L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29367 posts, RR: 61 Posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Nope folks, not making that up.
The perennial holder of the top ranking of the best country to live in, Canada has been bumped from third place all the way down to eight. It had been the holder of the top spot for many years until bumped by Norway and Sweden last year.
This is according to the United Nations Human Development Index, which is included as part of the 2003 Human Development Report.
Factors lowering Canada's score was a lack of doctors per 100,000 people compared with other countries, decreasing GDP, and higher unemployment.
This years offical rankings for as as follows.
5. The Netherlands
Needless to say, the opposition parties up there are going to have a field day, taking shots at Creitians leadership. After all Brian Mulroney's government was the one that got Canada the Number 1 spot on the list many moons ago.
Just something else the liberals have pissed away in the southlands, eh?
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2760 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
I heard about that as well. Quite surprising after all these years with Canada being on top.
I can understand Icelands high rank due to the fact that this country is basically all Hyrdrogen when it comes to energy. Very little to no pollutants except cars and planes I guess.
Norway has Kristanna Loken, thats why that country got number 1! If anybody that hot can be from this country, I would sure like to move down there. There may be more Kristannas..
Interesting how even the US beat Canada. Course US is larger in economy, GDP and GN, but I guess somenow these and a few other things such as high security perhaps gave it a better spot.
I think the recent events like SARS outbreak, Bad Cow disease and West nile Virus may have played a part in making canada more undesirable to live.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
Lstc From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Lack of doctors? Canadians enjoy several benifits from our healthcare system including longer life, lower infant mortality, universal access and less costly healthcare than the US does. The fact that we do it all with fewer doctors is quite a feat.
Also, the study is based on data that's 2 years old. I know for a fact that Canada's economy is on a roll and our employment numbers are far better than the US's at the moment.
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
I never thought I'd agree with L-188, but he's absolutely right: Brian Mulroney was a much better PM than Jean Chrétien. To tell you how bad Jean Chrétien is, I'd say that Jean Chrétien is to Canada what Dubya is to the US; that's how bad he is. No vision, no integrity, cynical, hijacked the political institutions for his own good, etc.
As a Canadian, there's nothing to be proud of in this drop. But, as a die-hard opponent to the Liberal Party of Canada, for sure I will rub their nose in, considering how they used that report for their own good when Canada was still ranked number one.
Can't wait to read the final report to see exactly what went wrong.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
Granted, Mulroney was not a saint. He did his fair share of stupid moves to take away the credibility of our political institutions, hence increasing the cynism of the population.
But, at times, Mulroney stood up as a man of principle and this country enjoys some of his work. The two main policies he brought forward in that regard being the GST and the free trade agreement with the US. Remember the Liberals said they would "scrapped" these, but kept them anyway? That's because those are good policies.
And, as opposed to Chrétien (and his mentor Trudeau), Mulroney did not betray Québec during constitutional crisis. Which is why, as opposed to Chrétien and Trudeau, he enjoys quite a lot of respect here.
Mulroney is not the best PM this country ever had (that being Lester B. Pearson), but he's not the worst either.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
AerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Realistically, really big countries have a tough way to go as far as maintaining quality of life. The USA has approximately one quarter of one billion people living within our borders, so even though Australia, Norway and Sweden are ranked higher, remember that they have far lower populations and are thus somewhat more governable and easier to provide for. Good job, USA! Hell, I'm surprised we're even in the top 10.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
hmm, higher number of doctors per 100,000 people ? Healthy countries don´t need that many.
I question the variables used to come with this ranking.
Iceland for god sake, IMO you must like literature, dark cold winters & smelly pools to love it.. anout same goes for Sweden, IMO it is a good place if like high tax, Ikea and make a hole in the ice to swim.
No, don´t value it to high, however good to see Netherlands beat the Belgium Rode Duivels who somehow now think it is OK to kick our .ss at tennis ...
Bobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1162 times:
higher number of doctors per 100,000 people ? Healthy countries don´t need that many
Then what metrics are more important in creating a healthy country, if not the availability of qualified doctor?
Even in a healthy country, how do you keep short waiting lists and specialised services without having lots of qualified doctors? Do tell...
Realistically, really big countries have a tough way to go as far as maintaining quality of life.
Why? Big countries have proportionately more tax revenues with which to provide services. If anything, they benefit from economies of scale.
Compare the range of sizes in the top 10 to the range of sizes of all countries.
One factor that does occur to me is that tax-and-spend countries tend to drift up towards the top of the table, suggesting that lots of public-sector spending is more important to "quality of life" than is take-home pay for the average working adult.
(Which I find frustrating - admittedly this is one of the best places I've ever lived, but the Belgian government takes a huge slice out of my pay, and it's very unlikely that I will ever draw deeply on all those expensive public services)
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1142 times:
Statistics, especially if they reflect favorably are nice. However if the U.S. ranked first, middle or last doesn't make me feel any different about the country in which I live. My life won't change because of this. I know the goodness and opportunity as well as the negative aspects of my country. Stat's like these are fun to read but they won't pay my bills. Like someone once said, "I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowin", (or something like that). I'm sure most people from all different countries would agree.