The Important Word: "System"

Because I'm sure everyone wants to know what I think about healthcare (is that laughter?)...here it is, short (for me) and sweet.

The current healthcare system in the U.S. tends not to cover the very sick. Insurance companies don't like to cover the very people who NEED coverage because then insurance companies lose money. That's why so many people in the U.S. have to sell their homes or hold fund-raisers to cover the costs of being catastrophically sick.

As I have said before, the Canadian healthcare system has its pros and cons. One of its biggest downsides is that it tends not to cover those who are well. Seriously: The sicker you are, the higher up the list you get. On the up side, when you are sick, you're cared for. Still, lack of early access to the system makes it more difficult to catch problems early.

But the real problem, in both countries, is that healthcare is a system. Systems are, among other things, abstract ways to group individual concrete elements.

Which is fine, until you're the individual concrete element, and it's your knee that prevents you from walking, and the waiting list for knee replacements is a year. Or when you have an aggressive cancer, for which a new treatment shows promise--but that treatment isn't covered by your insurance company.

Models and systems always have cracks, through which individuals always fall. Yes, it stinks. However, you can get better systems and models when you accurately define the goal in the first place--and when people know what that goal is.

So what's the goal? Decent healthcare for as many people as possible? Designer healthcare for those who can afford it? Both? Neither? Something in between?

Whatever your answer, remember that someday you--YOUR child, YOUR parent, YOUR spouse--WILL be the one falling through the cracks. It WILL happen. Does that change anything?

Uh-huh. Thought so.

No Sicko

I have not seen Michael Moore's Sicko and I may not. I get tired of that style of "gotcha" "journalism."

Still, living as I now do in the land of socialized medicine, I'm supposed to have an opinion about the Canadian system vs. the U.S. system. So here goes.

Both have positive and negative sides. In theory, socialized medicine provides coverage for everyone. In practice, it's not that easy. I don't have a family physician, partly because I'm healthy as a horse and haven't insisted. But they're in short supply. Wait lists for routine procedures like colonoscopies are very long. The population in Thunder Bay is aging (as is the population across most of Canada, like that of the U.S.), but the local hospital (a regional "health sciences center") is just now getting approval for equipment to conduct some basic heart diagnostic procedures. The wait lists for hip and knee replacements are also quite long.

On the up side, my soon-to-be-stepdaughter can take her three children to urgent care clinics or the hospital's ER and know they will receive care. She doesn't have to worry about how she'll pay for their care.

The primary drawback of the U.S. system is that it demands that consumers be alert, educated, and proactive in seeking care. The system itself doesn't help patients meet those demands. Many physicians are simply unable to communicate medical information in a way that nonspecialists can understand, even though it's nonspecialists' bodies at risk. Some physicians I've seen have been dismissive or disdainful about patients who research their conditions and ask questions. Physicians also rarely make the time to be truly available for patients and families, who may be struggling to comprehend shocking information, intuit long-term consequences, and rearrange their lives to fit those new circumstances.

Still, during my father's last illness in Tucson in March, I was very grateful that he was in the U.S. healthcare system. For one thing, it was somewhat familiar. My sister and my oldest brother are both experienced in dealing with physicians and hospitals, and I'm not afraid of medical information, so the three of us could operate pretty well in that environment.

But mostly, I was grateful for another reason. My father was 90 years old with a congenital heart murmur and an advanced case of chronic obstructive lung disorder. In the U.S., Medicare requires that patients be given treatment until they function at pre-illness levels, or at levels as close to pre-illness as possible. That meant that my father received rehabilitation therapy with the goal that he would be physically ready to return to his home in Oklahoma, where he lived alone without supplemental oxygen. That was the goal: it wasn't necessarily practical, even before his situation got complicated.

My father would have received excellent care in Canada, too, no doubt. But I don't know how physicians make decisions about care here. At some point, socialized systems rely on statistics to determine what care is available to whom--with the lack of heart diagnostic and surgical options in Thunder Bay a case in point. If my father had been treated up here, I would have wondered if his physicians were thinking, "Hey, he made it to 90. He really can't expect more." I wanted my father to decide when his time would come. Would healthcare workers here have been fiercely intent on taking him off the ventilator and monitoring his blood glucose so that he would have the best possible chance of recovery? I don't know. There's no way to know. But my family is very satisfied with the care my father received during his illness. His life ended well.

I am not casting aspersions on physicians in either system. Individual healthcare workers always aim to make people well. But they also operate in a system, and systems fail. The two healthcare systems support different kinds of patients. They both have gaping holes.

