It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why doesn't america have an NHS??

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
hi greetings from over the pond


i'm british but just wondering why the US doesn't have a 'national health system' (NHS)??

how do americans feel about this as an whole??

me personally, it makes me sleep better at night knowing that if i ever take bad, i'll be straight in the hospital, have treatment or operation (free) and thats the end of it!!

its the same if you (or anyone) ever visted the UK and if you took ill over here, even though your not british you would still be treated at no cost!!

now if i visted america on an holiday (or if i was an american cizizen) if i ever took seriously bad, by the end of all the treatment i could be $1000's in-debt!!

that thought alone is enough to make anyone take ill!!


i'm just wondering what your views are for a NHS system in your country, (for or against)?





























[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Haha, when I first saw the name of this thread, I though it meant "Why doesn't the america have a National Honor Society." Other than that, can't really answer your question.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The US doesn't have a NHS because its outside the basic philsophy of the US, which is to have low taxes and a small government. THe bigger teh government, the more powerful it is, and the less subject to consitutional controls it is. The less controled, the more likely that there will have to be a violent revolution in order to weaken teh government.

Remember, the states, when they finally agreed that they needed to work together in some official way, came with with an extremely decentralized, weak, and small, confederal government. This lasted for a few years, before it had to be scrapped simply because it wasnt' carrying out the job. Whereas in europe, there's allways been a tradition of having very centralized, very powerful, "top down" governance.

I mean, people probably thought that the Interstate Highway System in the US was the work of the devil at first!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I think Nydon point is very valid (particularly in the past). But I think the real question will always be how long should it be valid in the present? Does America not have at least one big thing to learn from Europe?

And the answer to that question would seem to be NO!!!

You see Americans (as a collective) are quite funny creatures. The American public seems more worried about the threat of terrorism, than say the things that will really kill them like cancer, falling down the stairs, being hit by a car, or dying at home with no one around them or able to pay much attention to what's going wrong with them.

To much knowledge it is ILLNESS and not terrorists or threats from abroad that kill most Americans. But because of the media-political fear factor money is and will continue to be spent disproportionably else where.

I'm surprised that in the age of the nuclear bomb, and death of the Soviet Union that America never seems to access itself differently. Nukes do after all guarantee against land invasion. Of course America should be worried about terrorism. But it’s sane American Muslims who should be most worried about this threat. After all the alternative and (and Nazi style final solution) to all suicidal terrorism problems will be to deport the lot of them (just America did to Japanese people in World War 2).

And un till small pox really does go urban its hardly like this is much of an option?
Always reacting and never accessing is very much an American thing; and to the worlds disbenerfit as well as its own America's real NO.1 problem.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
But I think the real question will always be how long should it be valid in the present? Does America not have at least one big thing to learn from Europe?

Considering that the history of europe is full of dicators and genocide, doesn't seem like their governmental system is one to follow.


being hit by a car, or dying at home with no one around them or able to pay much attention to what's going wrong with them.

I think that part of the issue is, why should the government be expected to take care of some of these things? The founders, in setting up the government, wanted to create one that specialized in moderating hte excesses of governmental control and tyranny. They were basically rather successful. Lincoln suspended habeaus corpus, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, for example. Meanwhile, Hitler was able to outlaw private property and gun ownership, and it took outsiders destroying all of germany to undo that.


After all the alternative and (and Nazi style final solution) to all suicidal terrorism problems will be to deport the lot of them (just America did to Japanese people in World War 2).

Which, again was unconstitutional and there have been attempts to even make up for that in the future. Its difficult to prevent abuse, but even more difficult to stop it from becomming established. Thats why the founders made the government so small, so weak, and so, in a sense, uninvolved in a person's lives. Having a federal system in which people's labour and goods are taxed and then medical services are returned, why should the government be doing it?

Is the job of the government to provide for the well being of the people, or to modulate authority? The founders focuses on preventing tyranny, europe has focused on providing for the "common weal", however, its only done that why their tyrants have deigned to do so.


