being :rolleyes:

Why? He pays for their well being in return.

Open borders.


Open borders would be great in a hundred years or so. Most of us aren't ready for it... maybe a century to think about would be nice.

Nice to know you are willing to make others pay for your own well being :rolleyes:

As I pay for theirs. Give and take. As I go up the income ladder, I fully expect to contribute proportionally, but that actual fits with my worldview, so it doesn't bother me.

You people like your healthcare system. Well, at least those of you who can afford it. We happen to like OUR healthcare system. The ones who really bitch about it, are the ones with the bucks to pay for operations overseas, who get outraged that Medicare won't pay FOR them.

So who really wants others to pay for their own well being? Oddly enough...the ones who can afford to pay their own way.

Open borders would be great in a hundred years or so. Most of us aren't ready for it... maybe a century to think about would be nice.

Well that is a delicious, but much too filling topic to try to stuff into this thread, but I'd love a slice of it later.

Our systems are too dissimilar, and we certainly wouldn't be willing to adopt yours, nor can I envision USians embracing our Parliamentary system. The US is NOT in fact based on the English system, you carved out your own system...we were slowly weaned from the teat of Britain. The fundamental differences between our systems of laws and governance would be insurmountable. Well, that and any such move would spark a deadly Canadian resistance...you think you love guns? Ha...you don't know from guns...
Compromise.

Perhaps it could work like this:
Canada, within the U.S., is treated as a single state- they receive two senators, and the appropriate number of representatives. With the "state" of Canada, however, the old parliamentary system continues to work. This Canadian "state" would be given more right than the ordinary state- for instance, the ability to institute some policies, even if they were previously ruled unconstitutional, or the ability to determine their own environmental policy. To opt out of paying into medicare and medicaid through their taxes, freeing them to instead continue universal healthcare.

Thinks to have to be black and white.

Why? He pays for their well being in return.

She, love :)

By her people I believe she means the Cree people, not necessarily the Canadians.



Yep, but we're still Americans and your listing of American characteristics doesn't really fit. Now, if that was a list of Texan characteristics it'd be quite accurate I think. Except maybe the hockey thing.

We love hockey in Texas, and even have a Stanley Cup win, thank you very much. And don't speak too harshly of all Texans... we may surprise people now and then... mostly then.

By her people I believe she means the Cree people, not necessarily the Canadians.



Yep, but we're still Americans and your listing of American characteristics doesn't really fit. Now, if that was a list of Texan characteristics it'd be quite accurate I think. Except maybe the hockey thing.

ACtually there IS a Federal Death penalty.

I love Hockey. Our city even built a street hockey rink in the park. Says something.

As I pay for theirs. Give and take. As I go up the income ladder, I fully expect to contribute proportionally, but that actual fits with my worldview, so it doesn't bother me.

You people like your healthcare system. Well, at least those of you who can afford it. We happen to like OUR healthcare system. The ones who really bitch about it, are the ones with the bucks to pay for operations overseas, who get outraged that Medicare won't pay FOR them.

[quote]So who really wants others to pay for their own well being? Oddly enough...the ones who can afford to pay their own way.
What?

These people are complaining that they are being to forced to spend the money they earned in ways which do not provide benefit to them. They're not asking anyone else to pay their way. it is their money, and it's not like national defence where everybody will benefit if it's needed.

Never heard of taxes eh?

Yeah, I have.

But, the US government doesn't dictate to a hospital what to charge for its services.

If you want to claim otherwise, got an example?

She, love :)

The use of she to differentiate women from men is incredibly sexist, and should be stopped.

<.<

>.>

Compromise.

Perhaps it could work like this:
Canada, within the U.S., is treated as a single state- they receive two senators, and the appropriate number of representatives. With the "state" of Canada, however, the old parliamentary system continues to work. This Canadian "state" would be given more right than the ordinary state- for instance, the ability to institute some policies, even if they were previously ruled unconstitutional, or the ability to determine their own environmental policy. To opt out of paying into medicare and medicaid through their taxes, freeing them to instead continue universal healthcare.

Thinks to have to be black and white.

I'm not seeing why this would be worth the effort. Because something that you aren't taking into account in this, is that Canada is not nearly as unified as it would need to be in order to work as a discrete yet joined member of the US (or whatever you'd like to call the new uber-nation). As it is, our confederation is on shaky ground...there is no way that a Constitutional amendment joining us with the US would be possible. We just can't agree to that extent. We would literally have to abandon our Constitution, and jump into bed with you...there could be no half steps.

Yeah, I have.

But, the US government doesn't dictate to a hospital what to charge for its services.

If you want to claim otherwise, got an example?

I never claimed otherwise.

What?

These people are complaining that they are being to forced to spend the money they earned in ways which do not provide benefit to them. They're not asking anyone else to pay their way. it is their money, and it's not like national defence where everybody will benefit if it's needed.
No offense, but your analysis of our national health-care debate is lacking. At least approach it from your own perspective, not from the assumed perspective of a Canadian.

Point being...you like your system, we like ours. We have no need to force ours upon you, so kindly afford us the same courtesy. BOTH systems have flaws, and comparing them is a slanted, and foolish exercise, because details aside, what it boils down to is a national commitment to a particular philosophy. THAT is where we differ, and that fundamental difference is not lightly set aside.

I'm not seeing why this would be worth the effort. Because something that you aren't taking into account in this, is that Canada is not nearly as unified as it would need to be in order to work as a discrete yet joined member of the US (or whatever you'd like to call the new uber-nation). As it is, our confederation is on shaky ground...there is no way that a Constitutional amendment joining us with the US would be possible. We just can't agree to that extent. We would literally have to abandon our Constitution, and jump into bed with you...there could be no half steps.

It would have to be a new political system on par with the EU with the individual countries retaining their own governments for 'state' matters and a parliament for the Union government... that's the only practical way it could work.