Which brings me back to Michael Moore. It's very easy to point out problems. It's not as easy to find solutions--real solutions, not just "isn't healthcare great in Canada and Cuba?" Let Michael Moore turn his attention to solutions, and I might go see another of his movies.

Health Care Takes a Holiday: A Comparison

Yesterday I saw a new side of the much-hailed Canadian health care system. People in Canada (at least those in my population sample, which consists mostly of women at the gym and at church) are quite proud of their healthcare system, even as they complain about being on waiting lists.

Many of my American friends say they envy me because I am living in this country with this "fabulous healthcare system." Others are horrified because I have to live in a country with this socialized medicine, which "everybody knows" results in inferior care.

I've written a few times about the healthcare system. Fortunately, I haven't had much reason to. I am healthy (knock wood) and have little need of the system. Which is good because I don't have a family physician. I go to the walk-in clinic when I get sinus infections. I've been maybe three or four times in my going-on-four years here.

Yesterday, I was just along for the ride. My husband had a minor skin irritation that became infected and suddenly swelled, and he obviously needed an antibiotic. His family physician recently retired, leaving him an "orphan," and in any case, it was something best treated at a walk-in clinic. And thus began a bit of an odyssey.

We had at least thought to check which walk-in clinics are open on Friday afternoons. However, as we drove around town from clinic to clinic while the afternoon waned, we discovered that all the walk-in clinics were closed. Why? March break.

I understand that physicians are people too. They have kids. They want to take holidays. But closing ALL the "open on Friday" walk-in clinics really does NOT seem like a good public health policy.

Our last option was the Emergency department at the hospital. It was a perfectly fine experience. I would have felt a little foolish for bringing such an obvious non-emergency to the hospital, but apparently none of the staff showed impatience.

When my husband was called to the inner sanctum to see the doctor, he explained the nature of his "illness," finishing with, "...and all the walk-in clinics are closed."

"Don't I know it," the doctor replied.

Apparently we were not the only ones surprised.

Still, it was only a three-hour adventure, including waiting around for the prescription and all the driving hither and yon.

I've been trying to imagine how this would have played out if I'd been the sick one at 4 on a Friday back when I lived in the U.S.

One option would have been phoning my family practice physician's office to see if (a) he could see me quickly to prescribe the antibiotic or (b) if he'd believe me over the phone and prescribe for me. Option A is more likely, but truthfully not likely at all. If I'd seen him, I'd have had a copayment of $15 to $25.

The next option would have been a walk-in-clinic equivalent--an Urgent Care Center, known as a "doc-in-the-box." The cost for this visit would be more than the co-pay for the family doc. Although the clinic might bill my insurance company first and bill me for the remainder, it's equally possible that I'd have had to pay and request reimbursement. Plus, my insurance would pay something like 80%, but only if I'd met a deductible (which was I think $500). So this option would be more expensive than the first.

The last option would have been the Emergency department at the hospital, which would have been the last resort. The costs there, too, would probably be covered (after meeting the deductible) at 80%. But an ER visit would have run into some money--probably hundreds out of my pocket.

And of course I'd have been paying monthly premiums for an insurance policy. If I had an employer other than myself, my employer would be contributing, too. So for a relatively healthy person, I'd have been paying what now seems like a lot.

Because up here, a swipe of the health card and you're done. The antibiotics cost only $13 because we do have a drug insurance plan with monthly premiums.

As healthcare goes, the whole experience was fine. As I've said before, healthcare systems are systems, which means that they are designed by one group of fallible people and run by another group of equally fallible people, and therefore they don't function perfectly. Each system has pros and cons.

I choose to live here and I can handle the system here. In fact, in thinking back over my options in the U.S. vs. what happened yesterday, I'm pretty glad to be here.

Another brush with healthcare

I still think the Canadian healthcare system works well for people who tend to be healthy and for those who are very sick. I'm lucky enough to have little experience in between.

Last week, I developed an infection and decided to go to the walk-in clinic sooner rather than later. I don't have a family physician; they are in short supply in this area and I am one of those who tend to be healthy. After waiting for a couple of hours, I got in to see the physician. This was my third time to see him, all for sinus-infection-type ailments. It was speedy, but thorough. He talks quickly but also listens. He mentioned a few things to watch for if the antibiotics he was prescribing didn't help--and he talked with me at length about the type of antibiotic he was using and why, which is reassuring to those of us who are allergic to penicillin.

