Would you move to Canada?

[Allan]

I'd move to Canada in a heartbeat. Sure, it won't get me away from all the problems, but I'd love living in Vancouver....it's such a great city! It's the only city in Canada I would ever consider moving to. The other ones are just way too cold!

[Canuck]

I'll never understand the problem of 'it's too cold'... ok, it is colder on average but most of the year it's actually quite nice. Besides in the few months of winter a simple toque, jacket, and pair of gloves will do wonders.

Bah, to me not being able to fully enjoy the outdoors due to (relative) extreme heat or extreme cold doesn't make that big of a difference.

[Allan]

I'll never understand the problem of 'it's too cold'... ok, it is colder on average but most of the year it's actually quite nice. Besides in the few months of winter a simple toque, jacket, and pair of gloves will do wonders.

I cannot stand the cold!!! No matter how many pairs of gloves, or how many sweatshirts & coats I wear, I am still always cold all winter long. I've hated snow & cold my entire life, & that's not likely to change anytime soon. I'm counting down the length of time before I can move out of this state....only 7 more years!

[BrandonTO416]

Well, I'm still moving to Canada eventually. The weather isn't gonna stop me - because I prefer snow and cold winters over excessively hot summers.

Here in Tennessee the summers are so thick you can barely breathe.

When I visited New Orleans, I realized there was worse then here... Hard to believe. It was so sticky in New Orleans at 1am in mid July that I could barely stand it. Great to visit, but I'd never once consider moving to a place like New Orleans.

Then again, I've always had allergies and stuff that make me like more temperate summers and etc.

[Guest donaltopablo]

If you don't like the sticky summers of the SE, you should check out Utah and Colorado.

[BrandonTO416]

I've been to Denver, nice place. Not for me...

[Canuck]

Yes it is higher. I realize the the overall violent crime rate is defined differently in each country. But, if you take the FBI definition for violent crime (6-7 offenses) and then go to Stat Can and look up the rate for each of these crimes, you get a calculated crime rate that is higher in Canada. The rate is per 100K people. A very fair comparison.

Taken from the FBI's website: "Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/of...nviolent02.html

StatsCan lists the following as types of violent crimes: Homicide, Attempted Murder, Assaults - Levels 1 to 3***, Sexual Assault, Other Sexual Offences, Robbery, Other Crimes of Violence.

*** "Assault level 1" is the first level of assault. It constitutes the intentional application of force without consent, attempt or threat to apply force to another person, and openly wearing a weapon (or an imitation) and accosting or impeding another person. "Assault with weapon or causing bodily harm" is the second level of assault. It constitutes assault with a weapon, threats to use a weapon (or an imitation), or assault causing bodily harm. "Aggravated assault level 3" is the third level of assault. It applies to anyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of complainant.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

Looking at the different methodologies and results, I don't think one can simply look at the numbers from each country and compare, we need an unbiased independent body to see some clarity. Luckily I found this website: http://www.nationmaster.com, which compares crime stats and lists it source as the United Nations; http://www.nationmaster.com/sources.php. I'll throw out the numbers, and tell you where exactly they got the numbers.

Assualts Per Capita

United States - 7.98 per 1000 people

Canada - 7.32 per 1000 people

Definition: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap&id=NAM

Burglaries Per Capita

Canada - 9.2 per 1000 people

United States - 7.48 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded burglaries. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap&id=NAM

Car Thefts Per Capita

Canada - 5.02 per 1000 people

United States - 4.09 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded automobile thefts. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_car_the_cap&id=NAM

Embezzlements Per Capita

United States - 0.06 per 1000 people

Canada - no equivalent listing

Definition: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_emb_cap&id=NAM

Frauds Per Capita

Canada - 2.69 per 1000 people

United States - 1.33 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded frauds. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_fra_cap&id=NAM

Manslaughters Per Capita

Canada - 0 per 1000 people

United States - no equivalent listing

Definition: Total recorded non-intential homocides. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_man_cap&id=NAM

Murders Per Capita

United States - 0.05 per 1000 people

Canada - 0.02 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded intentional homocides, completed. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap&id=NAM

Murders With Firearms Per Capita

United States - 0.03 per 1000 people

Canada - 0.01 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded intentional,homocides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mu..._fir_cap&id=NAM

Prisoners Per Capita

United States - 6.41 per 1000 people

Canada - 1.1 per 1000 people

Definition: Total persons incarcerated.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_cap&id=NAM

Rapes Per Capita

Canada - 0.75 per 1000 people

United States - 0.32 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded rapes. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap&id=NAM

Robberies*** Per Capita

United States - 1.46 per 1000 people

Canada - 0.85 per 1000 people

Definition: Total recorded robberies. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

***Robbery is the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation. This is different from embezzlement, larceny, and theft. Piracy is a type of robbery. Armed robbery involves the use of a weapon. Highway robbery takes place outside and in a public place. Robbery is generally an urban crime.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rob_cap&id=NAM

Total Crime Per Capita

United States - 84.39 per 1000 people

Canada - 77.63 per 1000 people

Definition: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance.

Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap&id=NAM

So looking at the stats the United States has a higher per capita level of Assaults, Murder (& Murder with Firearms), Robberes, Total Crime - and has a much larger prison population per capita (almost 6 times Canada's level).

Canada has higher rates of Burglaries, Car Theft, Fraud & Rapes.

Looking at this, I'm inclined to believe the United States has the higher rates of violent crime.

[daniel18]

Why not move to Australia? I think the quality of life is better there then both Canada and U.S.

[BrandonTO416]

Because Australia isn't a 2 hour flight/12 hour drive from home if I need to come back for an emergency.

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

Well I still don't fully buy the fact that violent crime is higher in Canada.

Regardless which way you believe and which way you interpret the data - the fact is that urban centers in the USA are sick and in need of help. In Canada they are mostly thriving. That's a key difference that I cannot personally ignore.

[tocoto]

Heckles: If you are over 21? - just move to another more liberal US city like Boston, SF, NYC, Santa Fe - or just go live in Canadea for awhile. It's not like you have to denounce your US citizenship to try out life in Canada for a year or two.

BTW, I got a good laugh about the raging conservatives. They would ruin my day too.

[BrandonTO416]

I am not "renouncing" my U.S. citizenship in any way, shape, or form. I just highly disagree with the way things are going on here particularly right now.

Even if I do immigrate Canada - I will always be a native born American who grew up here and spent a significant part of my life here.

And as far as references to patriotism and loyalties (I've had people tell me I'm a coward for wanting to move to Canada, that I'm a pansy, or unpatriotic here locally); I recall on the SSP forum the Tony guy who works in the AWACS service in the Air Force wants to move to Belize.. Not because he wants to renounce his citizenship, but because he liked it there.

Same deal with me and Canada.

I also believe a lot of the "liberalism" in cities like SF or Boston is what I consider fake liberalism. But it all boils down to interpretation. A word is a word. We all see it differently, as we are each individuals.

[mancuso]

I also believe a lot of the "liberalism" in cities like SF or Boston is what I consider fake liberalism. But it all boils down to interpretation. A word is a word. We all see it differently, as we are each individuals.

I don't think that is a fair assesment to state that these areas are "fake" liberalism. Check these areas out before you rule them out...

As for going to another country - I thought about using the "my granderfather was born in the UK" card so I could go live in London for a year or so...

[BrandonTO416]

From my view, if Massachusetts and California were really liberal, they would have state level universal healthcare for state citizens; they would regulate their cities to allow common people to be allowed to live in them (you can buy a brand new condo in central Toronto for $100-150k CDN dollars), among other things.

I don't see even the most "liberal" of US states passing true progressive reforms anytime soon...

[BrandonTO416]

...Furthermore, I wouldn't mind if federal Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs were entirely abolished.

I think the USA is too large in many ways for things to be ran on a federal level.

I wouldn't mind if Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and various other programs were cut.

That way - liberal states like Massachusetts could create a state-level "payroll" tax for a universal healthcare program that only Massachusetts residents could benefit from. They could create state-ran social security programs that give back to state residents.

Conservative states like Georgia, Texas, and etc. could continue to lean more libertarian and just not have those state programs.

However, I'm afraid this wouldn't work. Corporations would set up shop in Georgia to shelter themselves from having to pay taxes, and all the poor would be left behind in the progressive states leaving governments starved for income and with high demand of services. In a way, that is already happening and is directly why the south and west is growing for a good part. Of course there are exceptions (California).

BUT, this has been a historic trend.

Socially responsible states churn out residents that are a product of better education, health, and etc. Then these people move to states with poor services to shelter their taxes when they get out of college - because that's where the corporations have set up shop to evade taxes.

[mancuso]

From my view, if Massachusetts and California were really liberal, they would have state level universal healthcare for state citizens; they would regulate their cities to allow common people to be allowed to live in them (you can buy a brand new condo in central Toronto for $100-150k CDN dollars), among other things.

I don't see even the most "liberal" of US states passing true progressive reforms anytime soon...

For states to run their own healthcare system would require an unprecedented reworking of the current infastructure of the social service system in this country. The federal and state tax system would have to be revamped as well.

As for housing costs, that's not up to the gov't to decide. London's cost of living is way beyond SF, Boston or even NYC...

[Scott]

Who said Massachusetts was a "liberal" state? Again, Massachusetts provides free healthcare for anyone who wants it but if you have money you have to pay for it. Georgia and Texas think they are conservative states but the "heritage" they keep going on about is history that happened in Massachusetts.

[BrandonTO416]

I love Canada.

[mancuso]

Canada, eh?

[BrandonTO416]

EH?!?

[sleepy]

From my view, if Massachusetts and California were really liberal, they would have state level universal healthcare for state citizens; they would regulate their cities to allow common people to be allowed to live in them (you can buy a brand new condo in central Toronto for $100-150k CDN dollars), among other things.

I don't see even the most "liberal" of US states passing true progressive reforms anytime soon...

Isn't that basically what Tennessee's TennCare was?

