patrick.net

G'Day
My 1st hour in Cairnes,QLD., I had the uglest Gin you could imagine, offer me a bj for a beer. I threw $$ at her and ran like a scared little boy. Gawd, I still get shivers thinking about it.

Regards,

Omerde

It's not ObamaCare people. It's RomneyCare.

It'll be hilarious watching Mitt Romney campaign against socialized medicine. Only in America.

freak80 says

It's not ObamaCare people. It's RomneyCare.

It'll be hilarious watching Mitt Romney campaign against socialized medicine. Only in America.

It will be even funnier with his new sidekick, because RyanCare simply applies ObamneyCare to senior citizens. He says he'll only do it to people currently 55 or younger, i.e. only the ones who have been paying into Medicare for 30-40 years will get the RyanCare Substitution. Meanwhile CBO says RyanCare would cost seniors more while delivering less, with the difference going to insurance company overhead (executive bonuses, private jets) and profit.

It is amazing to see how the industry has covered all the bases here. Obama and Biden, both of whom campaigned against ObamneyCare in 2008 when it was called Hillary's Plan, must now campaign for it. (I think they may have been hoping SCOTUS would throw out the individual mandate, but alas that didn't happen.) Campaigning against it will be Romney (the only other executive in the country to have signed it) and Ryan, both of whom want to impose the same plan on seniors instead of the general public, even though seniors oppose ObamneyCare by the widest margin of any age group. Either way, the industry can recycle the profits from lemon socialism to buy the next election and impose the same policy on whatever group didn't get hit with it this time.

Returning to the original topic of the thread, it's a good argument for emigrating to Australia. They have a basic Medicare for all program, somewhat like the British NHS. They also encourage private supplemental insurance in ways that look a bit like ObamamneyCare, but with a crucial difference: most people face no penalty for not buying; only a fraction with very high incomes face a maximum penalty of 1%. (In Australia's mining boom, these may include some "Cashed Up Boggins," who famously spend on jet skis and AWD toys that put them in particular need of insurance.) The vast majority of Australians can either rely on the Medicare for All program, or choose to buy the subsidized insurance, with no penalty for not buying anything.

curious2 says

Either way, the industry can recycle the profits from lemon socialism to buy the next election and impose the same policy on whatever group didn't get hit with it this time.

God Bless America.

curious2 says

Returning to the original topic of the thread, it's a good argument for emigrating to Australia.

Except it's a desert. And it will get worse with global warming. Canada is probably a better choice, no?

freak80 says

Canada is probably a better choice, no?

Probably, though their economy is much more closely linked to America's, so the net result may depend on the prognosis for the USA.

BTW Canada recognizes same-sex marriage, which most people consider to be an additional advantage, but you might call it an unforgivable sin. Australia doesn't generally recognize same-sex marriage yet, but most Australians support it, so it seems likely to happen there too.

curious2 says

but you might call it an unforgivable sin.

Where did I ever say anything like that?

Don't fall for the "black and white" fallacy. It's possible to fall somewhere between the "God Hates Fags!" and "Traditional Marriage is Jim Crow!" extremes.

I've already made my position on that issue clear in previous posts.

I'd move to the South Pacific, so fast my eyes would squint, if I were single.