I had my prescription filled at the pharmacy in the same building. The pharmacist made sure I knew the instructions for the medication and told me some more about the type of antibiotic. He even mentioned the types of side effects that were normal.

So I was prepared for my mouth to taste a lot like dirty feet. Which it still does, because I'm still taking these honkin' big antibiotic pills. But my infection cleared almost as if by magic after 48 hours.

People on this side of the border (and south of it, as well) either beatify or vilify the Canadian healthcare system. (That's actually a misnomer--each province administers its own system, which must meet certain federal guidelines.) In any case, the truth about the healthcare system, of course, lies somewhere in between heaven and hell.

Now, if pharmaceutical companies could just develop antibiotics that don't leave that godawful aftertaste...

Adventures in Healthcare and Aging, Part Bazillion

"Well, I painted on the strips today."

Thus began a conversation the rest of which I will spare you, because it is about collecting samples for the Fecal Occult Blood Test. Trust me, you haven't lived until you've heard a Canada Geek describe the bridge he made with toilet paper to, uh, facilitate smear collection.

This conversation was a good thing. It happened because a new nurse practitioner clinic opened recently in Thunder Bay. Finally, my retirement-age husband, whose asthma and allergies make him a surprisingly delicate flower most of the year, has healthcare again. See? A good thing.

He had the same family practice doc for decades. This doc finally retired two or three years ago, after threatening to for several years. Apparently physicians in their 70s prefer retirement, what a crazy idea. In any case, the doc referred lots of his patients but "orphaned" more--thousands of patients. Including my husband.

About 18 months ago I got into a regular practice by virtue of knowing people. My husband was accepted by this new nurse practitioner clinic by virtue of my nagging ability and his own good sense. I'm relieved for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that we are now both monitoring our health, collecting information about our bodies when we are healthy, so that when they are not, we have a better chance of noticing.

And as I have said before, ad nauseam (which, LOOK! It's spelled correctly!!), healthcare systems are systems, and are thus inherently flawed. On both sides of the border, proactive care of one's health is important. Which, when one gets to a certain age, means doing the fecal occult blood test.

But only one is at that age. The other of us had our mammogram last year, and is not anxious to volunteer to do any painting, thanks just the same.

Freedom: Thanks to Health Care

In a recent interview (available for download here), science fiction writer Robert Sawyer was asked about creativity and living in Canada.

He says, and I'm paraphrasing, that the federal and provincial arts programs that award money to artists (writers, musicians, visual artists, multimedia, film, etc.) are fine, great, whatever.

But the single best thing that Canada did for his writing career was provide universal health care.

Surprised? I was, till I thought about it.

You may or may not like Robert Sawyer's writing, but imagine what that form of health care could mean for YOU.

Imagine being able to quit your current job and start your own business. You don't need a spouse to give you healthcare coverage. You can put your savings into the business, not into expensive COBRA coverage.

Imagine owning a small but growing business and being all too aware that if you grow such that you employ more than a certain number of people, you have to provide health insurance. Makes your long-term strategic planning look a little different, doesn't it?

Imagine owning a business and NEVER having to provide basic health insurance, at all--and not having to explain that it's a hardship or otherwise justify NOT doing it.

All that concern, that expense just...goes away.

And that's for the business world. Imagine the freedom and flexibility for artists, for students, for educators, for those who work out of the home part-time (or who work only at home) and raise children, for those finally finishing school, for career-changers.

Here's something close to home for people between 30 and 70. Your elderly mother suddenly needs more care. Guess what? You can move to be near her. No need to line up a job in advance long-distance or worry about your own health coverage.

Of course, each province has its own healthcare plan, so moving to a new province requires jumping through a hoop or two. But it's do-able, especially compared to what you'd go through in the U.S.

I remain dismayed at willful ignorance in the "debate" south of the border. Worse is the sheer lack of principle of those who create lies--and those who believe them--to justify their investment in the status quo. Death panels? You can say that with a straight face? You really believe that? Seriously?

I've stayed out of the discussion, mostly, and now I'm going on to something else. But I wanted to share this little what-if exercise, because I think it shows how universal healthcare coverage could give Americans what they claim they want most: freedom.

Healthcare: The Limits

One thing about healthcare in Canada. When what you have is a flu bug, or is possibly your body complaining vehemently about your devotion to dietary fibre (American: fiber), the healthcare system can't do anything for you.