Always reacting and never accessing is very much an American thing; and to the worlds disbenerfit

There's really nothing stopping other nations in the 'world' from looking out for 'the world', but none of them seem interested in doing so. Indeed, the only governments that've really tried to influence the world as a whole, were the colonial governments of europe, the soviet dictatorship, the nazi dictatorship, and the US.
So it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that america is acting against the benefit of 'the world', when 'the world' when it does show an interest in itself, trys to install a tyranny over itself.


I mean, I can see the sense in having Nationalized Health Care, out of self-interest if nothing else! Don't get me wrong! Difficult to put ideology over personal well being at times no??!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Firstly Nygdan I don't fully understand the link between European tyrants and an NHS. Any way to my knowledge the NHS was a British invention (certainly we had one of the very first).

The NHS makes sense because though there are many illnesses that you can bring on there are very few you are actually responsible for. Needing medical help isn't a luxury, a told you so case, or something you would try to bring on just to government help.
That said i do agree with taxing products like tobacco because they cost our health system money (even though the government gets far more in taxation than they spend on tobacco illnesses is another issue).

Basically what I’m saying is that nobody should have to pay for being ill. This policy actually makes sense when you think about it. If somebody is ill you can let them die (a bit of a primitive solution for the world's richest nation and supposedly a Christian nation) or you can try and cure them. In the later case that money is going to have to come from somewhere. Now it can come from friends and family of course, perhaps it just another morgage for some banker to do well out of.

But let's step back...
If the government pays about the same money should be used to cure whatever it is. But in exchange...
1. Person can be cured properly to the best of reasonably available technology.
2. Person does not have to pay once for the suffering of being ill, and yet again for the cost of being ill (end of house?).
3. No banker, insurance person makes any profit out charging high rates for health care insurance (much of which you never use).
4. Because the ill person concerned has not had to sell their house or pay any medical costs that money will still be kicking around in the economy. Now unless this money is placed under the floor boards that money will get taxed. If could be because they have spent it or invested it, it will get taxed. Both possibilities for the persons saved money are good for the national economy. And because both these things get taxed that gives the government some way to get its money back (which it can do since its processing the needs of millions of people).
5. In my opinion America's health insurance system is a rip of system.

But should America ever have an NHS it should be based on the Australian and not the British one. The Australian one is about giving people the money in a voucher check to spend where ever (therefore they look for value for money). Whilst in Britain its just about curing people for free (hence the bureaucrats who run the thing can rip the country of). Australia it seems learnt of the experience of others. I wouldn’t copy Australia completely because only the very poor get health care totally for free. As I've made the case for everyone should be treated for free at the point of delivery (money still has to come somewhere and no one should pay twice for illness).

Nygdan you might ask why people shouldn’t pay for these things themselves. Well apart from the reasons given I would reply because all tax money was the peoples by destiny first.
Do you not think America's spending of terrorism and illness are slightly disproportionate? Or is someone killed by a terrorist worth a few dozen more in cash terms? And why?
Maybe America wouldn’t be wasting money on bio-warfare suits for states whose local capital is probably also the local church, if they spent their money protecting people from threats both health and foreign related on more or less equal terms?

America can protect the world if it wants. After all no matter how people may or may not object nothing stops it in the laws of physics. But I just think as a fellow Westerner that its government would be both wise and kind to spend a bit more of that money looking after more of its own people first.
As far as being a Christian nation that idea makes me want to kind of laugh, but only when I remember how America’s poor have to pay for their healthcare in the world’s only superpower (Rich but unkind Babylon!!).



