Moving to Russia

[Amby 490]

uh? whoever said it was going to cost that much? i said that i probably won't be able to afford the insurance for the treatment and may have to face coming back home, where it is free?

thanks for your support.

Because if it doesn't cost that much that even the NHS will pay for it, what makes you think your health insurance provider in the US won't pay for it?

because as i just said, i won't be able to afford the insurance in the first place. i can pay for the start of it myself but if it doesn't improve i cannot pay for what is required further down the line. i don't want this thread to turn into a depressing discussion. lets just leave it at that eh.

Well, if you don't have the insurance in the first place...

Can you just use the NHS if you're not longer a UK resident? Pop back in the country for a checkup and such

OP...have buckets of fun in Russia

Technically no - you get free emergency care if you have an accident or something, but supposedly anything more than that is only open to people who are "ordinarily resident" in the UK. Though I've no idea how they enforce that, or even if they do.

that's what I thought

[Sprailenes 47]

Good bye!

[Amby 490]

Good bye!

You're so kind...you're even giving them a nice "peace out" in your avatar pic

[Mononoke28 135]

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

[Sprailenes 47]

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

It's true.

If that were the case the whole world wouldn't have cheered this country on last Tuesday.

[peejay 327]

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

It's true.

If that were the case the whole world wouldn't have cheered this country on last Tuesday.

It is hardly a real meaningful mandate from the people. When you confiscate assets of 5% of the population through higher taxation and redistribute it to 40% of the population that pays no taxes at all...that is mob metality at work. Let's see how well that joke would play if 60% of the population had their taxes raised to be redistribited to the same 40%. Would you have voted for that? I doubt it. Better to screw someone else...right? Of course.

[Teacher Mark 53]

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

It's true.

If that were the case the whole world wouldn't have cheered this country on last Tuesday.

It is hardly a real meaningful mandate from the people. When you confiscate assets of 5% of the population through higher taxation and redistribute it to 40% of the population that pays no taxes at all...that is mob metality at work. Let's see how well that joke would play if 60% of the population had their taxes raised to be redistribited to the same 40%. Would you have voted for that? I doubt it. Better to screw someone else...right? Of course.

1.) There's a huge difference between the taxation of earnings and seizing assets. President-elect Obama is proposing to set the scale back to where it was during the Clinton era. You remember the Clinton era right? Seems things were pretty good back then.

2.) The majority of that 40% of the population are paying taxes. Some aren't paying federal taxes because they fall below the poverty level. I'm sure you know that.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Joe Six-Pack

[IAMX 3,055]

I think I hear a welfare person crying about lazy people..

i think i hear an idiot crying about something they don't know about. imagine that

i wonder what insightful comment she will have to my reply.

Evidently giving free checks to Alaskans for doing nothing isn't "spreading the wealth".

And Palin's supporting it must inherently mean it's not spreading the wealth, either.

Strange how people just love to say a bunch of #######, but look foolish when they do. This is why so many cooked-### politicians get into office.

Rebating Alaskan oil royalty payments to the citizens of Alaska is a far cry from the government seizing the assets of upper income taxpayers and distribiting the seized assets to individuals that pay no income tax at all. If you cannot see the difference then it is debatable about who really is foolish.

Actually, no, it is seizing "upper income taxpayers" money because those rich a$$holes, by the "statistics" cited all the time, pay the most taxes. But, since resources in Alaska are public, not private, that means they get their free checks at the cost of a taxes to oil companies. The difference is it's not technically called a "tax". It's called a "fund". If you can't see the difference there's no debate of who's foolish here. You just like your rat ####### oil companies and want your taxes the way you want them, going to who you want them to go to, and under what conditions you want them to go to. It's reasons like this I'm all for raising taxes, and I sure hope Obama taxes the #### out of Texas. Edit: Oh, and Alaska.

Edited November 7, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

Better to screw someone else...right? Of course.

...and that's just it - it's OK to screw people, as long as you're not one of them.

The people who are all for "redistributing the wealth" would be singing a different tune if it were their wealth being talked about.

Go up to the average home owner and tell him that he has to give half his property to a homeless guy and see what he thinks about redistributing his wealth.

But as long as it is "the rich" - well, hell, go for it.

People making nothing think everyone else is rich.

People making $25K/year think anyone making over $50K/year is rich.

People making $50K/year think anyone making over $100K/year is rich.

There is no concept at all between the effort one has to put out to make that money, the sacrifices one may have had to endure before finally making that money, or anything else.

Overall, it's just a bunch of bullshit.

[peejay 327]

I think I hear a welfare person crying about lazy people..

i think i hear an idiot crying about something they don't know about. imagine that

i wonder what insightful comment she will have to my reply.