I'm not seeing why this would be worth the effort. Because something that you aren't taking into account in this, is that Canada is not nearly as unified as it would need to be in order to work as a discrete yet joined member of the US (or whatever you'd like to call the new uber-nation). As it is, our confederation is on shaky ground...there is no way that a Constitutional amendment joining us with the US would be possible. We just can't agree to that extent. We would literally have to abandon our Constitution, and jump into bed with you...there could be no half steps.

That's a pretty good point. A few provinces want out of Canada. This would probably just fuel separatist groups.

The use of she to differentiate women from men is incredibly sexist, and should be stopped.

<.<

>.>

I was just worried you didn't notice my breasts :p

I'm not seeing why this would be worth the effort. Because something that you aren't taking into account in this, is that Canada is not nearly as unified as it would need to be in order to work as a discrete yet joined member of the US (or whatever you'd like to call the new uber-nation). As it is, our confederation is on shaky ground...there is no way that a Constitutional amendment joining us with the US would be possible. We just can't agree to that extent. We would literally have to abandon our Constitution, and jump into bed with you...there could be no half steps.
Of course I'm not asking for the entire nation to wake up one morning and go "I think I want to join America!".

The reason I posted this was because I think it's something we need to seriously consider and work toward, not something we need to impliment in the next five, or ten, or even twenty years.


As to why it's worth it-

because Canada has amazing natural resources, and your government can't exploit those resources. Because a North America moving as a single unified body would be a more powerful America.

I'm actually somewhat suprised that the Canadian side has the most objections.

Well, I never have to worry about the financial strain of seeing a doctor, or needing any sort of treatment...and it's not because I'm rich. Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.

What you snipped were facts and I provided the links to support them.

I don't have to worry about seeing a doctor or needing treatment, either. And, I'm not rich, either.

Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.

That's a pretty good point. A few provinces want out of Canada. This would probably just fuel separatist groups.

Yes, everyone looks at Quebec, but Newfoundland wanted out RIGHT AFTER confederation and haven't been happy since. Not to mention Alberta's western alienation, and the inferiority-complex of the entire North...

We love hockey in Texas, and even have a Stanley Cup win, thank you very much. And don't speak too harshly of all Texans... we may surprise people now and then... mostly then.

I don't really have anything against Texans, just so long as they do their thing down there and don't try to use Uncle Sam to make us do their thing. Friendly people for the most part, it's just the way they run Texas isn't my style.

ACtually there IS a Federal Death penalty.

As if we can do anything about that. Michigan banned the death penalty in 1847 and we haven't had it since. That's about all we can do about it. I don't care if you guys have it down there, just don't try to make us do it.

I love Hockey. Our city even built a street hockey rink in the park. Says something.

So it does.

As to why it's worth it-

because Canada has amazing natural resources, and your government can't exploit those resources. Because a North America moving as a single unified body would be a more powerful America.

I'm actually somewhat suprised that the Canadian side has the most objections.
Can't exploit our resources? Hahahahahahaaa....

You mean...we aren't funnelling our resources to the US fast enough. Yeah, that's kind of what we want. Not to mention the issue of 'who actually owns these resources'...the answer to which is increasingly 'aboriginal people'...meaning stricter environmental controls, definately NOT something we want to give up in order to follow the US model of resource exploitation.

On Canadian Healthcare

Supposedly, Canada has this wonderful healthcare system. It is the shining example of what a healthcare system should be. But, what are the costs? Not just price, but things besides dollars?

Waiting Time -

In Canada, the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

If you're a girl in British Columbia, you can expect a 14.3 week wait to get you gynecological needs met. Gee, suppose you had the beginning stages of Cervical cancer? Would you want to wait 14.3 weeks to find out?

Got a heart problem needing a bypass? In British Columbia, you'd have to wait 22.9 weeks to get any surgery done. I wonder what the survival odds are of waiting 22.9 weeks for a heart bypass?

But, these numbers are just one province and do not reflect the initial wait to get a referral from your GP to see the specialist in the first place. For Canada overall, 50% of the time you have to wait at least 8.3 weeks after getting a referral before seeing a specialist (it was 3.7 weeks in 1993).

However, this wait is for any service. If you needed any sort of eye exam, the wait from referral to specialist is median of 13.9 weeks. This is just to see the specialist. If you needed any surgery, the median additional wait would be 16 more weeks. So, to get that corneal transplant could take 30 weeks; almost 8 months. Could a needed eye operation wait that long?

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Complete%20Publication-wyt2003.pdf#

In a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," she wrote that, in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Source;
http://cf.townhall.com/linkurl.cfm?http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf

Self-pay -

Some patients would avoid long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. However, in 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On first glance, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so (so, even a rich uncle would be barred from paying for your surgery). The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Oh%20To%20Be%20a%20Prisoner!-Jan04ffesmail.pdf

This is the wonderful and sublime Canadian healthcare system?

your playing with stats and juggling them to suit your arguement

waiting time, emergency's are seen immediately there is no wait time this is a myth(last time for me GP to Specialist was a week non-emergency) as anywhere else even the US this is the same, it's also limited as anywhere else by the specialty needed.

As for the rest of your examples they are all the same each patient is judged separately, those in dire need of attention go first, emergency's are seen to immediately. Eye exam for example, I can walk in to my specialist without an appointment anytime and they will see me instantly in case of an injury, an exam a week at most.

The USA has the same policy regarding elective procedures.
The degrading of the Canadian system is a favourite target of Insurance company's, private hospitals because they fear it, the fear the loss of money, they can't compete.
Your source "The Fraser Institute is an far right-wing group whose only purpose is to criticize anything public supported, they are not an unbiased source.

as any time this topic comes up I only have four points to make that point to the superiority of our Universal Medicare....1-we live two years longer than americans...2-our system costs us half the price as what americans pay...3 We can never become uninsurable, cradle to the grave we have full medical coverage ...and 4-anyone who wants to bypass the system and pay for private surgery in the US is free to do so, why anyone would want pay 50,000+ in the US for a new hip vs free in Canada is a mystery, there is no understanding some people

What you snipped were facts and I provided the links to support them.

