Why does that matter to you, why not leave now?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Printable View
Why does that matter to you, why not leave now?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Hi Iris Lilly! Let me clarify if I may - I'm not talking about myself here - I'm talking about people in general who may not have thought along these lines before. Or maybe they have. I am talking of those who would be negatively impacted were the Paul Ryan budget for Medicare to be implemented. Certainly under this scenario, there would be a least some vocalizing it may be best to part ways with the US.....And I'm not talking of wealthy people like the co-founder of Facebook fleeing to Singapore, I'm talking average struggling people thinking it may be best to leave to hold on to what they have.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
Rob - your theory is that other countries will gladly open their arms to fleeing Americans intending to sponge off their superior national healthcare systems? I've looked into moving to quite a few of these countries, they aren't all that keen if you can't pay the freight.
Us "rich" people of course are not allowed to leave the USA *now*, without paying punitive taxes to the Federal government. Sort of tells you how the government sees the whole citizen vs. subject issue these days, eh?
I've been thinking the same thing, but I wish those who want to be the guinea pigs well in their experiment. I don't envision a large movement of Americans moving to countries and not working. That's the key, getting work.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Bae, FWIW, I'm not talking of sponging off any other country. Please let me give you an example. My mother used to date a man who has a small military pension from being with the National Guard a number of years and a small social security check. He is now 64, and found himself at the age of 62 being priced out of the United States. So he fled to Cambodia - quite radical on the surface but it's apparently quite easy to be there legally long term AND GET THIS - he recently paid cash for a hernia operation - $800....yes that's not a typo. For myself I am thinking more along the lines of Uruguay or Chile or Argentina. All three have permanent residency options that are easy to achieve - though this can change, I will give you that - and all three have much less expensive health care than in the US - though not quite as cheap as Cambodia. So that gives you some general idea of what I am getting at.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
I am not even talking of giving up the passport, or even the citizenship per se, just getting off the soil. And if I had to pay punitive taxes to do so, with my laughable asset base, I would be coming out ahead the first time I got sick - assuming ObamaCare is not all it's cracked up to be? Really for people in my financial situation, leaving could be the very best thing, as it has been for my mother's ex boyfriend.....He did keep the passport and the citizenship BTW. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
I think you are barking up the right tree there, in truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Thanks Bae....I appreciate that. I have been researching this for a number of years. I'm not just disgruntled and posting to vent, I have been thinking for a number of years that life in the US in many ways is unsustainable. So I have been looking into options for the future.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
The biggest problem with Ryan as VP candidate is that because Romney has refused to define his own position on the reforming entitlements to balance the budget, Ryan's budget became Romney's de facto budget when he chose Ryan.
Had Romney presented a plan for a budget, tax cuts/revenue and budget cuts early and specifically, the media could have examined it, questioned him on it and so when Ryan was appointed The Ryan Plan would have been moot because the only important plan would have been the one belonging to the guy at the top of the ticket.
Instead the guy at the top of the ticket has stated that he wholly endorses Ryan's plan and not presented his own. So, when Ryan's plan pushes Granny off a cliff, everyone knows that would happen with Romney as president because Romney's plan is Ryan's plan.
He and his camp really poorly planned this one.
I think if one is young working for a country that is likely to have retirement benefits is a rational choice compared to working for one that may dump them at any minute (probably after you've already paid into them your whole life ...). It's better to get out young and start paying into a different system in a country that believes in taking care of old people. But people get tied down to places and thus make decisions on less rational economic and more emotional human factors. And so they don't. I think that a young person weighing the full factors may very well see the better life (including the possibility of retirement in old age) is elsewhere. Of course that's based on so many assumptions of other things staying the same. Let climate change get bad enough and none of this matters. And so there's so many shadows in the future, like climate change, to pop up like specks in eye and cloud all vision of the long term future. As in: yes, if we're not all toast by then, then I'll be glad to have a government check in my old age ... (and I'll be twice as glad that we aren't all toast by then!)
Kind of the key to staying put as well, doncha' think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
Farmer: "I'm cutting back on watering my plants. They need to learn how to grow on their own."
I think the only other country that believes officially that starving makes anything grow stronger is North Korea. Seriously, does this make sense to people?
You don't make a chair smaller by cutting one leg. Sure, that qualifies in technical terms, but it really only makes the chair unusable. So what is the point of doing it? Health care reform has to mean more than just whacking seniors and the disabled with "vouchers" for private insurance that no company will want to offer. We must include tort reform, so no jury goes on a bender awarding ridiculous financial damages to people when doctors guess wrong. We must include a review of the regulations in the health care industry to understand if the cost of compliance (which we all pay for once the service or product is offered) is worth what we're spending on it.
