"Don't Go There"

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
British MEP Daniel Hannan, who has one of the most popular political speeches on YouTube (2,437,588+ views and counting) is currently touring the U.S. He gave a speech in D.C. this past Tuesday where he compared the agitation of the original tea party rebels to those speaking up in this day's debate on government run health care.

His message was simple in the end: don't go there. Do not follow us to where we are right now in the U.K., do not lose the free market impetus which characterizes the U.S.

He argues that once government entrenches itself, it never extricates itself, it only grows.

We are facing a choice of where to go as a country right now in so many of the initiatives being made by what is, for all intents and purposes, a One Party government.

The plans that have been put forth have only one solution - insert government into the lives of the people to an extent that has not been seen before in this country at a cost that has not been borne before in this country.

I take issue with the insertion of government to this level; it is the worst of all possible solutions. I take issue with the imposition of crushing taxation and a crushing debt on the productive citizens of this country, it is the fastest way to ruin.

And to what purpose? The imposition of demonstrably failed Keynesian economic theory and government takeovers of private industry, the imposition of ineffective and hugely costly climate control schemes, the imposition of a nationalized health care regime - all done at a time where the economic backbone of the country is under systemic stress.

This Government has clearly chosen the wrong path, and it is the path to ruin should we blindly go there.


"Don't Go There": A Word of Warning from Britain

by Jillian Bandes

Jillian Bandes is the National Political Reporter for Townhall.com. Jillian Bandes was most recently an assistant editor and blogger at Culture11, and had stints at the Weekly Standard and Roll Call newspaper. Jillian Bandes has been a freelancer for various publications, including the St. Petersburg Times, Human Events, the American Spectator and the North Carolina Conservative.


?Don?t go there.?

That?s the message from British MEP Daniel Hannan, who was catapulted into fame after his widely-circulated YouTube video bashing Prime Minister Gordon Brown?s spending policies titled ?The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government.? Hannan has been dusting off the passionate and catchy defense of free markets in that video to make a new case against the U.S. taking on one of England?s most defining characteristics: government run health care.

?I know politicians literally think they can make the weather on this,? he said. ?But anyone who is in government who tells you that he can is someone you can?t vote for.?

Hannan?s case goes like this: once implemented, a government plan is almost irreversible, and almost inevitably continues to grow in size and cost; government health care is by definition a plan that must ration and decrease the quality of care; and the recent spat of town hall protests that have come about as the result of the Democrats' health care proposals are the perfect expression of liberty and freedom on which our country was founded.

These aren?t new points. But the way he is able to make them is different, not only because of the fact that he has lived through many of the proposals the U.S. government is considering but also due to the manner in which he speaks.

?He does it with magnificent Brittanic flair of expression that makes even a commonplace statement seem profound. Not that his were commonplace, but it does elevate the level of discourse,? said Colin Hanna, President of Let Freedom Ring, one of the sponsors of Hannan?s visit.

In a keynote address at the Army and Navy Club on Tuesday night, Hannan addressed the conservative crowd as a ?fringe gathering of racist fruitcakes? ? referencing the language used by critics to describe Republican town hall protesters. Such terms are virtually the same ones used to describe the founders of the original tea parties, he said.

In England, you?re ?treated as a supplicant,? under the National Health System. Instead of demanding quality service in the health care field, ?you?re expected to be grateful for everything you get.?

Hannan?s visit was planned, but the timing couldn?t have been better, according to Lori Roman, President of Regular Folks United, which was the primary sponsor of his visit. In addition to his Army and Navy Club address, Hannan taped a number of national radio and TV shows, and gave other presentations in Washington, D.C. and New York. All of them centered around the meaning of the town hall protests in terms of the health care debate and in terms of a larger quest for freedom.

?I feel grateful. I feel like he did a great service to our country this week. Through all the TV and radio he did, he reached a lot of people,? said Roman. ?He doesn?t have any constituents here. It?s not like he is campaigning.?

According to Roman, he was able to strike the hearts of advocates who had heard the case against health care many times before. That?s because finding a foreigner who cares about the U.S. as much as he does is so rare.

?He was completely embraced by people everywhere he went. Physically, actively embraced, standing ovations everywhere he spoke,? she said.

In addition to his position as MEP, Hannan writes for Britian?s Daily Telegraph, making him a highly visible advocate for conservative principles across the pond. But his most public claim to fame is still his video that served the sharp verbal lashing to England?s highest office.

Hannan isn?t even clear as to why this particular video became a hit.

?I don?t know why this one took off so much, accept that its about the same length as a pop video which is maybe not a coincidence,? he said. ?Under the roof of European parliament you typically get about two or three minutes, and plus [Brown] was there.?

His rise to stardom coincided with the rise in popularity of the original tea parties; both the tea parties and the popularity of his video probably played off each other. For now, though, Hannan is concentrating on the ideas, saying that active protests that center around real solutions are better than scathing criticism.

?When John Paul II was bringing down communism he didn?t want to attack the government of Poland or the Soviet Union,? said Hannan. ?He just fought for something better instead.?

The famous video,

Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government

Don't Go There!

Other Speeches
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Not many people pay any attention to Hannon in England or believe in his minority political views, why should we buy what Hannon says here in the USA? As if we don't already have enough homegrown conservative idiots already.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
I by and large agree with his sentiment but put his remarks in a proper frame of reference... he is just one conservative politician in England.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Not many people pay any attention to Hannon in England or believe in his minority political views, why should we buy what Hannon says here in the USA? As if we don't already have enough homegrown conservative idiots already.

Not many people paid attention to Thatcher, or to Reagan either, at first.

The message resonates, again.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Not many people pay any attention to Hannon in England or believe in his minority political views, why should we buy what Hannon says here in the USA? As if we don't already have enough homegrown conservative idiots already.

I'll wager that Hannan is far more experienced and intelligent than you are... experienced for sure and I am only guessing as to intelligence.

And he is likely more intelligent than I'm am, as well.

And a lot of people pay attention to Hannan in the UK... he was elected by popular vote after all to the EU parliament. Is the guy always right and have the gospel truth on everything? Hell no...

But we should at least consider his advice and views... he doesn't even have a strong vested interest in coming over here to speak aside from his desire to help us avoid making mistakes.
 

JSFLY

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2006
1,068
0
0
I tried to follow this post, but it's hard because I'm still laughing my ass off over this one:

Originally posted by: PJABBER
I am going to do a little conjecturing here. This just an idea I have had over the years and it is based on knowing something about how the players involved think but with no actual knowledge if such a discussion ever took place. I am going to take some liberties in my descriptions for the sake of brevity and style.

I can imagine...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice sitting down after 9/11 and after they have an idea that it was an Al-Qaeda mission.

Cheney is the strategist, Rumsfeld is the logistician and implementer and plays the devil's advocate role, Rice provides historical context and a read on the global picture. Bush is the decider, now directly faced with the problem of making sure the U.S. is safe. They all are serious and they have enough respect for each other that they can throw out ideas without fear.

They already know they are going to hit Afghanistan hard and take out the Taliban who hosted Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They don't know if they will be effective in hitting Al-Qaeda itself cause the intelligence on the organization is sketchy at that point and they have just started ramping up the massive intelligence operation which will give them actionable data.

They are also just starting to recognize that the wall between the nation's law enforcement and intelligence assets was a part of the major failure to stop the attackers before they acted (we are returning to this mindset right now with the Obama administration, another lesson wasted and another lesson that is destined to be learned again the hard way.)

After discussing military and intelligence options for Afghanistan the discussion get elevated up a notch and two questions are posed -

1. Where is the greatest existential threat to the United States coming from?

2. What are we going to do about it?

The topic is thrown around and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice come up with the same answer - the crescent of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

This area is generally hostile to the US and the West, controls most of the world's oil, is rife with unstable or totalitarian governments, hosts a virulent, violent and expansionist form of Islam, has the infrastructure potential to develop nuclear and other forms of WMD.

A map is brought out and the area is dissected at length.

Strategically, Israel dominates its neighbors. Though small in population and land mass it is capable of significant force projection should it need to. They are the only democracy on the map. They are seen as an ally economically and culturally, but they are not a client state and thus somewhat of a wild card.

Syria is Ba'ath and tied in with Iraq, though uncomfortably. They are pre-occupied with Lebanon and Israel.

Lebanon is a recurring mess, but it is mostly the Israelis that need to worry.

Jordan is not a democracy, but they are friendly when they are not pre-occupied with the Palestinian diaspora.

Egypt is focused on internal affairs and has stepped back from influencing the course of events in the region.

Turkey is moving toward the EU and provides an anchor in the region.

The Gulf States are tied into the West economically, but are vulnerable to internal disruption if Wahhabism spins out of control and external threats in the case of attacks by Iraq or Iran. The stability of the West is dependent on the flow of oil from these states.

Nuclear Pakistan is focused on India and is struggling to catch up with its much more powerful neighbor. The areas abutting Afghanistan are no man's land, but the Pakistanis don't much care.

Afghanistan is going to be invaded, no question about that, but the Taliban government is primitive, a throwback to medieval times and has no force projection outside its territory.

Iran is a very large country with a large youthful population. It is dominated by a theocratic elite which is not always fully aware of what drives people of other faiths and non-theocratic governments. They are still excited by the revolution they went through and junior leadership is just starting to move into senior positions. They can only do so by showing a commitment to exporting their revolution. They are the most significant destabilizing force in the region and provide funding, training and a base of operations for direct action teams that target Israel and the West.

The group looks at the map again and smack dab in the middle of it is Iraq.

A large country with significant oil and gas resources it continues to be a bad boy in the region. It is believed to host terrorist training sites and it continues to financially support Palestinian suicide bombers. It is led by a sociopath that has a long history of attempted expansionism and cruel domestic suppression. It is under UN sanctions for failing to respond to nuclear inspections and there is a growing concern that there is a well hidden development activity to produce nuclear munitions.

The most important thing they notice is the geography - Iraq is bounded by Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. It is in a position to influence the entire region and often does so to the detriment of American and regional interests.

The group pauses and considers a strategic approach to long term stabilization of the region they consider the most likely to affect the US and the West.

They could hit Iran, the largest exporter of terrorism, directly but it would be a costly campaign, getting an allied force together would be close to impossible and the outcome of a long term occupation would be in doubt.

Iraq, by process of elimination is thus the natural choice for a projection of power. Oil is not a factor, stabilization and the imposition of a democratic government that can act a model for the rest of the region is.

Iraq is now evaluated as key to a Mid-East containment strategy.

If Iraq can be made to go democratic or become a client state it will directly influence the populations of all of the countries of the region. It would be a classic implementation of one of the ancient principles of strategy and war - establish an invulnerable base in the midst of your enemy and then selectively seek to influence them to your side, or destroy them.

The die is cast, the rest is history.

Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History

 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Daniel Hannan is so popular in the European Parliament his own party threw him out.

Hey Boo Boo! (LOVE the name!)

Unless you are a citizen of the UK or the EU you don't have to concern yourself with Hannan's popularity (growing) or his Party affiliation (changing, evolving, whatever.) The parliamentary system there allows for many Parties, often with minor differences that allow for political egos to get their respective massages.

I am kind of following his positions and his turns of phrase, maybe I can learn something from him, like the following -

As Daniel Hannan MEP pointed out in his Daily Telegraph article on 8th March 2005, supporters of the the EU have a ?four-stage strategy to reduce Britons to servitude?:

'Stage One is mock-incredulity: "No one is proposing any such thing. It just shows what loons these sceptics are that they could even imagine it."

Stage Two is bravado: "Well all right, it's being proposed, but don't worry: we have a veto and we'll use it."

Stage Three is denial: "Look, we may have signed this, but it doesn't really mean what the critics are claiming."

Stage Four is resignation: "No point complaining now, old man: it's all been agreed."?

Now tell me, isn't that just like the One Party Democrats' four-stage strategy to reduce Americans to servitude???

Anyway, to get back to your issue, from Wiki, see if you can follow the complexities of EU politics and party affiliations (and I double dare you to try to pronounce Ermächtigungsgesetz as successfully as Hannan did) -

Hannan's Expulsion from the EPP-ED

...This show of opposition to the treaty by several MEPs caused annoyance to some members of the European Parliament, which voted to give its president the discretion to override parliamentary procedures. In the parliamentary session just before the new rules were to be presented by the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering, Hannan criticised this deviation from the rule of law. He continued by quoting Edmund Burke, but was interrupted mid-quote and had his microphone cut off by Luigi Cocilovo, one of the 14 Vice-Presidents. He then responded by damning, without vocal amplification, the parliament?s deviations from its own rules;

?An absolute majority is not the same as the rule of law. I accept that there is a minority in this house in favor of a referendum. That there is a minority in this house against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But this house must nonetheless follow its own rulebooks. And by popular acclamation to discard the rules under which we operate is indeed an act of arbitrary and despotic rule. It is only my regard for you Mr. Chairman and my personal affection for you that prevents me from likening it to the Ermächtigungsgesetz of 1933 which was also voted through by a parliamentary majority.?

Pöttering is a German national and a member of the same political group (EPP-ED) as Hannan. The head of EPP-ED, Joseph Daul, telling Hannan to ?come outside?,?you can?t say that?, responded by initiating proceedings to expel Hannan immediately.

Daniel Hannan left the EPP-ED on 19 February 2008. He sat, for the remainder of the five-year term as a Conservative without pan-European affiliation. Following his 2009 re-election, he sits with the new eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists along with his Conservative Party colleagues.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I tried to follow this post, but it's hard because I'm still laughing my ass off over this one:

I am so glad you like it!

I am writing a geo-political thriller (anticipated publish date in late 2010!) and am considering using this as the premise for part of the plot. It is going to be an alternative history imagining the takeover of the U.S. Government by left wing loonies.

I do have a big advance (thank you Knopf!), but do you think the premise is believable enough to get me into the six figures in sales?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
PJABBER, if Barry Goldwater could run on a platform of "in your heart you know he is right", there is nothing to stop you from doing the same. The only problem comes when you expect to attract more voters than you repel. But when it comes to fiction, Tom Clancy already has a good part of that market locked up.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: PJABBER
I tried to follow this post, but it's hard because I'm still laughing my ass off over this one:

I am so glad you like it!

I am writing a geo-political thriller (anticipated publish date in late 2010!) and am considering using this as the premise for part of the plot. It is going to be an alternative history imagining the takeover of the U.S. Government by left wing loonies.

I do have a big advance (thank you Knopf!), but do you think the premise is believable enough to get me into the six figures in sales?

Heh, you go PJABBER!
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
tl;dr

Meh, I don't know what to think about the article. You have to think about what he is saying in context. Unless we move to a NHS type of healthcare system, then free market incentives will still be part of the system. You simply cannot remove it from the system w/o a government takeover. There are many models of universal coverage, and this criticism doesn't seem to apply to the multitude of them.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
tl;dr

Meh, I don't know what to think about the article. You have to think about what he is saying in context. Unless we move to a NHS type of healthcare system, then free market incentives will still be part of the system. You simply cannot remove it from the system w/o a government takeover. There are many models of universal coverage, and this criticism doesn't seem to apply to the multitude of them.

Then make free market incentives a dwindling aspect of the system... that is completely possible. There are already insurance companies and hospital systems that operate as non-profits... slowly push payers and providers towards non-profit status.

My main concerns/reasons why government run UHC will be a disaster:

1) the government will run it... i can't think of one large scale system the fed runs well

2a) there has to be real incentive to people to try to keep themselves healthy

2b) there has to a penalty of sorts for not trying

3) the economic impact on medical innovation and medical talent has not been fully weighed

as a aside for #3, though... once the money is out of the game as far as treating diseases and symptoms... maybe more cutting research will be applied to actually curing and preventing diseases in the first place.

But as first blood for #3, one of my friends quit medical school after two years because UHC is coming down the pike... he figured, "why go into massive debt to work for the fucking government in a system that is gonna go to shit". He woulda made a really good doctor, too... his Dad is an awesome doctor and he would be just as good, if not better.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
England had full health care coverage for everyone at a much lower percentage of GDP. In contrast, we're spending about 17% of our nation's GDP on health care, more than any other first world nation, and we still have tens of millions of people who are uninsured and under-insured, medical expense-driven bankruptcies, and a huge portion of the populace that does have health insurance living in fear of losing it and/or their jobs. So, why would we not want to "go there"?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
OP,
It can be rewarding when you find someone who agrees with you. But lets talk:

Should the Federal government do anything if there is a H1N1 viral pandemic?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: PJABBER
British MEP Daniel Hannan, who has one of the most popular political speeches on YouTube (2,437,588+ views and counting) is currently touring the U.S. He gave a speech in D.C. this past Tuesday where he compared the agitation of the original tea party rebels to those speaking up in this day's debate on government run health care.

His message was simple in the end: don't go there. Do not follow us to where we are right now in the U.K., do not lose the free market impetus which characterizes the U.S.

He argues that once government entrenches itself, it never extricates itself, it only grows.

We are facing a choice of where to go as a country right now in so many of the initiatives being made by what is, for all intents and purposes, a One Party government.

The plans that have been put forth have only one solution - insert government into the lives of the people to an extent that has not been seen before in this country at a cost that has not been borne before in this country.

I take issue with the insertion of government to this level; it is the worst of all possible solutions. I take issue with the imposition of crushing taxation and a crushing debt on the productive citizens of this country, it is the fastest way to ruin.

And to what purpose? The imposition of demonstrably failed Keynesian economic theory and government takeovers of private industry, the imposition of ineffective and hugely costly climate control schemes, the imposition of a nationalized health care regime - all done at a time where the economic backbone of the country is under systemic stress.

This Government has clearly chosen the wrong path, and it is the path to ruin should we blindly go there.

So I take it that you won't be leaving for England.

What country will you go to?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
England had full health care coverage for everyone at a much lower percentage of GDP. In contrast, we're spending about 17% of our nation's GDP on health care, more than any other first world nation, and we still have tens of millions of people who are uninsured and under-insured, medical expense-driven bankruptcies, and a huge portion of the populace that does have health insurance living in fear of losing it and/or their jobs. So, why would we not want to "go there"?

Is there a doctor in the house? ;)

Seriously, I am heading to the beach this weekend and I am only glancing at this forum for a moment before I have to Move On.

If you could spend your money on anything in the world and you were sick or believed you would be seriously ill sometime in the near future, what would you spend it on?

My guess is that you would either purchase health care or you would purchase some kind of insurance to prepare for such a time as you would need it, right?

Now, if you are young and healthy and feel immortal you might think it no big deal and buy that flashy new Prius instead and start making your contribution to anthropogenic global warming. If you are older and see everyone dying around you, well, my guess is that you place your bet on survival through expensive modern medicine.

Is 17% too much to spend for access to state of the art medicine, the best in the world as we know it? It depends where you are in your life and how healthy you are.

How about 5% and everyone gets one-third the care available right now? How about 20-30% and we get cradle to grave coddling and life extension?

You have to pay for what you expect to get, it doesn't matter if you pay insurance premiums or pay through taxes, you still have to pay the piper.

Want to reduce medical overhead? Make the lawyers scream, go for immediate tort reform and limit damages to actual monetary loss X 3. Hey, you just cut the cost of medical care by 20, 30%!!! This is my favorite solution by the way as I am not a lawyer.

Want to save money? Refuse treatment to illegal aliens. Absolutely turn them away when they show up and don't have a demonstrated way to pay - require payment in advance if they do. No exceptions, national policy. Also eliminate all government subsidies, every one of them, for non-citizens. No exception, national policy. Save 10-15% there immediately.

As an economist/international businessman I actually do like the Taiwan system, but they are running in deficit because the politicians there are afraid they will lose their jobs by raising tax rates. Sound familiar? Spend more than you can afford and let someone down the line pay for it? Now decide, cut services or raise taxes?

I like the French system, kind of a blended system where everyone is taxed for baseline care and you need private insurance to pay your very high co-pay. The available care is very good, no lines. But you need to make money to benefit.

I've actually used the UK system, let's not go there, OK?

The more government gets involved and supplants private systems the more rationing comes into play. Eliminate the private sector and you are completely in the hands of government rationing. What if the government goes to war or is bailing out other programs? Money flows there and hey, sorry Charlie, you have to wait for the spending priorities to get back to you, maybe the next fiscal year.