Unless you count the fact that I could go to a walk-in clinic (or ER, if I were particularly worried) and find that out for free, without feeling stupid.

Well, then. I guess that's not nothing, after all.

True Change in a Minority Government

Welcome to Canada, where nobody wants an election, not now, not ever, but the threat of an election never quite goes away.

And when politicians can't manufacture election talk, they talk about the impossibility of accomplishing anything in a minority government. Too much compromise. The PM can't get anything of substance passed.

Americans: This is like saying that a president who's a Republican can't get anything done if the House is controlled by Democrats. You saw how that kept Bush from misdeeds in his last two years. And you can see how well Obama is succeeding with the Democrats also in charge of both the House and the Senate. As in, NOT in both cases.

The difficulty of governing with a minority government didn't stop Lester Pearson in 1960s Canada. Here are four important changes he made in five years, all without a majority behind him.

1. The Auto Pact, an early experiment in "free trade," in which trucks, cars, and auto parts moving between Canada and the U.S. were exempt from duty. It may look less like a great idea given the events of the past two years, but it worked for the previous 40.

2. The Canada Pension Plan, which deducts money from wages to support the elderly. Americans may recognize this: it's the equivalent of Social Security.

3. The Medical Care Act, which extends public healthcare coverage to include physician services. This is a step toward today's public healthcare system. Yes, Canadians have had public healthcare since 1971--and no one has yet started growing horns, tails, or cloven hoofs; pitchfork sales remain low.

4. A suspension of capital punishment. Pearson put capital punishment "temporarily" on hold; under Trudeau in 1976, capital punishment was officially abolished.

Even if you don't agree with the policies these actions put into place, you have to admit it's an impressive list.

So, we agree, it's impossible to effect change in a minority government.

Unless you're a statesman.

Are you listening, Mr. Harper? Hello? Anyone?

P.S. Because I am a serious student of Canadian history, I rely on impeccable sources. In this case, I am indebted to the 2nd edition of Will Ferguson's Canadian History for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons Canada, 2005), where Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Layton, and Mr. Dion can also read about Pearson's minority government achievements. Because they seem to have forgotten their own history.

Food for Patriotic Thought

Temporarily suspending my Monday tradition (since March, anyway) of posting Today's pictures here. Instead, here's a thought or two for my friends on both sides of this border.

Canadians: Peace, order, and good government? Yep. I love the fact that I have access to healthcare here. I love that I can choose the most appropriate medical care for my unique situation, without limits. Why does this country not extend this right to the women in countries to whom it gives aid? The maternal health bill presented at the G20 summit does not allow women in countries WHERE ABORTION IS LEGAL to receive abortions if the organization providing it receives Canadian aid dollars. Maternal health initiatives should cover a full range of maternal health options. Good policy? No. Good government? No.

Americans: Liberty and justice for all? Well, almost all. For all who aren't gay or lesbian and want to commit to a relationship, that is. If you're gay or lesbian, you can't enjoy the same legal and human rights and responsibilities as the non-gay non-lesbian population. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be told that you are not fully human, that the self-evident truths people wave flags about and get misty-eyed over and shoot fireworks about AND GET KILLED FOR don't apply to YOU. I cannot imagine what people demonstrating against marriage rights will tell their grandchildren--what they tell their children and grandchildren now, some percentage of whom are gay or lesbian. I mean, I know what they say; you can read it far too many places. I just can't belive that they say it.

And so, to paraphrase Shakespeare: if we are poisoned, do we not die? And if you poison these people, do they not die? And if they die, do we not die a little, also?

Come on. Every woman, not just the women in Canada, is entitled to all the healthcare that's legal in her country, and Canada should be helping her fight to be sure she gets it, not holding her back. And about that right to marry--can we please just let every adult (yes, even the stupid prejudiced ones) get married?

Why are we even having these fights? In both countries, we need to move on. We are playing Russian Roulette with oil and drilling and the environment (and in this Canada with these gun laws, that's some feat, let me tell you), but until we (in both countries) love our neighbo(u)rs, both those next door and those on other continents, we will be spiteful and distracted and unable to focus on solutions. So put away the flags and facepaint. Start improving the world instead of bragging about it.

Okay, putting soapbox away now. Pictures will resume soonish.

Government Ads: Here to Help

Government ads are big business up here. I'm not talking about political ads, which are as nauseating here as they are anywhere (though they rarely include a flag waving in the background). I mean ads sponsored by a government agency.