And we must have a frank realistic discussion of Plan B. So Medicare goes to vouchers and those vouchers will not pay for insurance or treatment for a senior's illness. Then what? Should they run a Kickstarter campaign? Pass the hat at the shopping mall? Turn to palliative care and all the morphine the senior can consume until it's time for him or her to go? What can or should be done about the lack of universal preventive care in the U.S.? Don't worry about it until the high blood pressure causes a stroke? Then what? Who cares for a stroke victim who cannot function by himself/herself? Family? In a two-wage-earner family and with the increasing amount of lower-paid service jobs, where is the money for that? Should we take a functional person out of the workforce (dinging our consumer-driven economy)? Ship the stroke victim off to a nursing home (which gets paid ... how?)?
It's very easy for people of means and opportunity -- who, typically, have not been subject to discrimination beyond being "too young" and who have not yet had the pleasure of joining the "sandwich generation" -- to declare that they don't need help and to not understand why others would, either. I'm not pointing fingers at people in this forum; I have no idea of age, ethnicity, or financial means unless people volunteer it and I can't assume. I just find it interesting that the people making the most noise about not having government do certain things are either the Romneys and Limbaughs and Kochs of the world who have theirs and then some, or the Bachmanns and Ryans and and Boehners who merely spread hypocrisy discussing why government should do less even though feeding at the public trough is about the only career they've ever had.
Basically, they'll do what everyone else without insurance does - when it's bad enough, go to the ER. And the costs will be recouped from paying customers. Which will quickly make it unaffordable for businesses to offer healthcare insurance as a benefit, and make healthcare costs rise much faster than those vouchers will be allowed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveinMN
And the only fix for this would be to repeal the ER mandate and just let those who can't pay die in the streets.
Or starting up some kind of business, which makes getting permanent residency much easier in many of the countries I am considering, and with much less money than you would need to get into a first world country. Or taking an online business of some kind with you, already established and up and running.....There is more than one way to accomplish getting out Iris.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
And this is one of the big reasons I want out of the United States - I don't have any faith or trust that the ER mandate won't be repealed and I don't want to die so that the 1% can continue to be so wealthy. America is not worth this to me - nor is any other country, for that matter. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by creaker
Just out of curiosity, what keeps you here now?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Basically family, some debts I want to get paid off before I leave (I want to leave cleanly and ethically), and finishing selling off my clutter and some loose odds and ends. Also I am going to be the executor of an estate when a friend of our family passes on - if it is fairly soon - and I don't want to just waltz off on this - unless things get much worse in a hurry. The family involved has been very good to my mom and I don't want to just walk off on them like I said - but maybe a lot of this could be done via the Internet and Skype though? Something to think about.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I reallly wonder.....And I know this sounds like a radical idea to some.....Why doesn't the US government consider giving buyouts to those willing to leave to get us off future Medicare and Social Security rolls? I would leap pretty fast as this point depending on the amount involved.....I am aware that perhaps at this point not many would but if things continue to deteriorate, this could be a viable option for some, I think....Although not very good PR, just think of the International headlines, Americans offered lump sum to get lost or something along those lines.....I guess this idea is not going to happen soon if at all. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I think that would stir up a great big old pot of love it or leave it, don't let the door hit you in the ass patriotism. In truth Rob I would probably feel some of that myself. I know what you're saying and on the surface it makes some sense, but paying anyone to leave is not something I can see getting any popular support at all. I'm guessing a little bit here, but I think a whole lot of Americans would feel that we should all stick it out together and keep working to find solutions. If you want to leave before then, fine, but don't be sticking your hand out as you leave if you're not going to be here through the hard part. And if you leave you needn't bother keeping that US passport, either. But that's just a guess...Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I think you're more than likely right, that among many this kind of patriotism would be stirred up. Amazing to me. I only meant this as an idea to get some folks off the entitlement rolls - win for the US - and for those who are interested, a new life elsewhere - a potential win for such folks. And yes I would agree if such money were ever handed out, turning in the passport is fair, I don't have a problem with that. I think I have a different view of citizenship/nationality/loyalty to any one country as I was raised to believe that citizenship boils down to what's the tax rate, does it include socialized medicine, and essentially, how equitable is society as a whole? Different from how many are raised, I'll grant that. Mostly I was raised by a single mother whose first memory was the Americans and British bombing her city every night - she was born in Salzburg, Austria, in 1942. Her first memory is off people screaming because the bomb sirens were going off and bombs were going off not far away and she had not yet made it to the bomb shelter under her apartment building. Kind of makes you think of things very differently I think and I feel blessed that I don't view these issues the way most do. But that's my take on it and I realize that this is controversial to many. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Would you be willing to retire your share of the national debt at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
hmmmmm......good question....and a fair one. My share of the national debt I am afraid would dwaft any money the govemment would give me to get off the entitlement rolls. So I have a hard time with this one. On the one hand, I don' t deny that you have a point, and on the other, it seems as if there are countries that meet my criteria WITHOUT the necc of nightmare debt loads - at least not as bad as ours is in the US. Or not as bad on a per-capita basis either. So to answer, yes and no. Some of it depends also on how much I would get paid to say au reviour vs. how much the projection is that my leaving would save the US. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Reminds me of the immortal words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you.....", aww, nevermind.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times. That so many people bow at the altar of big government, expecting to be rewarded for voting for the right people, gladly accepting and promoting reliance on others, then threatening to leave (with hopes of even being paid to do so) if their desires aren't met.