How about innovation and development? How many government programs are churning out new pharma and medical devices? Eliminate a profit motive and you are going to produce innovation at the government's pace and that attention span varies with the election cycle. Development and investment cycles run much, much longer.

Maybe a reduction in the regulatory burden? Accept a higher fail/mortality rate to get new drugs, etc. to the market faster? That will trade lives for cost. Is that an acceptable trade-off for you?

Uninsured? We could have a national pooled health plan that devises availability for maintenance or catastrophic care. Or both. Who pays for it and how much?

Who pays for it? That is the question. That is always the question.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: PJABBER

So I take it that you won't be leaving for England.

What country will you go to?

I am in the international sector and I go where the money is. I am fortunate enough not to be tied to any national health system, but I have had some experiences with systems in Europe, Asia, South America.

I am also very healthy, but if I am going to need care I hope I am in France (love the food!) or the U.S. when I do, but almost any First World country has great care if you can afford it.

I have also worked in a lot places that don't have such good care. I mean real constraints on both quality and quantity. I carried my own antibiotics supply and made sure my medevac insurance was paid up.

If I were indigent, I would definitely try to find myself in the U.S. as no one gets turned away in the ER by law, and the care is top rate. A lot of other places, like those with rationed care, well, I hope that I am there with something that is covered by the national health scheme and they accept poor non-citizens.

Money makes the world go round, my friend.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
OP,
It can be rewarding when you find someone who agrees with you. But lets talk:

Should the Federal government do anything if there is a H1N1 viral pandemic?

Do you mean should the government allow a population cull in a bid to reduce anthropogenic global warming?

Gee, I don't know. What do you think?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: PJABBER

So I take it that you won't be leaving for England.

What country will you go to?

I am in the international sector and I go where the money is. I am fortunate enough not to be tied to any national health system, but I have had some experiences with systems in Europe, Asia, South America.

I am also very healthy, but if I am going to need care I hope I am in France (love the food!) or the U.S. when I do, but almost any First World country has great care if you can afford it.

I have also worked in a lot places that don't have such good care. I mean real constraints on both quality and quantity. I carried my own antibiotics supply and made sure my medevac insurance was paid up.

If I were indigent, I would definitely try to find myself in the U.S. as no one gets turned away in the ER by law, and the care is top rate. A lot of other places, like those with rationed care, well, I hope that I am there with something that is covered by the national health scheme and they accept poor non-citizens.

Money makes the world go round, my friend.

Thank you for re-enfocing the Republican mantra of if you are rich you live, poor you die.

At least you are honest in your anti-American rhetoric

So what country do you have citizenship?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: PJABBER

So I take it that you won't be leaving for England.

What country will you go to?

I am in the international sector and I go where the money is. I am fortunate enough not to be tied to any national health system, but I have had some experiences with systems in Europe, Asia, South America.

I am also very healthy, but if I am going to need care I hope I am in France (love the food!) or the U.S. when I do, but almost any First World country has great care if you can afford it.

I have also worked in a lot places that don't have such good care. I mean real constraints on both quality and quantity. I carried my own antibiotics supply and made sure my medevac insurance was paid up.

If I were indigent, I would definitely try to find myself in the U.S. as no one gets turned away in the ER by law, and the care is top rate. A lot of other places, like those with rationed care, well, I hope that I am there with something that is covered by the national health scheme and they accept poor non-citizens.

Money makes the world go round, my friend.

Thank you for re-enfocing the Republican mantra of if you are rich you live, poor you die.

At least you are honest in your anti-American rhetoric

So what country do you have citizenship?

Where have I used anti-American rhetoric?

Oh, you mean my comment about liking French food? I also really like Jamaican, Indian and Chinese food. I just don't want to get sick there.

And I am just stating a fact - if you have money, you can have the best health care and palliatives you can afford. If you don't, well, then you die faster and harder, most of the time.

And I am an American citizen. How about yourself?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: PJABBER

I am an American citizen.

No you're not.

Yes, I AM! (Stomps his foot three times.)

And, by the way...

Carthago delenda est.

Ceterum autem censeo.

Carthaginem esse delendam.

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam!

:laugh:

And, really, I have to get going to the beach now.

Toodles, sweetie!