I don't have to worry about seeing a doctor or needing treatment, either. And, I'm not rich, either.

Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.
Then your point is moot. Both systems, with all their flaws, work for us. Don't fix it if it sin't broken. End of discussion.

I don't see why Canada's trying to hold onto the French-Canadian provinces so much, since none of the Canadians I've seen seem to care very much.

I don't see why Canada's trying to hold onto the French-Canadian provinces so much, since none of the Canadians I've seen seem to care very much.

It's a love/hate relationship that is difficult to understand even as a Canadian, much less as an outsider.

When the last referendum said, resoundingly "NO"...you wouldn't believe the upsurge in emotion it caused. People were crying, absolutely deliriously happy to be keeping Quebec with us. But we DO love to slag them.

your playing with stats and juggling them to suit your arguement

waiting time, emergency's are seen immediately there is no wait time this is a myth(last time for me GP to Specialist was a week non-emergency) as anywhere else even the US this is the same, it's also limited as anywhere else by the specialty needed.

As for the rest of your examples they are all the same each patient is judged separately, those in dire need of attention go first, emergency's are seen to immediately. Eye exam for example, I can walk in to my specialist without an appointment anytime and they will see me instantly in case of an injury, an exam a week at most.

The USA has the same policy regarding elective procedures.
The degrading of the Canadian system is a favourite target of Insurance company's, private hospitals because they fear it, the fear the loss of money, they can't compete.
Your source "The Fraser Institute is an far right-wing group whose only purpose is to criticize anything public supported, they are not an unbiased source.

as any time this topic comes up I only have four points to make that point to the superiority of our Universal Medicare....1-we live two years longer than americans...2-our system costs us half the price as what americans pay...3 We can never become uninsurable, cradle to the grave we have full medical coverage ...and 4-anyone who wants to bypass the system and pay for private surgery in the US is free to do so, why anyone would want pay 50,000+ in the US for a new hip vs free in Canada is a mystery, there is no understanding some people
1.) Because Americans enjoy a less healthy lifestyle
2.) How much do you pay in taxes?
3.) Point taken.
4.) Because of the wait times. Also, as his last example indicated, it's not true that they are always free to bypass the healthcare.

Oh, the institute is biased. Let me ask you something, how much of your knowledge about the universal healthcare comes from government funded programs and websites?

By the way, the Frasier Institute is referenced more than any other Canadian institute in peer review journals.

It's a love/hate relationship that is difficult to understand even as a Canadian, much less as an outsider.

When the last referendum said, resoundingly "NO"...you wouldn't believe the upsurge in emotion it caused. People were crying, absolutely deliriously happy to be keeping Quebec with us. But we DO love to slag them.

Quebec is to Canada what trolls are to some of on NSG, perhaps? Sure, some days we'll want to beat them to death with their own keyboard, but we wouldn't want NSG to be without them.

It's a love/hate relationship that is difficult to understand even as a Canadian, much less as an outsider.

When the last referendum said, resoundingly "NO"...you wouldn't believe the upsurge in emotion it caused. People were crying, absolutely deliriously happy to be keeping Quebec with us. But we DO love to slag them.
Actually, I can. There's a similar situation with the South towards the North and vice versa.

Quebec is to Canada what trolls are to some of on NSG, perhaps? Sure, some days we'll want to beat them to death with their own keyboard, but we wouldn't want NSG to be without them.

Not only that, but a great deal of the labour protections we have can be attributed to Quebec activists. They go further than perhaps the rest of Canada would, but they provide a good counterbalance to US privitisation influences.

When the last referendum said, resoundingly "NO"...

I don't know that I'd call 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes" to be a resounding vote either way.

I don't really have anything against Texans, just so long as they do their thing down there and don't try to use Uncle Sam to make us do their thing. Friendly people for the most part, it's just the way they run Texas isn't my style.


Is it our death penalty? Well, we can agree to disagree on that. Our state constitution, btw, is not our fault. It was forced on us by the Reconstructionist governments who occupied us after the War of Northern Agression :) But, like every State, we have a history of political misdeeds...

Too true, just was pointing out the numbers... I am sure at some point down the road, Canada will move on up... but having a GDP over a trillion is never bad (and we are but a mere 13 billion or so away in Texas :)

It is just as contentious here... still contentious, and it has caused more than a few teams to move for one reason or another.

At least we speak the same language most of the time... The EU nations are far more different culturally than Canada and the US will ever be. I would have thought integrating the US and Canada and Mexico for that matter would be easier than say the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and 20 some-odd other disparate nations... guess I am wrong.

I think that euro countries are more socialist orientated than the US despite their language and cultural differences they have that in common. Canada is half way between Europe and the USA culturally and politically and for that reason I can't see a unification, we are just to different.

I usually take a libertarian stance on most issues. To me, free-market capatalism appears to be the best economic system yet devised.

I don't know that I'd call 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes" to be a resounding vote either way.

Ha, good point, maybe I slanted that a little far. Anyway, happy days.

Canadian-American Unification
There is a country. This country was founded and controlled by Britain. They fought, tooth and nail, to gain their independence. These people have played major roles in the Korean war, World Wars I and II, and are one of the largest contributors of peace-keeping forces to the U.N.

Our two countries both have remarkable histories, that at times intersect with each other. Both of us, founded by colonies, managed to win our independence, growing- with each other’s help- in to two of the most respected, powerful nations on Earth. Both of us have managed to integrate and accept massive immigrant populations- Canada was actually one of the first countries to accept Irish Immigrants, for which I, an Irishman, am grateful.

Today, we both share the longest non-militarized border in the world. Our armies have, through NORAD, integrated seamlessly. American’s depend on the trade of our Northern Neighbors for many of the comforts and necessities we enjoy every day. Canada has remained, and will, as far as I can see, remain each other’s staunchest allies.

Which is why I propose that Canada and the United States merge into one nation, spanning the entire length North American Continent. I propose this, not for the benefit of Canada, but mainly for our own. America, at this time, has never been in more need of a different, more moderate perspective in our government. The Canadian systems of Universal Healthcare, for instance, could be of incalculable benefit to the population of the United States. Their more moderate, and sometimes more reasonable, perspective in Government will be bought to the Senatorial, Judicial, and perhaps even Presidential offices. Canadians history of multilateralism and multiculturalism have never been in shorter supply or greater demand than they are today. By applying Canadian traditions and perspectives to today’s problems, I am confident that, new, innovative solutions to serious problems can be solved.


The value of such a unification would also be of great value to the Canadian people. It seems unfair to me that the decisions of this country should affect not only ourselves, but also our neighbors. I find it unfair not because we have no right to make decisions, but because those who share our borders have no ability to truly influence decisions that will also affect them. By unifying Canada and the United States, we allow each nation to ensure that their interests- which are, in so many cases the same- are protected. By unifying the two greatest nations on the North American continent, each will become stronger than either could be alone.

And do not think I mean to imply a loss of cultural autonomy for Canada; Canada’s culture, which often overlaps with the United State’s, could never be totally displaced. I would not seek to change Canadian traditions of multilingualism, for instance. Indeed, I seek to further integrate Canadian and American culture, so that each people may benefit. I would propose a comprise, whereby each of our countries leaders discuss and decide which aspects of each government would be best suited to the new alliance, and change our laws appropriately. For instance, the Canadian universal health-care system has, in my opinion, proven to be more effective than what is currently used in The U.S.A, as I also think that Canada’s allowance of cannabis, at least for medical purposes, is a policy superior to our own. Canada would also benefit by laxer trading standards. As Canada exports nearly twenty-five percent of it’s gross national product. Several trade disputes- such as that over the tariffs placed on softwood lumber- would be permanently resolved. Canada would be able to exert more control over the United State’s environmental policy.

I understand there will be many who would find this proposal ridiculous; I also realize that people who are able to open their minds and accept change will, at the least, give my proposal serious consideration, and perhaps, in the end, decide that it is what is best for the People of the North American continent. If any progress is to be made, I find it likely that it will be started in Canada; the traditional negotiators and peacekeepers, and the United States would also benefit by providing greater scientific research and greater government funding,
In closing, I would like to state that I propose this in the hopes that our two nations may unite, becoming one great country that spans not only from sea to shining sea, but also from the Rio Grande to the St. Lawrence.

A lot of Americans are stupid. Besides, aren't Canadians supposed to not like us?

Is it our death penalty? Well, we can agree to disagree on that. Our state constitution, btw, is not our fault. It was forced on us by the Reconstructionist governments who occupied us after the War of Northern Agression :) But, like every State, we have a history of political misdeeds...

It's not specifically the death penalty, just the way the state government works as a whole. Up here we prefer a more active government than you guys have. Yours works for you, and ours worked for us until the auto industry started to collapse.

1.) Because Americans enjoy a less healthy lifestyle
2.) How much do you pay in taxes?
3.) Point taken.
4.) Because of the wait times. Also, as his last example indicated, it's not true that they are always free to bypass the healthcare.

Oh, the institute is biased. Let me ask you something, how much of your knowledge about the universal healthcare comes from government funded programs and websites?

By the way, the Frasier Institute is referenced more than any other Canadian institute in peer review journals.

1-how do you know what lifestyle we have? lifestyle is also part of medicine/healthcare

2-taxes-I have know idea, ask my accountant, medicare in Canada costs between 1,800 to about 2,000 per person(depending on sources) in the USA from the sources I've seen they range from 2,500 to 10,000 per person, seems to vary a lot from one region to another.

4-if you have the cash you can bypass the system(you won't necessarily be reimbursed however), exceptions are children the state won't allow weird experimental surgery's in foreign countries.

Fraser Institute is so right wing that before news story regarding their studies are announced you can predict their findings. They're like Fox News pretending to be objective; fair and balanced they are not.

http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm

My information comes from my own lifetime of experiences with the Medicare system, it's served me and my family well. Our local Provincial government would like nothing better to trash the Medicare system(they have done their best to undermine it). Any government that does will find itself out of office very quickly, political suicide to do so.

I don't know that I'd call 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes" to be a resounding vote either way.

the question asked was worded poorly which added to the Yes total hence the Clarity Act, the next referendum the question will not be so ambiguous. Do you wish Independence from Canada, Yes or No? And the rules for separation will be spelled out and they won't be favourable to Independence.

We like Quebecers, they are like that weird person in every family, kind of odd but ya still love 'em just the same. If they leave so be it, good luck and have fun.

I'm glad to see that I had a successful first thread.

I'm glad to see that I had a successful first thread.

no catpics, no Spam, no stories, no sex, no SPAM

and its Amerika dammit!

good idea ..as long you live Quebec out of it :)

good idea ..as long you live Quebec out of it :)

I'll move to Quebec if it happens:)

I've always liked the idea of closer economic links between the three north american countries, but the giant super-nation isn't going to happen, at least not the way presented in the OP. People are generally just too nationalistic for that.

If I had my druthers though, I'd opt for a highly decentralized Federation of North American States. Leave most of the decisions at the state/province level, and allow each state to broker it's own agreements with other states. If the Canadian states want to continue working collectively on a health care agreement, fine. If neighbouring American states want to chip in on it, fine. If the Great Lakes region has a bright idea, then all the relevant areas could work on it. You see where I'm going?

