CB -
nationalreview.com
"...Today, Canada is a country steeped in socialism. Typical of socialist societies, its government provides — or at least promises — goodies like "free" universal national health care. But the abject failure and myths of socialized medicine are quickly exposed by the number of Canadians who flock to the U.S. each year to obtain the medical services they can't obtain at home, or who must wait so long that delivery of those services is tantamount to denial. Complained Sara Oster, a 26-year old post-graduate student at the University of Toronto, "I shouldn't be waiting a year to receive an MRI."
It is a simple fact that no country can provide top-notch, free universal health care without bankrupting itself sooner or later. ..."
"...Prime Minister Jean Chretien was swept into an unprecedented third term by the lure of billions of dollars he promised Canadians to fix their country's medical system. According to Canadian papers, "healthcare [was] the most vigorously debated issue in this election, and it [was] the one that took the forefront at both the English and French leader debates."
Never mind that it was Chretien who created Canada's national health care crisis in the first place by cutting funding from it. But instead of telling Canadians the truth — that no government can provide a "free" medical system — Chretien promised billions of dollars to "fix" theirs.
And never mind that Canada's "excellent" compassionate universal health care is so bankrupt that it even denies women anesthesia during childbirth.
As Canada's majority-approved destruction of the health care system shows, you can fool most of the people some of the time. That's why purely majoritarian political systems like Canada's, which impose no internal checks and balances on the majority party, are so likely to lead a country to disaster. Why, in one of the richest countries in the world, should women be denied pain medication during childbirth?
Which brings us back to the Electoral College. Like a Senate chosen by states, like a system of government with three genuinely independent branches, the Electoral College is part of a broader constitutional system to ensure that a gullible plurality of the electorate — especially a majority centered in a few urban areas (such as the megapolitan clusters of counties carried by Gore) — won't necessarily be able to take the country down the rights-constricting, government-expanding path of Canada.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Senator-elect Hillary Clinton would waste no time in proposing legislation that calls for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. It's just a natural progression of the Clinton-Gore administration's attempts during the last 8 years to dismantle the Constitution in every way possible.
If you'd like to live in a country where it's against the law to protect your family from a violent home invader, and where you get "free" health care of lower quality than what a pet receives in the United States, and if you think the American Founders were fools for wanting to prevent the concentration of political power, then by all means try to get rid of the Electoral College. "
Regards, Don |