The health ministry in the Province of Ontario, for example, sponsors ads about West Nile Virus. The ads look great, and the province paid for good music--boomer-era oldies like "When Will I See You Again?" Each ad focuses on one technique Joe and Jane Canadian can use to protect against West Nile.

For example, one ad shows people getting rid of standing water (in a tire swing, in a birdbath). Another features an invisible man becoming visible after going for a dip in the pool, showing what a mosquito would see. The point is that you have to reapply repellent after sweating or getting wet.

Another series of ads, about preventing drunk driving, comes in two parts. The first part shows several vehicles, at night, with a short message across the bottom of the screen: "Took her keys." "Made him stay over." The sound is the song, "Lonely," one of those 1950s-type songs. It's 15 seconds.

After this spot, they show at least one other commercial, then they show part 2. To the Peaches and Herb hit "Reunited," smiling people approach the same cars that had been "so lonely" in the previous spot. It's now morning, and because their friends cared, not one of these people drove drunk.

All of these ads are simple and focused: one message per ad. They don't have voiceovers. The actors are your basic attractive multicultural folks, but they don't speak. The point is the message, and the messages are positive even though the topics really aren't.

I don't know what the budgets are for these types of ads, but the ads sure aren't cheap. Are they effective? I know only that I paid attention and this summer actually found myself on the lookout for standing water that provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes. That's pretty amazing. I'm the kind of person who has paid attention to Gap ads for years (remember "everyone in khaki"?) without buying anything there once. And the Joe Boxer dancing guy? Never fails to bring a smile to my face, but needless to say, I don't buy a lot of boxers. So an ad that forces me to think about its message and changes my behavior is rare.

Is this the best way for the public healthcare system to spend money? Maybe yes, maybe no. The healthcare system works best when people don't get sick or injured--especially when young, otherwise healthy people stay that way. The ads are one gentle reminder of ways Canadians can take care of their health, and that of their friends. Besides, they create work for Canadian ad agencies. All together, perhaps that's enough value to justify them.

Why It's Broken

Here's a tale about the healthcare system in the U.S. Before I give you the link, here are the usual caveats.

No, it's not the only story about the U.S. healthcare system. About two years ago, I wrote that I was glad that my father was in the U.S. during his last illness. At least that was a system I understood, somewhat.

Here's another individual's saga: How I Lost My Health Insurance at the Hairstylist's. Please read it. Then you'll understand how unfair a system can be.

Canadians: Tell Your Stories

So, for my Canadian reader: you know how irritating it is that Americans don't really know what's going on up here?

You know how annoying it is to meet Americans because they invariably say "Hey, do you know my friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary?" Or "Banff is beautiful!" Because there aren't many folks up here, right, and it's not THAT big a place, so you probably live close to Banff, right?

Now Americans are finally looking to Canada, talking about the healthcare system. The thing is, most of them are using a sample of their friend Gayle's cousin Levi in Calgary who they think maybe said he had to wait for a knee replacement, or was it that his sister had to go to a big hospital in Calgary instead of a regional hospital for her heart catheterization...anyway, ol' Levi had some complaint about it, so it sucks and anyway, Americans don't want to be socialists.

Here's your chance to tell your own story. The Huffington Post yesterday ran a story about their own unscientific survey of Canadians and their attitudes toward their healthcare system--and at the bottom, they invite more people to chime in. Here are your instructions:

We would like to hear from other Canadians about which they would prefer: The universal Canadian health care or what is currently offered in the U.S.?

Tell us about the strengths and the weaknesses of the Canadian system as opposed to its southern neighbor. And if you'd like, share a personal story that illustrates how the system works, or doesn't.

So, if you have participated in the Canadian health care system and would like to weigh in, please send your responses to: HealthCareEh@gmail.com.

Consider these your marching orders. Go tell your story!

Many thanks to my first-born brother for calling my attention to this opportunity.

One Giant Leap Backward

I feel compelled to say something about the isotope shortage, the shutdown of the Chalk River facility, and the brouhaha about the evil quotient of the Natural Resources minister. I've tried to pretend these things are not happening, but they are not going away.

Here's what I have to say.

1. The Chalk River nuclear facility gets one year older every 365 days (366 days in a leap year). Time has operated in this way, according to our perception though possibly not Einstein's, for millennia. This is not news. Therefore, its age and the resulting issues with safety and production are also not news. So where have the governments been? Oh wait--that's right, the Harper government fired the woman in charge when she dared to mention safety issues.