Allow each state to determine it's own cultural policy, i.e. language, etc. More independance and self determination for areas from Quebec, to Jalisco to First Nations Bands would be a positive thing. (And prior treaty rights would have to be recognized, naturally.)

On the Federal Level, a constitution affirming individual rights and the right to freedom of movement between the states. Adoption of the American Dollar by all states. (And most of all, 'USian's' could still think of themselves as 'American'.) The right of states to 'opt out' of non-continental conflicts. A shared defensive continental border.

The nature of the executive might get tricky, but I think the whole 'one leader' thing is old and stale. But again, we're talking about something that probably is not going to happen.

Otherwise, America's like our big football playing buddy. Love ya ta death big guy. You're fun at parties and all, but we really don't need to shack up together.

In recent years, the US has been moving more toward authoritarianism, while Canada (driven primarily by the west) had been moving away from authoritarianism. Canadian conservatives are simply more libertarian than American conservatives.
If I had my druthers though, I'd opt for a highly decentralized Federation of North American States. Leave most of the decisions at the state/province level, and allow each state to broker it's own agreements with other states. If the Canadian states want to continue working collectively on a health care agreement, fine. If neighbouring American states want to chip in on it, fine. If the Great Lakes region has a bright idea, then all the relevant areas could work on it. You see where I'm going?
This, however, isn't a bad idea. You can already see movement toward this sort of thing as individual provinces seek out trade agreements with part or all of the United States. Plus, the recent signing of TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Act) between British Columbia and Alberta offers a framework by which other sub-national entities could form a sort of economic union. Already, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Washington has inquired about admission to TILMA.

While Saskatchewan and Yukon would simply make TILMA biggger and more diverse, Washington's admission would raise some interesting questions for both national governments. Would either the US or Canadian government step in to prevent Washington from joining TILMA without first seeking national approval?

Because Americans are too conservative for liberal Canadians, this would never work. They would take away our universal healthcare and many of our rights and that damn war on drugs would have a greater reach. If anything, we need to put up a nice big wall around America and quarantine it until the religious right dies out and drugs are legalised.


Agreed on some points made. I think we (US) need to get rid of the religion based laws and stop protecting people from themselves. On the flip side, I wouldn't want to merge with the Canadians because we would loose some valuable rights as well.

Hell no.

We can trade a bit, you give us Alberta, you take Michigan, Quebec goes back to France, but otherwise, no.

ALBERTA FOR MICHIGAN

you take the oil, we get our garbage back.

no thanks

It would never work. Americans outnumber Canadians 9-1, so the legislature would be America-dominated. Canada would never go for it. If anything, Quebec would fight it tooth-and-nail, and the Canadians would feel completely shut out of the political process. Their guy would never be elected President, and they would have only 20 Senators to the Americans' 100. I would guess they would only have about 45 House members as well.

There are some levels of integration that may work. They may use the same money at some point, and American measurements may appear in Canada alongside metric in the U.S., but the two nations are too different for it to work.

QFT. Besides there is no need for it. We are already one of the countries with the highest standarts of living. The only benefit would be more international clout which isnt worth it. So I say no, thx...
I also say no to same money. Our money looks better than their dollars. Maybe they can equal values tho...

Of course, if we unite America and Canada...let's just overlook all the details such as drug laws, Imperial/Metric measurements, tax rates, ties to the Crown...we might as well take it to the next step and unite the United States of Canada with Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Militarily, few would fuck with such a union. Politically, it's a fucking mess, and many laws would have to be determined locally. Also, I'm not sure where the capital of the Commonwealth would be.

Some sorta union with UK, Australia and NZ doesnt sound bad...The capital would be London of course...

Yes, everyone looks at Quebec, but Newfoundland wanted out RIGHT AFTER confederation and haven't been happy since. Not to mention Alberta's western alienation, and the inferiority-complex of the entire North...

I don't mean to sound bitchy when I say this (I know you couldn't know), but I am aware that there are separatist groups in BC and Alberta.

1.) Because Americans enjoy a less healthy lifestyle
2.) How much do you pay in taxes?
3.) Point taken.
4.) Because of the wait times. Also, as his last example indicated, it's not true that they are always free to bypass the healthcare.
1.) Sadly we aren't that different in this regard. We have our own share of third grade porksters that are too fat to see their own toes.
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada#Canadian_health_care_in_comparison
3.) It's the point.
4.) The law says private clinics are not allowed in Canada. It does nothing to stop a person from traveling abroad to jump the wait list (India was a quite popular place to get quick surgery a few years ago.

Not only that, but a great deal of the labour protections we have can be attributed to Quebec activists. They go further than perhaps the rest of Canada would, but they provide a good counterbalance to US privitisation influences.

Praise their French laziness!

I don't know that I'd call 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes" to be a resounding vote either way.

Well a concerning portion of the population did not think that if the referendum had passed Quebec would be its own nation.

A lot of Americans are stupid. Besides, aren't Canadians supposed to not like us?

Oddly enough the phrase "Death to America" appears in our constitution 72 times. But most people think Saddam put those in during his short reign as PM.

Compromise.

Perhaps it could work like this:
Canada, within the U.S., is treated as a single state- they receive two senators, and the appropriate number of representatives. With the "state" of Canada, however, the old parliamentary system continues to work. This Canadian "state" would be given more right than the ordinary state- for instance, the ability to institute some policies, even if they were previously ruled unconstitutional, or the ability to determine their own environmental policy. To opt out of paying into medicare and medicaid through their taxes, freeing them to instead continue universal healthcare.

Thinks to have to be black and white.

What part of "no means no" do you have trouble understanding? We have no desire to join the United States. We're doing just fine on our own, thankyouverymuchforyourinterest.

You can stand up, brush off your knee, and put the stupid ring back in your pocket now.