Evidently giving free checks to Alaskans for doing nothing isn't "spreading the wealth".

And Palin's supporting it must inherently mean it's not spreading the wealth, either.

Strange how people just love to say a bunch of #######, but look foolish when they do. This is why so many cooked-### politicians get into office.

Rebating Alaskan oil royalty payments to the citizens of Alaska is a far cry from the government seizing the assets of upper income taxpayers and distribiting the seized assets to individuals that pay no income tax at all. If you cannot see the difference then it is debatable about who really is foolish.

Actually, no, it is seizing "upper income taxpayers" money because those rich a$$holes, by the "statistics" cited all the time, pay the most taxes. But, since resources in Alaska are public, not private, that means they get their free checks at the cost of a taxes to oil companies. The difference is it's not technically called a "tax". It's called a "fund". If you can't see the difference there's no debate of who's foolish here. You just like your rat ####### oil companies and want your taxes the way you want them, going to who you want them to go to, and under what conditions you want them to go to. It's reasons like this I'm all for raising taxes, and I sure hope Obama taxes the #### out of Texas. Edit: Oh, and Alaska.

The mob has spoken. Did we expect anything less? The proof is in the postings. Take from others and give it to me? Is that gangster economics? Sounds like it to me!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

It's true.

If that were the case the whole world wouldn't have cheered this country on last Tuesday.

It is hardly a real meaningful mandate from the people. When you confiscate assets of 5% of the population through higher taxation and redistribute it to 40% of the population that pays no taxes at all...that is mob metality at work. Let's see how well that joke would play if 60% of the population had their taxes raised to be redistribited to the same 40%. Would you have voted for that? I doubt it. Better to screw someone else...right? Of course.

1.) There's a huge difference between the taxation of earnings and seizing assets. President-elect Obama is proposing to set the scale back to where it was during the Clinton era. You remember the Clinton era right? Seems things were pretty good back then.

2.) The majority of that 40% of the population are paying taxes. Some aren't paying federal taxes because they fall below the poverty level. I'm sure you know that.

How can we pay back that tremendous deficit without raising taxes....?

I mean - if you run up huge credit card debts to fund a lifestyle that is beyond your means its a given that you're going to have to make sacrifices later on in order to pay it back.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

...and that's just it - it's OK to screw people, as long as you're not one of them.

[akdiver 3]

I mean - if you run up huge credit card debts to fund a lifestyle that is beyond your means its a given that you're going to have to make sacrifices later on in order to pay it back.

So, if I run up my bills, it's OK if I go rob a bank to get the money to pay it back? You know, sort of take an involuntary "donation" from everyone else.

[Teacher Mark 53]

...and that's just it - it's OK to screw people, as long as you're not one of them.

I guarantee you that if I was fortunate enough to make over 250K a year I would be wiling to pay an extra 4% on the earnings above that 250. Who got us here anyway? You guys can try to blame the Dems all you want but the truth is it was your boy Bush and his buddies in the G.O.P..

I don't understand how people can compare Obama to Castro, Chávez or even how the Soviet Union was back in the day. Raising taxes to well to do families does not even come close to being restricted on how many rolls of toilet paper you get per family, how many bags of rice, toothpaste and not even being able to buy cell phone service. It ridiculous. If that had been the case, millions of people wouldn't have voted for him.

Diana

It's true.

If that were the case the whole world wouldn't have cheered this country on last Tuesday.

It is hardly a real meaningful mandate from the people. When you confiscate assets of 5% of the population through higher taxation and redistribute it to 40% of the population that pays no taxes at all...that is mob metality at work. Let's see how well that joke would play if 60% of the population had their taxes raised to be redistribited to the same 40%. Would you have voted for that? I doubt it. Better to screw someone else...right? Of course.

1.) There's a huge difference between the taxation of earnings and seizing assets. President-elect Obama is proposing to set the scale back to where it was during the Clinton era. You remember the Clinton era right? Seems things were pretty good back then.

2.) The majority of that 40% of the population are paying taxes. Some aren't paying federal taxes because they fall below the poverty level. I'm sure you know that.

How can we pay back that tremendous deficit without raising taxes....?

I mean - if you run up huge credit card debts to fund a lifestyle that is beyond your means its a given that you're going to have to make sacrifices later on in order to pay it back.

I don't know how it will be done. Getting the he!! out of Iraq is a good start towards a balanced budget, or so it would seem.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Joe Six-Pack

[akdiver 3]

I guarantee you that if I was fortunate enough to make over 250K a year I would be wiling to pay an extra 4% on the earnings above that 250.

You're assuming that politicians tell the truth and things work out exactly how they describe.

I don't know how it will be done. Getting the he!! out of Iraq is a good start towards a balanced budget, or so it would seem.

No argument there.