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Maybe I’m being dopy but I thought this thread was in the U.S politics section? Surely it belongs there because though it involves a medicine related issue, it’s not really a medical biological issue or conspiracy. Instead its a political issue involving the use of medicine. Am i right? Any way of moving threads back to where they came from?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
There's really nothing stopping other nations in the 'world' from looking out for 'the world', but none of them seem interested in doing so.


wow mate, i think that was a bit below the belt, when you say 'looking out for the world' in what way?

i think america isn't looking out for the world with 'war on terrorism' it is looking out for itself!!

looking out for the world is (poverty in africa, climate change etc), something america isn't interested in, but something europe (especially britain) is trying to push nations into stopping & preventing.

anyway back to the subject








[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Firstly Nygdan I don't fully understand the link between European tyrants and an NHS.

Its more of a slippery slope arguement in that respect. Give the government power, it'll use it to get more power and control and then abuse that power and control.


Basically what I’m saying is that nobody should have to pay for being ill.

Why though? I know being sick sucks, but, really, why is it the responsibility of the group to take care of the individual when they get sick?


(hence the bureaucrats who run the thing can rip the country of).

Indeed. Power, control, abuse. Create a national healthcare system, and the government is going to abuse it. So the founders said, 'eff the government' and made a weak government that actually policed itself. Very liberal.


all tax money was the peoples by destiny first.

But if the tax money is yours, then why collect it in the first place? IN a sense taxation is like the insurance scam, you are paying into it, in a sense hoping that you get sick so as to make use of it. If you don't, you've wasted your money! And, ironically enough, the insurance companies are muttering prayers to your health, because they loose when you get sick!



if they spent their money protecting people from threats both health and foreign related on more or less equal terms?

In a sense though thats not an argument about government power, but rather one about how it shoudl be used. IF we take it for granted that the government has this tax and power base, how best to use it? In such a case, I see it as being far more beneficial to spend it upon the military. Because only with the military is the country able to defend itself, and force other nations into submission to its will, ie, only through at least the ability to use military force is the nation able to mantain its independence amoung nations, similar to how, within an open countryside, only a person that can physically take care of himself can prevent others from taking advantage of him. Nations act as individuals, on the global scale. Whereas, if the nation substituted this for public heatlh, its citizens would be healthy, but what would prevent them from being enslaved by outside influences and the nation (along with its health care system) destroyed?

There's not threat to America that can do that now, for sure, but equally for sure, thats because of previous use of military power.


As far as being a Christian nation that idea makes me want to kind of laugh

The US is not a christian nation. There's lots of christers in the US, to be sure, but the government is a throughly secular institution, originally created to check and balance powers of the state itself.



looking out for the world is (poverty in africa, climate change etc), something america isn't interested in,

Often, we see pressure put on the US to address those very issues, because, its recognized that the US could become involved and really do something about it.
Its ironic, in a sense. If the europeans took the money that they spend on healthcare and social welfare, and pushed it into their military, then, when they saw a global problem like the darfur, then they coudl do something about it. Or when a 'crazy' nation like the US wanted to invade and destabilize the middle east, they could send their army to block it, or to protect food convoys in africa, break down corrupt governments in south america, etc. BUt they don't. THey' made thedecision to use their money to make themselves more healthy and more safe in terms of personal economics. Good for them. The US has chosen to have a massive military. Good for them. And you're right, american aren't interested in having their government 'take on' poverty in africa. If americans to do something about they, they donate their money at their discresion to the charities of their choice. The public only got behind the Iraq war because it was phrased and perceived as a threat to their personal security.

So yes, america doesn't 'care' about the world all that much, I recognize that. BUt why should america be expected to care about it??


but something europe (especially britain) is trying to push nations into stopping & preventing

Well jolly good luck to them with that, chip chip cheerio.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So yes, america doesn't 'care' about the world all that much, I recognize that. BUt why should america be expected to care about it??


well thats fair enough,

i just hope our government (and other government's around the world) have the same attitude as you with donations/aid/supplys next time you have one of your hurricanes!!


afterall america doesn't seem to care about the world (your own words), and the WHOLE world saw your govenment doesn't care about YOUR OWN PEOPLE after the last huricane.

leave everyone to rot heh, lets all have your attitude
















[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
and the WHOLE world saw your govenment doesn't care about YOUR OWN PEOPLE after the last huricane.