Perhaps a more appropriate quote would be:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
The good thing is (getting back on topic), I think Paul Ryan brings the right combination of attitude, conviction and beliefs to forestall de Tocqueville's proclamation, at least for the short term.
Isn't that the uncomfortable calculus at the heart of the YMOYL-style simple-living though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
1 - minimize expenses, save a lot
2 - invest in low-risk, non-taxable instruments
3 - retire early, kick back
4 - let those poor suckers who insist on working forever pick up the tab for your healthcare, your roads, your national defense, and all those other wonderful services. You've done your time.
Not necc in my case Bae.....my goal is to leave, go somewhere where healthcare is very cheap and pay cash for what I need, probably start a business and actually contribute something.....in my case your post doesn't really apply - perhaps for others, though.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
I'm not criticising the approach, Rob. Heck, it's what I've done myself.
I hate the thought of the fruits of my labor being taken and used to kill innocent people in far off lands, while profiting vast soulless entities that despoil the Earth. The most I can manage to do at this point in time is to participate as little as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
So you would want some consideration for removing yourself as a liability from the national balance sheet. Wouldn’t it be fairer to compensate the receiving country rather than you for assuming the new liability you would create for them? And if you’re making the move to obtain a richer package of entitlements, wouldn’t it be fair for them to ask you to pay them for the step-up in the present value of the future government benefits you’re pursuing?
Alan, I get that we are not going to agree here and I am fine with this.....I just have one question for you and I am very curious as to your answer.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Given how employers treat employees in the US these days, is it not fair to apply the same critical eye/standards/personal requirements to your citizenship these days? If you don't agree fine, but could you explain to me why not? I have never understood why citizenship should be exempt from market forces such as these.
Also if I may, I am not threatening to leave. I merely bring up the suggestion as a win-win for those interested in leaving. Please note benefits to the US in such persons being taken off entitlement rolls permanenty - so the harm to any party would be? (Sorry I just exceeded my one question lol.) Rob
PS And to top all things off and also get back to topic, I don't completely disagree with Paul Ryan, either. I do agree with him that all this spending is unsustainable and that something does need to be done. I just don't agree with his road map to get somewhere sustainable.
Wow Bae, I am amazed.....I find myself agreeing with you 100%! Which just goes to show there can be common ground amongst all kinds of different people. A very hopeful thing IMHO. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
It does raise some interesting angles. With this logic we probably would be better off paying very young children to leave because it will be a while before they can contribute. Get them out before they attend a public school, drive on a public road, go to public parks, use money, collect entitlements, go to court, suffer a natural disaster... As for their parents it may be a little trickier establishing what's fair.
If someone had been a fairly high earner for 30 or 40 years they would have paid in quite a bit so woud logically be entitled, so to speak, to a rebate if they were giving up future benefits. Someone who had only been working for 10 or 15 years at lower paying jobs is probably behind in their payments.
There is one simple way to get close to figuring out an average. The 2012 budget is $3.729 trillion. According to the population clock there are 314 million people in this country today. Divide it up and you get $11,875.80 each. That is what each person's share of this year's federal budget is. If someone wants to apply for a rebate upon permanently relocating we could add up their share of the budget for all the years they've been living here (the share of the debt LDAHL mentioned should be included) and then subtract what they paid in. If you have a credit, you get a check. Way oversimplified to be sure, but I still doubt many of the people in line would get checks.