Canada would get Dem Sen Hillary Clinton, Dem Rep Nancy Pelosi, Dem Rep Charles Rangel, Dem Sen Christopher Dodd, Dem Sen Ted Kennedy, Dem Sen John Kerry, Dem Al Gore, etc, etc, etc, lol.

Canada would get Dem Sen Hillary Clinton, Dem Rep Nancy Pelosi, Dem Rep Charles Rangel, Dem Sen Christopher Dodd, Dem Sen Ted Kennedy, Dem Sen John Kerry, Dem Al Gore, etc, etc, etc, lol.
What makes you think we want any of those assholes?

What makes you think we want any of those assholes?

I dont that is my point, now that the Democrats are in control of the US House and Senate we really have them, in a USA - Canada Union, you can have them too, lol, Yuck.

I dont that is my point, now that the Democrats are in control of the US House and Senate we really have them, in a USA - Canada Union, you can have them too, lol, Yuck.

Yippee!

Ha, good point, maybe I slanted that a little far. Anyway, happy days.

You evil witch! Manipulating facts to suit your argument... your entire argument's been tomfoolery the whole time!

I'm on to you, Neesika.

I'm on to you.

Also, you have a TG.

In recent years, the US has been moving more toward authoritarianism, while Canada (driven primarily by the west) had been moving away from authoritarianism. Canadian conservatives are simply more libertarian than American conservatives.

This, however, isn't a bad idea. You can already see movement toward this sort of thing as individual provinces seek out trade agreements with part or all of the United States. Plus, the recent signing of TILMA (Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Act) between British Columbia and Alberta offers a framework by which other sub-national entities could form a sort of economic union. Already, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Washington has inquired about admission to TILMA.

While Saskatchewan and Yukon would simply make TILMA biggger and more diverse, Washington's admission would raise some interesting questions for both national governments. Would either the US or Canadian government step in to prevent Washington from joining TILMA without first seeking national approval?

have you ever lived anywhere but Alberta, you're just not in touch with reality. Other than Alberta for the remaining western provinces this dance they're doing with the conservative party is only because they wanted to punish the Liberal government. Saskatchewan is very different than Alberta, socialism is part of their soul and always will be. Socialism runs very deep in BC as well any flirting with conservatism will be short lived.

What you snipped were facts and I provided the links to support them.

I don't have to worry about seeing a doctor or needing treatment, either. And, I'm not rich, either.

Works for me. Works for the majority of us. I know I know, that's galling.
It may work for you, but it doesn't work for 46 Million Americans that have no healthcare plan (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/30/health/webmd/main806291.shtml).

Also, you might want to do a bit of research. Apparently there is a growing movement to outsource US healthcare (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0816/p03s03-usec.html)to countries such as India, Thailand, and Indonesia due to the high cost of certain procedures, and I am not referring to cosmetic surgery.

BTW, the Frazer Institute is a right wing think tank that is biased. Also, the articles are from 2003, and since then there has been a huge infusion of cash to upgrade our healthcare system.

The U.S. Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

Single-payer insurance could help solve U.S. health care crisis (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/02/business/health.php)

America's health-care crisis (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5436968)

It would seem that it is the US healthcare system that is in crisis, not Canada's?

Canadian American unification?

http://searchviews.com/archives/no%20thanks.jpg

It would seem that it is the US healthcare system that is in crisis, not Canada's?

we think our system is in trouble because our government is always complaining how much it costs and who is going to pay for it(and we do like to complain don't we), the fact is Medicare in Canada is very cheap compared to the US.

We get more for our dollar then many countries. In Canada we pay about $1,800 per person per year. In the USA the average according to WHO is about $3,600 per person although costs of 5,000 to $10,000 are not unheard of. And for our $1,800 we get to live two years longer on average.

From the economist article:
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5436968

Set alongside other rich countries, which typically offer all their citizens free (or very cheap) health care financed through taxes, America's system has some clear strengths. Consumers get plenty of choice, and innovation is impressive. One survey of doctors published in Health Affairs claimed that eight of the ten most important medical breakthroughs of the past 30 years originated in America. Equally clearly, the American system has big problems, notably inadequate coverage (no other rich country has armies of uninsured), spotty quality and high cost.

I am curious, would these 8 of 10 medical break throughs have occured if the US had a single-payer government-run system?

With employers limiting their exposure and government unable to fund its commitments, America's health system will unravel—perhaps not this year or next, but soon. Few health experts deny this. Nor do they disagree much on the sources of the problem. Health markets are plagued with poor information, inadequate competition and skewed incentives.

Since most bills are paid by a third party (the insurance company or the government), neither patients nor doctors face real pressure to control costs. Overall, Americans pay only $1 out of every $6 spent on their health care out of their own pockets. Doctors are generally paid for individual services and so have an incentive to perform too many procedures. The huge tax subsidies for employer-purchased health insurance encourage expensive care. Rapacious lawyers and the risk of being sued exacerbate the tendency towards unnecessary “defensive” medicine.

My curiosity was peaked when the article stated that expert attribute the sources of the problems in American health care to inadequate competition and skewed incentives, rather than the absence of more government. I'll watch this with interest.

Interesting considering we (Canada) are responsible for insulin and the potential cure for diabetes.

Hell no.

We can trade a bit, you give us Alberta, you take Michigan, Quebec goes back to France, but otherwise, no.

Maine volunteers to take Alberta's place. Hell, in the northern half of this state, they're already more Canadian than American, so we might as well.

Canadian-American Unification
There is a country. This country was founded and controlled by Britain. They fought, tooth and nail, to gain their independence. These people have played major roles in the Korean war, World Wars I and II, and are one of the largest contributors of peace-keeping forces to the U.N.

Our two countries both have remarkable histories, that at times intersect with each other. Both of us, founded by colonies, managed to win our independence, growing- with each other’s help- in to two of the most respected, powerful nations on Earth...