It is not the responsibility of the government ot replace people's valuables and private property. In the past, a similar event happened, with massive flooding of hte missisisippi river, and there was an outcry to restore people's homes, etc. THe president absolutely refused to do so, it'd be an intrusion of government upon private life, and an excess of power.


leave everyone to rot heh, lets all have your attitude

If more people cared less about other people's business, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today. If people would just start acting out of their own self-interests, things'd be much better than now. Instead, we have zealots in the middle east flying planes into towers because of......record sales and that new starbucks that just opened in downtown Riyadh. We have lunatics in the sudan pushing the Fur off their land beacuse they don't like them.

Instead of the people of new orleans making sure that the levees; which they already knew were faulty, and could only stand, at max, a level 3 hurricane, making sure that they were safe, out of their own self interests, we had a situation where people got up in arms about other people (the feds) not doing enough to protect people in new orleans. Heck in europe they got a name for it, its called the "Nanny State". "Protect my propery, give me an unemployment check, send me to college, guarentee me a job, clean my water, grow my food', etc etc.

Again, its a governmental theory. In the US, the founders broke off from the british, in order to have "freedom", and primarily what they meant by freedom was 'don't interfere with my economic business', don't tax me, don't manipulate the market, don't control the flow of goods and capital, and just let me take care of it. So they created a government that was purposely weak, that wouldn't be expected to rebuild entire cities, or provide social security to an entire generation, etc.














[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm british but just wondering why the US doesn't have a 'national health system' (NHS)??

how do americans feel about this as an whole??


I've worked for 25 years. I wish we had a "Nation Health System"!
I am currently unemployed due to medical issues;
Survivor of Chronic CO Poisoning.
Ongoing and excellerating symptoms.
Not even ONE brain scan of head test has been ran.
IF I had a child living at home I could receive medical assistance.
I feel reguarded as an animal rather than a human being.
There are treatments that would help me to be employable again.
When I did have medical, it takes an average of four years to gain proper
diagnosis.
I'm not the only one, many more cases and information found here.
www.carbonmonoxidekills.com... especially the Dr. Penney section informs of the statistics.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by LadyPropag8r]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I normally consider myself conservative when it comes to the government giving or controlling more of our lives, but the state of medical coverage in the US is a disgrace.

The number of uninsured people in the US is staggering and still rising. Something is terribly wrong.


news.yahoo.com...

The percentage of individuals earning less than $20,000 a year without insurance rose to 53 percent, up from 49 percent in 2001. Overall, the percentage of people without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001.

The study also found that 59 percent of uninsured with chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes either skipped a dose of their medicine or went without it because it was too expensive. One-third of them

One-third of those in that group visited an emergency room or stayed in a hospital overnight or did both, compared to 15 percent of their insured counterparts.


Look, we have serious problems with this picture. Even those who have access to health insurance (many don't) are opting out because they can't afford it. Ultimately, those who are uninsured are costing us money in the long term, (if they get medical care in an emergency room and no one ever pays the bill, then costs rise for those who do to keep the system afloat) in some cases jeopardizing access to plans for those who bite the bullet and pay it.

Do people realize that in an employer sponsored plan if a certain percentage of employees opt out the employer can lose the plan altogether? Well, this is the case and every year the costs go higher and more people opt out. Employers are struggling every year to save their plans due to this.

At what point do we call it a crisis?

Do I have any confidence that the US could properly administrate a NHS? No. However something has to be done, and I won't pretend to have the answer, but consider this. Insurance and proper health care becomes more a luxury every year, and it's creeping up on the middle class at an alarming rate.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
@ nygdan

we pay tax, but it isn't too high!!

but don't all these 'lower taxes' amount back up (probably to an even greater level) when people have to pay health insurance? -

what happens when people cannot afford health insurance - die?


also say if you got made redundant in america today you'd basicly be screwed (unless you went into another job straight away)!!

your govenment gives no means (or very little) to support the 'unemployed' you may say "well get another job" but theres not jobs out there for EVERYONE, even if you manage to get a new job, it usually takes a few weeks - but how are you supposed to support yourself/family during this period?


education - college is free over here, yet in america what chance do young americans have to better themselfs if they come from a poor background?

THE MILITARY? the US government offer you an education if you join the militry, but by signing the 'dotted line' to be a solider, you may well be signing your death certificate (what good is an education then)?

i'm a big believer in tradition, we the british are big on tradition ourself 'royal family etc' - but by your government still following your 'founders' rules (300 years later), is a little old fashioned and out of date for the 21st century.












[edit on 1-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
its the same if you (or anyone) ever visted the UK and if you took ill over here, even though your not british you would still be treated at no cost!!


that is a big problem to the NHS as ONLY UK & EU citizens are treated for free, many people come here from third world countries to get treatment which they should be paying for but as the NHS is obligated to treat them and has no legal means to get the money off them they just leave the counrty and we can't get the money!

The same would apply to US or Canadian citizens as there is no reciprocal arrangement between the US/Canada & UK


now if i visted america on an holiday (or if i was an american cizizen) if i ever took seriously bad, by the end of all the treatment i could be $1000's in-debt!!


That's what travel insurance is for.






























[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo

that is a big problem to the NHS as ONLY UK & EU citizens are treated for free,


are you sure its only UK & EU citizens? - because 2 years ago a m8 of mines relative from canada come over for a few weeks, they ended up in hospital with 'apendicitas' (spelling) - as far as i'm aware the operation was at no cost to them.

i'll have to check up on it though


but i agree its a bit $hite when people come over from different countrys (knowing they are already ill) abusing the system, and its something that needs to be looked at.













[edit on 1-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
@ nygdan

we pay tax, but it isn't too high!!

but don't all these 'lower taxes' amount back up (probably to an even greater level) when people have to pay health insurance?

Yes, it probably evens out in the end, paying into a system or paying for yourself. Thats not the point. Governance isn't business, governnace is the control of violence and power.


what happens when people cannot afford health insurance - die?

Sure. Why not? Emergency care is allways given, regardless of whether or not you have insurance, but, of course, the reality of that is that the 'free' emergency care isn't very good.

If an Englischer has an especially difficult form of cancer, one that would cost millions to remove and prevent from returning.....would they get that care?



also say if you got made redundant in america today you'd basicly be screwed (unless you went into another job straight away)!!

Well, thats life. Why should the government be taking care of people that can't work? That'd require interferening with business. Why should people that are competent and capable, and, yes, lucky enough, to have a successful business suffer because some people are incompetent, incapable, or even merely unlucky?? If its an ethical matter, then leave it up to people to donate money to charities. Why should it be a matter of governence.


your govenment gives no means (or very little) to support the 'unemployed' you may say "well get another job" but theres not jobs out there for EVERYONE, even if you manage to get a new job, it usually takes a few weeks - but how are you supposed to support yourself/family during this period?

You can't. That sucks eh? But, again, why is it the job of the government to make everything 'nice' for everyone? Free health care, free paychecks, free food, free housing, what else? Free stock investments? Free insurance to cover losses in stock investments?


education - college is free over here, yet in america what chance do young americans have to better themselfs if they come from a poor background?

They're not given it by the government as a result of being a citizen, yes. Its difficult to 'better yourself', especially if you are starting off without much money and in a 'bad' neighbhorhood. Sucks eh? But, again, why is it the government's job to make sure that the poor go to college? Since when does the pubic have a right to free secondary education? The state now provides primary education, and thats because it serves a purpose to the state. But not everyone should go to college, for most people its a waste.

[quot]THE MILITARY? the US government offer you an education if you join the militry,
The programme is more complex than that. You have to sign up for a special programme within the military wherein they deduct part of your paycheck and match that with other funds.


but by signing the 'dotted line' to be a solider, you may well be signing your death certificate (what good is an education then)?

I agree, its stupid, don't join the army because you want to get a college degree. What the hell are you going to do with it anyway?? Join the army to serve the country and its leadership.


is a little old fashioned and out of date for the 21st century.

So? I guess the US is old fashioned and out of date.

The US is a very liberal country, it has no health care, the citizenry can organize into anti-government militias, heck, there wasn't even a tax on incomes until (relatively) recently.
So what? The US should change, literally, because of 'peer pressure'?

Anyone that wants the benefits that european countries give their citizens, is prefectly free to sell their house and move to europe and become a citizen there. There's no reason to stay in the US if you want those benefits. Just like immigration into the US, if you live in Mexico, and want a better job and more pay, you move to the US.

Infact, if anyone is screwing people over here its the european nations that have strict immigration quotas and don't let people into their countries. Why aren't they being pressured to break down their barriers to the free movement of peoples? Any immigrant would pay into the system just as much as any other citizen, and receive the same benefits.












[edit on 1-5-2006 by st3ve_o]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
There used to be a reciprocal arrangement with Canada but that has now expired and not been renewed. Thats could very well be the reason or maybe it was covered by insurance?? My brother is going to Canada in september for 5 months as part of an exchange for his degree course but as he is on dialysis he will have to pay for it himself!! Hopefully the NHS will pay a significant portion but there is no guarantee. 5 months of dialsyis over there is going to cost £35000. We have raised a 1/3 of it already.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
nygdan, well i'm not going to respond to the whole of your post, because each point was basicly the same:-

"governnace is the control of violence and power"

not true at all, a govenment is formed to make decisions to move your country foward/protect the citizens/make decisions to give a citizen of the country the best chance in life!!

health/education/employment (even ways to support yourself when you are not employed) - covers all this issues.

isn't america 'the land of opportunity' - yet very few will get this opportunity and suceed with it due to 'old fashioned' traditions,

so in real terms live in america and the rich get 'richer' and the poor get 'poorer' because theres no way for the 'poor' to better themselfs because:-

1) to have an education you need money.

2) for health - you need money

3) unemployment (even if its not your fault) - you get no benefits to support yourself/or your family

so basicly the poor in the 'richest' country in the world, live 3rd world??










[edit on 1-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
a govenment is formed to make decisions to move your country foward/protect the citizens/make decisions to give a citizen of the country the best chance in life!!

This, I suppose, is an ideological difference.


isn't america 'the land of opportunity' - yet very few will get this opportunity and suceed with it due to 'old fashioned' traditions,

America is the land of oppurtunity because of those old liberal values. Its a place where you can go and make your fortunes, IF you have the skills and are lucky. The government's not going to tax your business or interfere with the market. Thats what the oppurtunity is.


1) to have an education you need money.

Public education is provided for free, just not a college degree. To get that, there are schools operated and owned by the State, and there are funds doled out to people on top of that. As for the rest, what is the oppurtunity if the government is giving you wages, a job, food, property, social security, retirement, healthcare, education, etc. What is the person themselves actually doing, what oppurtunity are they taking advantage of? Free junk?

Whats the point of a free college education that everyone in the country has access to? How does being exactly like everyone else put you in any better position to take advantage of your oppurtunities? And beyond that, whats the point of the education if the government is guarenteing employment and social security anyway????


so basicly the poor in the 'richest' country in the world, live 3rd world??

What right do the poor have to the wealth of the rich? And, again, American is not for everyone, its not a state that doles out very much to the citizen. If a person is poor, move. If millions of dirt poor irish can get across the Atlantic, or out of work farmers from the mountains ot italy, or mexicans can migrate into america....what exactly is stopping any poor american from migrating to england, europe, denmark, sweden, canada, etc??? If its such a great way of doing things, and the 'tradtional' american way of doing things doesn't offer peopel oppurtunities or their fair share, then why isn't anyone migrating out of Detroit, Missisippi, even New Orleans???



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join