If you have followed my posts you would see - sorry this is starting to sound sarcastic and such is not my intention - my goal is to emigrate somewhere with cheap health care perhaps in Latin America and pay cash for what I need or perhaps buy my own much less less less expensive insurance. What I would get out of this is removal from what I consider to be a healthcare system that is all about money and not people. Also a slower pace of life and perhaps a little more meaning, though I do think one can search for that here also. I would start some kind of business and pay into another system, so I would expect whatever benefits due to me in said country for doing so, which of course I would have researched in advance. I plan on paying INTO another system, not just being a liabilty. But your idea does intrigue me - if said money for my goodbye were to be paid to government X and never cross my hands - fine - as long as it applies to the monies I need to bring in with me to obtain a legal business visa in country X. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
It's no more an expectation than anything, it's a hope that old age programs will be there when we are old, no more or less irrational that the hope that the 401k won't tank.Quote:
Maybe it's just a sign of the times. That so many people bow at the altar of big government, expecting to be rewarded for voting for the right people
Everyone relies on others. I guess maybe the ideal of a person not relying on others would be single (of course), have thier own health insurance, not take any help from family ever (not for education, not in hard times), never take a government loan, etc. etc.. They are unlikely to ever be as sucessful in this economy as those who work with others toward their goals because the gains accessible to the average person will actually accrue to those who can best maximize opportunities (sometimes to those who exploit others but I don't condone that) and not to those who can be the purest most unsoiled examples of individual self-sufficiency but ... thems are the breaks. By the way I'm a pretty good example of self-sufficiency :)Quote:
gladly accepting and promoting reliance on others
threatening is an expression of disgust with the policies, just leaving might be out of nothing more nor less than rational self-interest.Quote:
then threatening to leave (with hopes of even being paid to do so) if their desires aren't met.
an interesting theory and a very poor map of current american reality. A few social programs exist which serve the majority, and they probably won't survive unless they also produce corporate kickback (any programs which don't produce corporate kickback are precisely those under attack!), but much is also done to benefit a select few. Who? Every Homeland Security profiteer out there, Blackwater, the banks that were propped up by government policy, the government coverering up for BP etc. etc.Quote:
Perhaps a more appropriate quote would be:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
what prediction, descent into dictatorship? Where does Paul Ryan even stand on civil liberties issues? Oh wait those have nothing to do with dictatorship, the real causes of dictatorship are mostly Medicare and Social Security, obviously (sarcasm). I think a way way stronger case can be made that the descent into dictatorship is caused by EMPIRE, and currently a very clear case can be made that the civil liberties violations are DIRECT assaults.Quote:
The good thing is (getting back on topic), I think Paul Ryan brings the right combination of attitude, conviction and beliefs to forestall de Tocqueville's proclamation, at least for the short term.
Maybe you have a point about the young leaving.....I read last year a survey that 40% of recent college graduates would leave the US if an opportunity came up to do so. Given what young people in the US face today, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some takers of a check to say goodbye. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Might be an interesting way to clear off some of what the Latin American countries owe us for their share of the UN peacekeeper missions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Thank you, ANM! I consider my wishes to leave very much rational self interest.....Thank you for not seeing it as a threat when no threat was made. I am taking off for an appointment right now but wll look over the rest of your post when I return. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
it wouldn't surpise me if ironically those countries probably have much purer free-market health care system than the U.S. does. This U.S. insurance system which you are supposed to be so proud and patriotic to have. The U.S. is one giant kick-back machine. But ocassionally it throws the majority a bone like some old age programs - that must be stopped! (sarcasm)Quote:
If you have followed my posts you would see - sorry this is starting to sound sarcastic and such is not my intention - my goal is to emigrate somewhere with cheap health care perhaps in Latin America and pay cash for what I need or perhaps buy my own much less less less expensive insurance.
Sort of a "Modest Proposal" for the 21st century? If we monetize citizenship, there's no reason we can't include a buyout clause for a citizen's net equity share of the social capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
I'm sure, but that is WAY too old. To be viable we need to get kids out of the country by age 2 or 3. Much after that they start costing the country money. Recent college grads are (financially) the worst of the worst. They've consumed the resources of society their whole lives, but most have never put anything back in the coffers. For your program to be fair to everyone who writes the checks you either get out at age 3 or age 63.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
If I'm going to pay someone to not consume shared resources here in the US (including those that belong to the future) I will buy you some extra insulation for your house. I breathe in less pollution and you can take the money you saved on utilities and buy better insurance. I don't want to get into a tit for tat dance that pays you to move next door and consume the neighbor's resources.
BTW: not taking your proposal as a threat Rob. I respect looking out for one's self interest and wish you the best (on this so far theoretical journey), I just don't want to pay you to do it.
Why would someone feel "proud and patriotic" about our insurance system? Given the amount of government involvement in regulating healthcare and insurance, it is hardly a free market, or even a transparent one. The current system is about as un-American as you can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I have a very good friend who decided to move to the USA permanently. He had to write a substantial check to the government of his own country to buy-out the education and other services his wife and he had received. Seems they wanted to see ROI.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL