Are we really THIS capitalist?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally dont view it as capitalist more practical. Why should every other tax payer pick up the tab in the long term. Yes I do believe the govt. should organise the evacuation but issuing a reasonable IOU doesn't to me seem unreasonable. Any traveller or student or non permanent resident would have intended PAYING for their return at some point anyway. Anyone else fleeing is going to have to support themsleves when they arrive elsewhere so yes let them start with the IOU for the trip.

With regard to most refugees they frequently travel via many spurious means to reach a safe haven they dont usually get free evacuation.

As far a New Orleans goes I agree with those who say they were told to leave, and most are paying big style almost a year after the event but I personally lay more blame for situations like that here when people are allowed to build housing in known areas of natural catastrophe and then expect govt handouts seems pretty crazy especially when there are plenty of acres in this beautiful country that ae perfectly safe to build and develop.

Thing is if the government were to take a stand like that - insurance companies would likely follow suit. Before you know it your house can't be insured because you live in a state that gets hit by hurricanes each year. Don't bother living in California because if there's a catastrophic earthquake you should write off your assets with no protection whatsoever!?

[Veiled Princess 1]

I think it's best if we just drop this discussion for the time being. More than one member of the VJ family is either themselves or has loved ones caught up in this so it is a very sensistive subject for a lot of people. I think everyone can understand that people's emotions are really high right now and we're all adults here so I don't see why we can't just talk about something else at least until it blows over and folks here are not worried that a missle might actually drop on them!!!!

I think having 127 different threads about this topic is very distasteful considering the circumstances. People are dying and the rest fearing for their lives.

Can we please just let this go for now?????

Edited July 19, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Sister Fracas 5]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

And it's not just Americans that are over there is large numbers, there are over 30,000 Canadians there and those evacuees are not being asked to pay back their government.

[Fandango 1,440]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

Yeah, they'll just charge the Americans who weren't...

Melo, I in no way implied btw that they shouldn't be evacuated if they can't pay..of course they should be. But I look at it like a county hospital...you pay back in small amounts....

[Widge 0]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

And it's not just Americans that are over there is large numbers, there are over 30,000 Canadians there and those evacuees are not being asked to pay back their government.

Curiosity/Ignorance makes me ask does this mean the govt pays to get them to Cyprus (or wherever out of Lebanon) or totally repatriated to the USA?

[john_and_marlene 162]

Lebanon has had a travel advisory for a long time.

There is travel insurance available that covers evacuation. (I've bought it before)

[Sister Fracas 5]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

Yeah, they'll just charge the Americans who weren't...

well, I'm paying for a whole frigging war I don't agree with either...so...I guess that's just the breaks, huh?

[mercuryroad 0]

Thankfully, the US State Department decided to not charge the Americans being evaucated.

Yeah, they'll just charge the Americans who weren't...

well, I'm paying for a whole frigging war I don't agree with either...so...I guess that's just the breaks, huh?

brother f-bomb

you look bovvered

[rclouse 0]

Lebanon has had a travel advisory for a long time.

There is travel insurance available that covers evacuation. (I've bought it before)

Citation, please.

Just because a country has a travel advisory doesn't necessarily mean it's stupid to travel there.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I personally dont view it as capitalist more practical. Why should every other tax payer pick up the tab in the long term. Yes I do believe the govt. should organise the evacuation but issuing a reasonable IOU doesn't to me seem unreasonable. Any traveller or student or non permanent resident would have intended PAYING for their return at some point anyway. Anyone else fleeing is going to have to support themsleves when they arrive elsewhere so yes let them start with the IOU for the trip.

With regard to most refugees they frequently travel via many spurious means to reach a safe haven they dont usually get free evacuation.

As far a New Orleans goes I agree with those who say they were told to leave, and most are paying big style almost a year after the event but I personally lay more blame for situations like that here when people are allowed to build housing in known areas of natural catastrophe and then expect govt handouts seems pretty crazy especially when there are plenty of acres in this beautiful country that ae perfectly safe to build and develop.

Thing is if the government were to take a stand like that - insurance companies would likely follow suit. Before you know it your house can't be insured because you live in a state that gets hit by hurricanes each year. Don't bother living in California because if there's a catastrophic earthquake you should write off your assets with no protection whatsoever!?

um that in california is pretty much already the case. without earthquake insurance, you are not covered in case of an earthquake, and with it, you are covered for 90% of the home only.

just another reason i won't live in cali

Just because a country has a travel advisory doesn't necessarily mean it's stupid to travel there.

um isn't that what the advisory means?

[john_and_marlene 162]

Lebanon has had a travel advisory for a long time.

There is travel insurance available that covers evacuation. (I've bought it before)

Citation, please.

Just because a country has a travel advisory doesn't necessarily mean it's stupid to travel there.

When they put out each new advisory, they replace the old one. The current one replaced the one issued in May, which replaced the previous one. It's hard to give you a link to an advisory that has been replaced with a new one, but you can see that the current one says it replaced the May advisory.

And, I wasn't suggesting that it was stupid--those are your words. I was suggesting that people should take some personal responsibility to heed warnings and perhaps at least consider travel insurance that covers evacuation in those cases where conflict is a real risk.

Edited July 19, 2006 by john_and_marlene

[Sister Fracas 5]

Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The countries listed below are currently on that list. In addition to this list, the State Department issues Consular Information Sheets for every country of the world with information on such matters as the health conditions, crime, unusual currency or entry requirements, any areas of instability, and the location of the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate in the subject country. From

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

East Timor 07/18/2006

Lebanon 07/13/2006

Haiti 07/07/2006

Chad 07/06/2006

Burundi 06/23/2006

Saudi Arabia 06/23/2006

Afghanistan 06/22/2006

Philippines 06/16/2006

Eritrea 06/05/2006

Somalia 06/05/2006

Nepal 05/11/2006

Central African Republic 04/20/2006

Yemen 04/13/2006

Uzbekistan 04/07/2006

Pakistan 04/07/2006

Bosnia-Herzegovina 03/30/2006

Liberia 03/30/2006

Côte d'Ivoire 03/03/2006

Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 02/27/2006

Nigeria 02/17/2006

Algeria 02/15/2006

Sudan 02/06/2006

Congo, Democratic Republic of the 01/20/2006

Colombia 01/18/2006

Kenya 12/30/2005

Iran 12/29/2005

Iraq 12/29/2005

Indonesia 11/18/2005

Zimbabwe 11/14/2005

Edited July 19, 2006 by Frances

[sparkofcreation 0]

2) If all of the countries with travel warnings were listed it would be a long list - mostly leaving Western Europe as the "safe" places to be. Maybe Canada too....

Actually I count twenty-eight. And there are three-hundred-some countries in the world. And a great many of them are only warnings for specific parts of the country—for example, when I was in Ecuador, there was a State Department travel warning for "anywhere within 100 miles of the border with Colombia."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LOL I wonder if the state dept issues advisories for certain 'neighborhoods' in the suburbs of Paris or Toronto. They sure do deserve it.

[CarolineM 0]

There was an incident in the beach suburb of Sydney Australia too Better add that one to the list.