2. Canada is getting out of the isotope business by 2016 (presumably after getting back into it somehow, through a too-little, too-late investment in Chalk River) (but I digress). This weakens Canada's much-adored healthcare system. Yes, isotopes presumably will be available for purchase from other countries. But if you're directly responsible for the health of your citizens (and permanent residents), and you have a capacity for providing a crucial diagnostic and treatment tool, you have both a vested interest in continuing to provide it AND the advantage of experience. Oh, wait: that assumes you learn from experience. Never mind.

3. Further, shutting down isotope production is a giant leap backward, technologically speaking, for the whole country. However, it is business as usual for this country, which tends to export its brains and great ideas to the U.S. for commercialization. The BlackBerry is a notable exception. Wouldn't it be nice if Canada embraced the areas in which it has experience--you might even say leadership--and invested there? I like to think of it as "logic."

4. The Natural Resources minister is guilty mostly of being a politician (possibly a not-too-effective one, but that's another matter). She is, however, also guilty of cowardice for allowing the Prime Minister's office to orchestrate her response to her comments. She would be a happier person and a much better public servant--though perhaps not a more effective politician--if she had the guts to respond like a human being to this situation. The problem is, it's the politicians who are in charge. Not public servants. And everyone in the House should really seriously re-think what it is they were elected to do.

If you're American and thus haven't heard about any of this, here's the CBC story about getting out of isotope production. Related articles are on the right. Here's an opinion about Lisa Raitt.

As you may have guessed, this kind of news and this particular story just make me tired. Maybe it's incipient allergies and lack of sleep when "night" includes about 3 hours of darkness and lots of twilight and dawn. Maybe I'm finally succumbing to apathy now that the workings of the Canadian government aren't alien and therefore fascinating.

But you know what? Maybe it's not me. Maybe, just maybe, I'm tired because of the bad behavio(u)r.

Grrr.

Two Rs, Two Ss, Two Countries: Embarrassment

Honestly, people.

In Canada

• Stephen Harper "releases documents" about Afghan detainees--a disorganized crapload of redaction. Two boxes of deliberately NOT what the Opposition requested. A cheap political stunt.
• A University of Ottawa right-wing politician (there is one in Canada, yes) (a) invites Ann Coulter to speak as a political analyst, and (2) sets up a scene so that she imagines some grounds for filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
• Canadian media cover the event as if she were a legitimate political analyst while labeling her a political entertainer. She claims she's using satire and being funny. Her presence in the world is to entertainment as championship wrestling is to Olympic wrestling. As in, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

In the U.S.

• As healthcare is debated and addressed in Congress, demonstrators hurl epithets at everyone from legislators to the president. I don't understand why anyone imagines name-calling is at all helpful. You think anyone you call "babykiller" is going to be interested in anything else you say?
• Democratic lawmakers get death threats and their offices are vandalized. It's not a political "statement": it's a crime. Do they not understand that?
• Republican lawmakers wait a day or two to speak out against the violence. Why is that? Do they support it? And by the way, as long as I've already mentioned Ann Coulter in this post, how do Republicans feel about how she represents the current administration, Muslims, and camels? Anyone willing to say publicly that she does not speak for you? I thought not.
• John McCain defends Sarah Palin. If he could only admit he was wrong and that she is now wrong, he'd regain the respect of 2/3 of the country and could contribute something of value to the country he claims to love so much. But he's always been the North Wind, not the Sun.

It's no wonder I'm crabby. I'm embarrassed by events and people on both sides of this border. I've had to name both Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin in this, my own space, where I try to keep the poison to a minimum. Grr.

For some people, apparently, spring is just a time of change--not hope. I'm trying not to be one of those people. I'm trying to look for a reason to smile in the insanity. Failing that, I guess I'll just have to smile anyway. Just don't tell me I have to.

Men Behaving Badly

The title of this post describes Canadian politics during the past couple of weeks. I exempt the Governor General from the title because she's a woman but also because she really had little choice but to award the "time out" the Prime Minister requested. Her job is to not insert herself (an unelected official) into the governing process--and granting the Prime Minister a "do-over" is perhaps the least intrusive thing she could have done. But I hope she yelled at him a little and told him this was his last chance.

In any case, I find myself in an unusual position: I now feel more proud of a U.S. politician than the politicians in Canada. I'm not sure I have ever felt this way before.