ThESE countrIES weren't founded and controlled by Britain alone. Until Napoleon gave the French Louisiane (not the US state of Louisiana, but a very larger area, about the basin of Mississippi and Missouri up to Chicago), tonic accent on the last syllabe); until the english-speaking texans annexed the then-mexican territory of Texas to the US; until Northern California was sold to the US; until Mexico lost Arizona and New Mexico also; until Alaska was leased by Russia to an american fur corporation; until the Europeans replaced the various indigenous tribes etc... the pattern of the whole North America was a lot less british, you know... don't you forget that, even today, english isn't the only language spoken as mother language by all north americans (Quebec, California, Texas, Louisiana are easy examples of large, non english-speaking, minorities - french and spanish).
Also Canada is (just formally) under the British Crown, isn't it?

Anyway, yeah, as an european, I think that the US would benefit a lot from a "canadisation" - if I'm allowed such neologism - but I see that usually the people of the US have a point of view about what would benefit them that is quite different from my own, so I fear that you'll have to toil a lot if you want to persuade the proud yankees to canadise a bit... good luck!

Canadian-American Unification
There is a country. This country was founded and controlled by Britain. They fought, tooth and nail, to gain their independence. These people have played major roles in the Korean war, World Wars I and II, and are one of the largest contributors of peace-keeping forces to the U.N.

Our two countries both have remarkable histories, that at times intersect with each other. Both of us, founded by colonies, managed to win our independence, growing- with each other’s help- in to two of the most respected, powerful nations on Earth. Both of us have managed to integrate and accept massive immigrant populations- Canada was actually one of the first countries to accept Irish Immigrants, for which I, an Irishman, am grateful.

Today, we both share the longest non-militarized border in the world. Our armies have, through NORAD, integrated seamlessly. American’s depend on the trade of our Northern Neighbors for many of the comforts and necessities we enjoy every day. Canada has remained, and will, as far as I can see, remain each other’s staunchest allies.

Which is why I propose that Canada and the United States merge into one nation, spanning the entire length North American Continent. I propose this, not for the benefit of Canada, but mainly for our own.

snip rest of argument

This is where I stopped reading and can confidently say "no thank you!"

Honestly, I would only support a merger between Canada and the USA if the entire American legal and governmental system was scrapped.

I have no desire for the American Constitution. The Canadian Charter is much more sensible and is more difficult to amend.

have you ever lived anywhere but Alberta, you're just not in touch with reality. Other than Alberta for the remaining western provinces this dance they're doing with the conservative party is only because they wanted to punish the Liberal government. Saskatchewan is very different than Alberta, socialism is part of their soul and always will be. Socialism runs very deep in BC as well any flirting with conservatism will be short lived.

Actually, I currently live in BC. Been here for 6 years. And outside the major cities, the people vote very much like Albertans. The same is true of rural Saskatchewan (though it is true that in Saskatchewan the politics will likely always be the NDP and one other party).

But recall the support the Reform Party had in BC and Saskatchewan. In 1993 there had been a Conservative government for 9 years, and the west moved, en masse, toward an even more right-wing alternative.

On that point about libertarianism, look at the freedom Albertans have. The government has been mostly staying out of their lives for years. They've deregulated most industries. They almost abolished legal marriage in 2004. They were the first province to grant civil unions to homosexual couples.

because Canada has amazing natural resources, and your government can't exploit those resources.

Resources belong to the provinces in Canada. Why would we want our federal government to gain control of them, let alone yours?

Yes, everyone looks at Quebec, but Newfoundland wanted out RIGHT AFTER confederation and haven't been happy since. Not to mention Alberta's western alienation, and the inferiority-complex of the entire North...

Newfoundland joined in 1949. Confederation happened in 1867. Sinuhue would know better.

Other than Alberta for the remaining western provinces this dance they're doing with the conservative party is only because they wanted to punish the Liberal government. Saskatchewan is very different than Alberta, socialism is part of their soul and always will be. Socialism runs very deep in BC as well any flirting with conservatism will be short lived.

Its not about conservatism or socialism. A desire for freedom from Authoritarianism can be separated from those ideologies, and indeed, it does run strongly in all the western provinces. Many of the people, especially in social strong saskatchewan are Russian and Ukraine descent, and strongly value personal freedoms. That they have a love of state healthcare doesnt negate that at all.

Canadian-American Unification
Why? Economically and militarily it has already happened. Oh, don't forget NAFTA.

Why? Economically and militarily it has already happened. Oh, don't forget NAFTA.

You know, that trade deal that the USA has pointedly ignored while stealing one billion dollars on illegal softwood tariff. Why would Canada join with someone who has such a bad view of international relations?

what about Mexico joining as well?

If Canada is going to become part of the USA and all that?

Well, if America is so desperate to join the Commonwealth, there are official procedures, you know... You don't just invade Canada.

I mean, you could, but it wouldn't help.

You know, that trade deal that the USA has pointedly ignored while stealing one billion dollars on illegal softwood tariff. Why would Canada join with someone who has such a bad view of international relations?
That softwood thing was a difference of opinion over a fairly poorly written secton of NAFTA.

British Columbia was illegally subsidising the harvesting of softwood lumber. However, Canada's position was that this subsidy didn't harm the United States (and it didn't), and thus the US wasn't permitted to impose sanctions in response.

Depending which section of NAFTA you read, they were both right. The conflict resolution system in NAFTA, however, is remarkably anti-American (it has sided for the US zero times), so the US has understandably taken to ignoring it.

If BC set stumpage rates on the open market rather than awarding lower fees to logging companies that granted other concessions to the province (like agreeing to place their pulp mill in a less efficient location, but one that needed the jobs more), none of this would have happened.

Newfoundland joined in 1949. Confederation happened in 1867. Sinuhue would know better.

Confederation refers to an ongoing process, not simply July 1st, 1867. Newfoundland joined the Confederation in 1949, and scant time aftewards, elected a new government who promised to pull out of that Confederation, but were prevented from doing so. Confederation was a shaky, sometimes sneaky process. Many promises were made, votes bought, and lies told to get provinces to join. So don't worry...Sinuhue DOES know better, thanks.

That softwood thing was a difference of opinion over a fairly poorly written secton of NAFTA.

British Columbia was illegally subsidising the harvesting of softwood lumber. However, Canada's position was that this subsidy didn't harm the United States (and it didn't), and thus the US wasn't permitted to impose sanctions in response.

Depending which section of NAFTA you read, they were both right. The conflict resolution system in NAFTA, however, is remarkably anti-American (it has sided for the US zero times), so the US has understandably taken to ignoring it.

If BC set stumpage rates on the open market rather than awarding lower fees to logging companies that granted other concessions to the province (like agreeing to place their pulp mill in a less efficient location, but one that needed the jobs more), none of this would have happened.

When we agreed to free trade it was also agreed that NAFTA would settle disputes, one side or another could not merely ignore any ruling it disliked. So they stole a billion and the conservative government hasn't the balls to demand its return.

Yeah, I have.

But, the US government doesn't dictate to a hospital what to charge for its services.

If you want to claim otherwise, got an example?



Have you never heard of Medicare or Medicade, in both cases the pricing is set by the goverment not the Doctor/Hospital/Lab/ect..

When we agreed to free trade it was also agreed that NAFTA would settle disputes, one side or another could not merely ignore any ruling it disliked. So they stole a billion and the conservative government hasn't the balls to demand its return.

Nor did the liberals before them.

Which is why I propose that Canada and the United States merge into one nation, spanning the entire length North American Continent.

Umm, you do know Mexico and several other countries south of the US but north of Columbia are in North America?

ThESE countrIES weren't founded and controlled by Britain alone. Until Napoleon gave the French Louisiane (not the US state of Louisiana, but a very larger area, about the basin of Mississippi and Missouri up to Chicago), tonic accent on the last syllabe); until the english-speaking texans annexed the then-mexican territory of Texas to the US; until Northern California was sold to the US; until Mexico lost Arizona and New Mexico also; until Alaska was leased by Russia to an american fur corporation; until the Europeans replaced the various indigenous tribes etc... the pattern of the whole North America was a lot less british, you know... don't you forget that, even today, english isn't the only language spoken as mother language by all north americans (Quebec, California, Texas, Louisiana are easy examples of large, non english-speaking, minorities - french and spanish).
Also Canada is (just formally) under the British Crown, isn't it?

Anyway, yeah, as an european, I think that the US would benefit a lot from a "canadisation" - if I'm allowed such neologism - but I see that usually the people of the US have a point of view about what would benefit them that is quite different from my own, so I fear that you'll have to toil a lot if you want to persuade the proud yankees to canadise a bit... good luck!

You know, you are really splitting hairs... the reason the United States was able to get those territories in the first place was because they threw off British rule in a region founded mostly by British citizens and under Crown authority. And while Texas was a part of Mexican territory, the majority of the population was Anglo and Native American. Hardly any Mexicans lived in Texas at all (ironic now, one should think) during the Texas Revolution. The territory of Louisiana (except New Orleans) was originally Spanish, but Napoleon gained control of it and it was French for something like 2 years before we bought it. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave California, New Mexico and Arizona to us (the Oregon Territory was settled by treaty with the British... you know, '54 40' or Fight' and all that) though we did give the Mexicans compensation. We then paid for a small strip of the rest of that territory. And to be fair, Mexico could not administrate those territories due to their constantly changing governments and rebellions that defined Mexico in the mid and late 1800's. And it was mostly the inheritors of British authority that explored and settled these lands. And I am stunned that demographics have changed in the past 200 years since the Louisiana Purchase and its inevitable results.

I do not see a union short of economic until several years, perhaps decades down the road. Remember, it took years for the European Economic Community to become the European Union.

I sort of like the idea someone (I am sure jokingly knowing the mindset on these boards) passed about thinking of union with the US, Canada, NZ and the UK, but I like all those countries and it would likely make travel restrictions better. Yes, Americans love our ulterior motives :)

Umm, you do know Mexico and several other countries south of the US but north of Columbia are in North America?

It's a good thing we have the Swedes to point out geography for us poor, dumb Americans :) Tragically, geography is not exactly our strong point, unless you have a degree in it. Let's not forget the Caribbean, too. Heck, according to CONCACAF, parts of South America are in North America... I guess it's because Suriname and Guyana would be slaughtered in matches with Argentina and Brazil. Strangely, there is a strong movement in Guyana for union with the United States, mostly because half of Guyana has already moved to the US (something like 500,000 Guyanans live in the US and only 750,000 in Guyana)... and no jokes about Jonestown :)

Umm, you do know Mexico and several other countries south of the US but north of Columbia are in North America?
That is pointless nitpicking.

*snip OP*
I don't care how many points you have to support this, no. Just no.

What?!

Have America join up with those liberal hippies? We are too good for that. We are too good for them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

What?!

Have America join up with those liberal hippies? We are too good for that. We are too good for them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Shut up! Your goal is to be one of us!

I don't care how many points you have to support this, no. Just no.

I kinda like Mikesburg's idea of a decentralized federation, but that's as close as I'd ever get to supporting something like this. The US is too big as it is, we don't need it to get any bigger.

Shut up! Your goal is to be one of us!

HERECY!

I SHALL SUE YOU FOR HERECY!

:upyours:

God Bless AMERICA!

Canada was actually one of the first countries to accept Irish Immigrants, for which I, an Irishman, am grateful.

I can't see how you can be an Irishman and refer to north America as "we".