Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

deleted

Amaya...

 Mannahnin wrote:
If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.

I have to disagree there mate.

I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.

From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.

In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.

Have you ever been to the UK incidentally? You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.

I have to disagree there mate.

I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.

Caves? CAVES!!!!

Here, we have the Ozarks... which is riddled with awesome caves (and treasure!).

From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.

In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.

Have you ever been to the UK incidentally?

I haven't, but would really love to visit. My mum works there and just loves it.

You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.

Everything is bigger here, eh?

 d-usa wrote:
...pledged a strict crackdown on all forms of pornography.

Surely that's how to lose voters, not gain them?

 Amaya wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think Clinton actually came really close to capturing Bin Laden.

And you left out a positive: his attempt to institute health care

'

Azazel started it.

Spoiler:

Sorry Azazel, most people would like to actually see a doctor within 4 weeks. How's the queue in Quebec eh?

There is no que. If you have an emergency, then you show up at the ER and the triage nurse will do her job, and place you in a queue based on the nature of your injury. If you want to go see a general practitioner, then you either go to a walk-in clinic (which could be anywhere from no wait to several hours day, depending on the time and location) or else you go see your family doctor, which is typically by appointment, but YMMV.

The only time there is any sort of significant queue before getting treatment is if you show up to the ER on Saturday night with a skinned knee, when everyone else is broken and bleeding.

I can already guess this all started because you've read a single piece of anecdotal evidence, probably from a questionable source.



And you still haven't explained how a universal health care policy will fail to work in a heterogenous country.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Go look up how much the US spends on healthcare already and go compare it to Canada.

This is whembly we're talking about here.

 Amaya wrote:
Go look up how much the US spends on healthcare already and go compare it to Canada.

Amaya... I'm not sure if that's relevant... you can't compare healthcare between countries. It's NOT an apples-to-apples comparison.

That's why I reject the methodology of that WHO "best healthcare" chart (done in 2000).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Go look up how much the US spends on healthcare already and go compare it to Canada.

This is whembly we're talking about here.

*snort...

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
It is relevant because the US does not have the revenue to pay for universal healthcare because too much money is spent on other crap and not enough Americans are paying into the system.

Wait, we spend more per person than any other country in the world, but we don't have the money for universal healthcare because we don't pay enough?

 Amaya wrote:
It is relevant because the US does not have the revenue to pay for universal healthcare because too much money is spent on other crap and not enough Americans are paying into the system.

Well... okay, I see that now.

It's just some will argue that the if we'd overhaul our entire HealthCare, and be like Canada or Britian, our cost would go down. There's merit to that argument.

However, I'd argue that to do so, there will be multitudes of costs... more taxes for one. Research/Development wouldn't be as aggressive (since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)... among others.

What it really boils down to is that, I don't believe that the majority of Americans are willing to pay for the "cost" (whatever it may be) to transation to a single-payor system.

deleted

 whembly wrote:
(since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)

Not so. Drugs and equipment will still need to be paid for and are supplied and developed (mostly) by the private sector while the NHS is one of the world leaders in medical research.

Palindrome wrote:

 whembly wrote:
(since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)

Not so. Drugs and equipment will still need to be paid for and are supplied and developed (mostly) by the private sector while the NHS is one of the world leaders in medical research.

I stand corrected... I was really talking about the impact here in the US.

BTW.. isn't there a British Company that's kicking arse in the medical field? Merck? Glaxo-somthing...?

What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.

RIP you porn thread.

There are only like 2 or 3 drug companies anymore in the world, they all kind of own each other anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.

RIP you porn thread.

We need healthcare to give our porn stars the shots that keep the herpes away?

 azazel the cat wrote:
a jackass from Quebec

Aaaawwh cute. Love you too, Azazel.

Glaxo Smithkline.

Out of the 4 largest pharamceutical companies only 1 is based in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


We need healthcare to give our porn stars the shots that keep the herpes away?

Herpes is currently incurable. You are thinking of warts

 d-usa wrote:

We need healthcare to give our porn stars the shots that keep the herpes away?

They can come to Montreal for treatment

GlaxoSmithKline was the Brit company I was thinking of...

And there's a bunch d-usa, plus a bunch of manufacturers that makes these drugs/supplies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

 d-usa wrote:


We need healthcare to give our porn stars the shots that keep the herpes away?

From that other thread, it's the Syphilis that's the problem now. Wasn't it?

They can come to Montreal for treatment

KO I guess you need to see some new faces at the bordello you walk by? A for effort

Did I see an endorsement for 'for-profit healthcare'?

I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Did I see an endorsement for 'for-profit healthcare'?

I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?

Socialism isn't really the right word...

More, like "Statism".

The US healthcare system is a hybrid.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.

RIP you porn thread.

I'll try and help get if back on track.

So, would Universal HealthCare pay for Viagra for male porn stars to help get them off welfare and back to work?

Let's see if that gets us back to talking about porn bans.

 Easy E wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.

RIP you porn thread.

I'll try and help get if back on track.

So, would Universal HealthCare pay for Viagra for male porn stars to help get them off welfare and back to work?

Let's see if that gets us back to talking about porn bans.

Are condoms covered by insurance or OSHA?

 Jihadin wrote:

They can come to Montreal for treatment

KO I guess you need to see some new faces at the bordello you walk by? A for effort

The girls coming out of that place are perfect 10s, to be honest.

Which means there's even less chance that I could afford their attention

 whembly wrote:

Socialism isn't really the right word...

More, like "Statism".

The US healthcare system is a hybrid.

Theres nothing quite like ridiculous hyperbole.

 Easy E wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.

RIP you porn thread.

I'll try and help get if back on track.

So, would Universal HealthCare pay for Viagra for male porn stars to help get them off welfare and back to work?

Let's see if that gets us back to talking about porn bans.

Lol not here, the cons would have brought it up for sure. You might be able to declare the purchases on your tax return as work related expenses, but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.