Before I moved here, I made no pretense of understanding or really following Canadian politics, other than trying to keep up with the name of the person in charge. I paid attention during the NAFTA negotiations, and during the leadup to the Iraq war, and other times when American allies were in the news in the U.S. However, parliamentary politics is all new to me in the past three to four years.

Nevertheless, I was like other liberals in the U.S. in holding a slight envy for some Canadian values that have translated into public policy. Like universal healthcare as a human right. Like limits on gun ownership. I figured Canadian politicians were probably more enlightened and competent, too.

And the venality of American politicians has increased. As you know or can imagine, actions of U.S. politicians--and I include the Senate and House, Democrats and Republicans--during the past eight years have been difficult for me to believe. I started to list examples and it turns the stomach.

But those thousands of days are already beginning to fade, though I won't forget their lessons. And now, I see a lot of pleasing news from the U.S. The President-Elect is surrounding himself with diverse opinions. He is clear about his role until the end of January--there's just one President at a time. However, he also understands how important it is for the electorate to see him doing something, anything, to show he will hit the ground running. And he's doing a lot of good things.

It's amazing for me to say this, but...politicians in Canada could learn from the example of their incoming neighbo(u)r to the south. There. I said it.

So folks who recently fled Ottawa, use this time wisely. Stop telling Canadians that you deserve to govern or that others are going to destroy the country--our sky is falling all around us. We don't have time to worry about your manufactured crises; there are plenty of real ones out there.

Instead, remember the arguments you should be making--that your ideas will help solve the impending economic difficulties while protecting the least able among us. We want, and need, to hear about those.

Health By Illness?

In the past couple of weeks, Canadian processed meats and cheeses have been found to contain harmful bacteria--listeria in the meat (shipped from Ontario across the country) and salmonella in the Quebec cheese.

These outbreaks are no run-of-the-mill food poisoning; people have died. The list of affected products continues to grow. More people are paying ever-closer attention, in spite of some "food scare fatigue" following the outbreak in vegetables (jalapenos, as it turned out, not the tomatoes) earlier this summer.

I find it difficult to believe that I have not yet mentioned poutine in this blog, but that is apparently the case. Take a plate of french fries, cover it in beef gravy and cheese curds, et voila! Poutine, AKA heart attack on a plate.

Poutine is considered by some to be an important national food (read how it came to be, and how Bush came to imagine Jean Poutine to be the Canadian Prime Minister, here). Others prefer to give the spotlight to Nanaimo bars (for a photo, look here. You're on your own for recipes, but beware those with anything other than custard as the yummy creamy filling). Still others hold up the Caesar (a Bloody Mary made with Clamato) or the Persian (again, another confection; it's an overly heavy cinnamon bun with pink frosting), which is actually unique to Thunder Bay.

Is this a healthy country? Not so much, though it's no worse than the U.S. or some European countries. And if people stop loading everything with cheese and choose something other than processed meats to put into their bodies...well, it might be a bad time for Quebec poutine, but the healthcare system might appreciate a healthier population.

But it's worrisome. Continue with your regularly scheduled political festivals; we've got other stuff to think about up here.

Sometimes...

Sometimes I wish my father were still alive.

(Don't worry, this isn't a sentimental post.)

Sometimes I wish my father were alive so he could see how RIGHT I was about Joe Lieberman ("I", Conn.), whose fan I have NOT been since back in the Days of Gore (Al) and Impeachment. Grrr.

My father was a forgiving man, mostly. Eventually. He was plenty angry and betrayed during the Nixon years but I think part of that hurt was bewilderment. He wondered how someone entrusted with so much could deceive himself (and others) so consistently and stoop so low in order to gain so little. At least I think that's what my father would say.

In any case, my father's forgiving attitude is what I'm aspiring to. Forgiving a U.S. senator for his need to grandstand and make an issue like healthcare all about HIM, Joe Lieberman. Yes, I realize it's not particularly shocking behaviour for a politician.

I only wish it were.

A Message While We Wait

To smokers: why on earth do you think it's OK to throw your cigarette butts out car windows into otherwise pristine air?

You're inhaling so much crap into your body. Why not do us all a favor and eat the butt while you're at it? Dying sooner will relieve some of the burden on the healthcare system.

Why yes, I picked up litter on my walk this morning, why do you ask? Even out here in scenic Shuniah, smokers apparently think throwing their garbage onto the ground somehow doesn't "count" as the foul deed we know it is.

Wha??

Back to your nail-biting, folks.

Political Blahs

It's a big day in politics on both sides of our fair border.

Obama is due to say something else about healthcare. Talk about discipline, stamina, backbone. I admire his determination to get something done. I hope that "something" actually helps people.

Meanwhile, up here, the next couple of days will feature a Throne Speech--the Governor General reading a speech written by the Prime Minister; it officially opens this session of Parliament--and a new budget. Cuts and belt-tightening ahead. (And I have to wonder who is going to grimace more: the GG because of what she's reading, or the PM because she's mangling his speech? My guess is the GG, because Harper's own delivery is no great shakes.)

These are important times. And yet, all the political interest I can muster is to become a fan of "I bet Jon Stewart can reach a million fans before Bill O'Reilly!"

Surely this malaise is temporary. It has to be. It had better be! Because when the public is apathetic, bad things happen. So, it's time to show some of Obama's discipline. Stamina. Backbone.

Starting tomorrow. I swear.

Un-Patriotism

Hi, my name is Marion, and I'm un-patriotic. In both countries. And I'm taking advantage of this sweet spot between Canada Day and Independence Day to clear the air.

Here are a few of my un-favo(u)rite Canadian things.

• Diana Krall. I know I should like her music but I don't. I just don't. I really want to, but I don't. I have tried. I don't like her public performing persona. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. I just don't like her. I also don't like performances by Celine Dion, Shania Twain, or Rita MacNeil (though Rita writes reasonable songs). I'm not nuts about Anne Murray. Yeah yeah--icons, wildly successful, I get that. But no, I don't like them. Sorry. Oh, and Mike Myers and Keanu Reeves. Nope.
• The Listener. It's a Canadian program that's also popular in the U.S. and I'm supposed to be supportive and happy, but this program is ridiculous. It's certainly no Flashpoint, which is the best of that lot. And CBC doesn't necessarily do a better job of original programming. The Border is waaaay melodramatic but I have managed to sit through entire episodes because the content is interesting to someone interested in the Canada/U.S. border. Reaching back in time, Intelligence and DaVinci Goes Viral are both too dark. Not dark in content--literally dark. I can't see a thing and the content doesn't inspire me to try harder. And you remember last summer's vote-Maria-off-the-island reality show. Brrr.
• Lloyd Robertson, anchor of CTV news. I should admire his ability to mince while sitting behind a desk, but that seems a dubious distinction. His delivery is just plain distracting, even when he's not stumbling over the words. Peter Mansbridge, CBC anchor, bellows a bit but he, at least, reads reasonably well. Though he needs to stop it with that "Next on most CBC stations: Geoooooooooorge Stroumboulopoulous! and The Hour."
• Persians, a dislike that makes me doubly traitorous because they're unique to Thunder Bay. But blech. Also poutine: don't get the point. And I'm not a fan of either Tim Horton's or Robin's Donuts. I'm supposed to support Tim's again because it recently moved its headquarters from Delaware back to somewhere in Ontario. But sorry.

Of course, the list of my un-favorite American things is longer. I've had many more years to compile it. But for some reason, the existence of that list inspires far less guilt. Somehow it seems acceptable to have reservations about the country one is born into, where one grew up. Though, given the country, it's sometimes risky to be vocal about one's reservations.

However, for the most part, I am unapologetic about the content of my un-favorite American things. The top of that list, today, is Michael Jackson. I know: icon, maverick, influential, yeah yeah. Don't like him. Didn't like Elvis, either. I can appreciate the importance of their contributions without liking them. And therefore, I do.

But about having un-favo(u)rite Canadian things: it seems churlish, having chosen to live in this country, not to be out front leading the parade with my face painted like the flag, red bars on the sides and maple leaf down my nose. I should be singing "Ontari-ari-ari-oooooo" and "Can-a-dah!" I should see nothing but fabulousness. I shouldn't complain about the weather, the healthcare system, the roads, the gas prices, the difficulty an immigrant has in establishing credit, the political leadership...well, you get the idea.

I do enjoy many Canadian things and people. I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen, Holly Cole, and Molly Johnson. I like butter tarts and Nanaimo bars. I like meeting people with all kinds of interesting backgrounds who speak many languages.

But mostly I enjoy living in a country where patriotism takes the form of a mild smugness. Canadians think their country is pretty great, but they would never be so crass as to say so aloud. And that's darn refreshing.

So--Canada, I'm sorry about that "don't like" list but I know we can still be friends. And U.S.--well, I'm wishing you the best from elsewhere and hoping you have a fine holiday. (Pssst. Canada Day was better.)