If you were poor, or uninsurable, or uninsured, you were guaranteed coverage through the state employees' insurance program. I know of course it wasn't free--a sliding scale above something like $25,000 income for a family of 4, but it was considered one of the best innovations in the country before the legislature gutted it. At one point a few years ago I read that Tennessee had one of the highest percentages of medically insured in the country.

[BrandonTO416]

No, that is not what TennCare is at all. I mistakenly used to think that is what TennCare was, then I started asking my mother questions (she works for the Dept. of Health) and did research on my own.

TennCare is a program that abolished Medicare and Medicaid in Tennessee and used those federal funds in a new state-ran program.

The way TennCare is designed is this:

The state gives special HMO's called MCO's (Managed Care Organizations) blank government checks - and the money comes from the federal FICA payroll taxes plus state subsidies.

These private MCO corporations (there were 8 last time I checked statewide) take all the money in, and with little administration from the state and accounting choose how much they want to pay in benefits to hospitals and doctors. Approximately 25% of Tennesseans are on TennCare - and those who are on it are provided universal healthcare. However you must meet the quirky requirements to get on the program.

The MCO's have mismanaged money (private execs have been getting filthy rich) and aren't paying hospitals their fair share and its sucking Tennessee's budget dry because this state only has a sales tax.

The care that people are getting is primary care only, as well. Its not a very comprehensive, true universal program.

In short - TennCare has been a massive failure. Its not universal healthcare, but a program that has replaced Medicare and Medicaid with what the Federal Republicans are trying to reform the national system into.

Its already failed here - it'll be a massive failure if the entire national medicare system goes to a TennCare like system..

[BrandonTO416]

HOWEVER, I am referring to the modern TennCare program that was "reformed" by the Don Sundquist administration. I'm unsure how the original program ran.

In 2003 - TennCare is administered 100% by private MCO's and has been a huge failure because of that.

It wouldn't have been a failure if 1) cost controls were introduced on the state level and 2) the private MCO's had proper accounting implemented and administered by the state government.

Of course, my solution to this is to abolish the HMO/MCO layer altogether and directly send the money from the government accounts into the doctors and hospitals directly.

The ONLY way to keep TennCare's exponentially growing fees down is to do this, as well as put price controls on pharmaceuticals like Canada does.

If you do not implement price controls - its impossible to run a universally ran government subsidized healthcare system. No government can afford companies who ask for whatever price they want, and never will. Furthermore - individuals can't afford it outright anyway - hence the need for universal healthcare.

The reality is - a true healthcare revolution in America cannot happen on the state level. It is going to have to come out of Washington. A state has not got the power to put price controls into place because it goes against Federal law.

[sleepy]

No, that is not what TennCare is at all. I mistakenly used to think that is what TennCare was, then I started asking my mother questions (she works for the Dept. of Health) and did research on my own.

TennCare is a program that abolished Medicare and Medicaid in Tennessee and used those federal funds in a new state-ran program.

The way TennCare is designed is this:

The state gives special HMO's called MCO's (Managed Care Organizations) blank government checks - and the money comes from the federal FICA payroll taxes plus state subsidies.

These private MCO corporations (there were 8 last time I checked statewide) take all the money in, and with little administration from the state and accounting choose how much they want to pay in benefits to hospitals and doctors. Approximately 25% of Tennesseans are on TennCare - and those who are on it are provided universal healthcare. However you must meet the quirky requirements to get on the program.

The MCO's have mismanaged money (private execs have been getting filthy rich) and aren't paying hospitals their fair share and its sucking Tennessee's budget dry because this state only has a sales tax.

The care that people are getting is primary care only, as well. Its not a very comprehensive, true universal program.

In short - TennCare has been a massive failure. Its not universal healthcare, but a program that has replaced Medicare and Medicaid with what the Federal Republicans are trying to reform the national system into.

Its already failed here - it'll be a massive failure if the entire national medicare system goes to a TennCare like system..

I knew how TennCare was set up. And yes I know that it was not universal healthcare.

I also don't believe it had anything to do with Medicare, just Medicaid, since the states never had anything at all to do with the disbursement of Medicare funds, nor medicare eligibility. The only thing it had related to medicare was offering supplemental medicare policies, which have nothing to do with medicare programs. Medicaid was the federal/state mixed program.

I also know that the system had failed, but I don't think it was due to its design, but its operation and mismanagement. As envisioned, the state was supposed to receive the same amount of federal dollars as it had for medicaid, and use those funds to create a much larger pool--particularly by using the state employees' insurance--which could result in cheaper premiums, which could then be used to expand coverage.

According to this link, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington were the only states in 1997 that offered state-sponsored insurance to those earning 100% above the poverty level--now, about $35,000 for a family of four. So, it accomplished some good.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-2-02health.htm

As far as managed care goes, that's what I have, and that's what the majority of working people have, not fee for services like medicare and/or traditional medicaid. So, I don't think there should be any taint to managed care, at least in quality of healthcare. And if there ever is universal health care with a single payer system, it won't be fee for services, but worked through managed care.