Obama for Prime Minister?

[Harleyman]

Had he been born in Sheffield (but with a US parent) would that have made him (somehow) 'un-natural'?

 

 

 

Again, he could've been born outside the US ... or are you prepared to argue that the sons of US servicemen born while their parents are serving overseas should be denied their birthright?

 

 

Go for it! Please! - But don't send them to the UK, send them to Afghanistan ... I'm surethey'd go down really well there. :hihi:

 

I think it works like this. A child born to a US service person serving in England with the US Air Force for example would automatically have US citizenship but could also claim UK citizenship as well. In other words hold dual citizenship.

 

Even if both of Obama's parents had been non-US citizens but Obama born anywhere in the US then he is automatically a US citizen

[Harleyman]

First off, think about it. Rush Limbaugh has tons of money. If he thought for a second that Obama was really born in Kenya and therefore, did not meet the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen, don't you think he would use some of that money to prove it? It would be the scoop of the century!

 

Second, why would you want Obama for Prime Minister? If his socialist leanings are anything to go on, you would end up with pretty much what you already have under Labour.

 

I dont think Obama is a socialist in the European sense of the word. The Democrat party compared to the UK Labour party is still pretty right wing from the latter.

 

Obama has been labeled a Socialist by those who oppose his health plan which I see as just the usual Republican way of labeling FDR the same for the Social Security Act and Lyndon Johnson for the Medicare plan.

[Harleyman]

I'd back him all the way, I don't think he's put a foot wrong so far but for some reason the Americans hate him.

 

Not all. I reckon he's a pretty decent bloke

Edited April 13, 2010 by Harleyman

[Rupert_Baehr]

I think it works like this. A child born to a US service person serving in England with the US Air Force for example would automatically have US citizenship but could also claim UK citizenship as well. In other words hold dual citizenship.

 

Almost Correct. - My son has multiple nationalities and his children (he is a US citizen, but not US military) who were born in the UK are also entitled to dual nationality. But then, his Mum is American (and I have multiple nationalities.)

 

A child born in the UK whose parents were both American citizens would have US nationality (the parents would be required to register the birth as an 'overseas birth' with the US imbecile) but that child would NOT be entitled by means of geographical location of the place of birth to British Nationality - The Brits do not consider geographical location of birth when deciding on the award of nationality.

 

Even if both of Obama's parents had been non-US citizens but Obama born anywhere in the US then he is automatically a US citizen

 

That is correct. Whether it's a 'good idea' or not is debatable.

[Harleyman]

Almost Correct. - My son has multiple nationalities and his children (he is a US citizen, but not US military) who were born in the UK are also entitled to dual nationality. But then, his Mum is American (and I have multiple nationalities.)

 

A child born in the UK whose parents were both American citizens would have US nationality (the parents would be required to register the birth as an 'overseas birth' with the US imbecile) but that child would NOT be entitled by means of geographical location of the place of birth to British Nationality - The Brits do not consider geographical location of birth when deciding on the award of nationality.

 

 

 

That is correct. Whether it's a 'good idea' or not is debatable.

 

Currently there's a school of thought that it's not a good idea because many illegals who come to the US from south America have children born here so that they can avoid deportation and claim benefits. I happen to think that it's not a good idea either.

 

On the other hand illegals do a lot of work that Americans would never do and without the illegals we'd be in trouble.

 

It's a mixed bag

[Rupert_Baehr]

Not all. I reckon he's a pretty decent bloke

 

I suspect that there are many people who would agree with you and notwithstanding all the crap which has been written about people voting on ethnic lines, I'm aware that a number of people of different ethnic and political 'persuasions' voted for him. A number of friends of mine (including my wife ... I think she counts as a friend ) who would never (in the past) have considered voting democrat changed sides because they thought he was the best option available.

 

...

Obama has been labeled a Socialist by those who oppose his health plan which I see as just the usual Republican way of labeling FDR the same for the Social Security Act and Lyndon Johnson for the Medicare plan.

 

I wish I knew more about his health plan. - It's been remarkably under-explained over here.

 

If he takes away Tricare (my plan) and replaces it with something which costs more and doesn't work as well he will make a lot of enemies. Then again, his predecessors took away the promised "Free healthcare for life as a part of your employment contract" benefits and they got away with it. (That may not have helped recruiting, however.)

 

I read a complaint (by somebody from MOAA) who argued that O'Bama should've done more to combat Medicare fraud. The guy who wrote the article had reviewed his annual Medicare Statement (how much attention do you pay to the detail in yours?) and was amazed to find that a healthcare provider (a doctor) had billed medicare a significant sum for replacement of both of this guy's prosthetic arms.

 

He was more than a little surprised. He didn't have any prosthetic arms. The pair he had been born with still worked remarkably well.

 

I would've sent that doctor to 'the big house' for a significant period, had I been given the chance.

 

Obama has a long way to go yet (IMO). He's 'made good' on a number of promises; some are 'on hold' and he seems to be sliding back on some.

 

All in all, I suspect he will turn out to be far more honest than anything the Brits are likely to get.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Rupert_Baehr

[Harleyman]

There are many kinds of current health plans through private insurance companies called Health Maintenance Organisations or more commonly HMOs. I dont pretend to be an expert on the pros and cons of it all. As far as my own health plan is concerned I pay 96 dollars a month deducted for Medicare coverage from my monthly Social Security check which also deducts Federal and State taxes. I pay around ten dollars co-payment for doctor visits, five dollars for any prescriptions if I need them and if admitted to hospital would have a co-payment of 250 dollars per day for the first nine days and after that it would all be free for whatever time I remained longer than that. Surgeries of any sort as well as in hospital treatment are all free and there's no waiting period to have any non-emergency surgery done.

 

One of the complaints against Obama's heallth plan and it's a valid one is that the plan will be partially financed by the withdrawal of ten billion dollars from the Medicare Subsidy Fund over the next ten years. The ramifications are that because of this loss to Medicare the additional funds (subsidies) that Medicare pay to the HMOs for additional treatment not covered under the basic Medicare plan will be drastically reduced and that either the HMOs will no longer cover these additional treatments or start increasing co-payments or impose fees on top of the 96 dollars a month payment. For this reason many people are unhappy with it and it's understandable if one is living on a tight budget which fortunately I am not

 

From my own point of view I wouldn't mind paying some additional money every month if it means that those people (30 million) currently without health coverage of any kind at last get a health plan.

 

I cannot understand the mindset of Republicans who lack any feelings of compassion whatsoever for those unfortunates. They're a heartless bunch who as members of Congress enjoy excellent health plans themselves funded by the taxpayers no less.

 

They have a history of opposing anything that might benefit the ordinary non-wealthy.

 

They claim that they could pass a health plan that's much better and cheaper than Obama's but I have to ask myself why didn't they do that during the eight years they were in power ?

 

I used to be a Republican but quit later on. I liked John McCain but I thought that if he died in office then Sarah Palin would become President. God help us !

Edited April 13, 2010 by Harleyman

[Rupert_Baehr]

'Tricare' is what you used to know as Champus.

 

When you first became entitled you were probably offered 'free healthcare for life'. That's gone, but Tricare is still a good programme. Like many programmes (and many offered by HMOs) it has holes big enough to drive a truck through!

 

One of my physicians prescribed a therapy for me last year. A therapy which was first provided to me by the USAF 10 years ago. It works and it's remarkably cheap. - Tricare say 'It's not proven and we're not paying' ... Amazing! - The government provide it to me in 1999 and in 2009 their own healthcare plan pretends it doesn't exist.

 

The government health plan was prepared to pay for (outrageously) expensive medication (which may work, but which has nasty side-effects) so I put my hand in my own pocket and bought the treatment I preferred. (Then tax-claimed it through FSAFEDS)

 

You said: "One of the complaints against Obama's heallth plan and it's a valid one is that the plan will be partially financed by the withdrawal of ten billion dollars from the Medicare Subsidy Fund over the next ten years. The ramifications are that because of this loss to Medicare the additional funds (subsidies) that Medicare pay to the HMOs for additional treatment not covered under the basic Medicare plan will be drastically reduced and that either the HMOs will no longer cover these additional treatments or start increasing co-payments or impose fees on top of the 96 dollars a month payment. For this reason many people are unhappy with it and it's understandable if one is living on a tight budget which fortunately I am not."

 

Thanks for that - that's the sort of info which I was looking for and it's information which is not widely available overseas.

 

A modest medicare 'hike' isn't going to hurt me, but it could be a serious blow to a number of elderly people who are not well off; particularly those with chronic ailments. I wonder how many people will be tempted (or indeed forced) to 'stretch' prescriptions, or to do without meds until they realise (perhaps after they've been damaged) that they absolutely have to have them?

 

There are older people who may well suffer. Some may die and should that happen, then Obama (who I think is certainly a well-intentioned president) could be labelled as "the President who was prepared to kill the elderly to get votes."

 

It's a balancing act ... but the drop from that particular tightrope could be fatal.

 

You said: "I used to be a Republican but quit later on."

 

One of the candidates in a congressional election where I used to live (in 200/knocked on my door. He asked me whether he could rely on my vote. I told him he couldn't and he was a bit upset (particularly as there was a very large display for a candidate for Lt Governor on my lawn and they were both from the same party.)

 

He said: You're goingto vote for ****, why aren't you prepared to voet for me?

 

I said: "**** is a personal friend of mine, you're not."

 

That really upset him! ... Then I gave him a break and told him that I wouldn't be voting for either of them - If they were lucky.

 

"What do you mean?" he asked.

 

"Well, I'm a foreigner. If I vote for you and anybody finds out, there could be trouble."

 

I voted for both of them - about 3 times.

 

(Well, it was Mississippi) - Vote early; Vote often.

[Vague_Boy]

I'd back him all the way, I don't think he's put a foot wrong so far but for some reason the Americans hate him.

 

Not a foot wrong? Apart from going back on his promise to pull the troops out of Iraq (link). First it was straight away, then 16 months, then 19 months, then 23, then he sent 30,000 extra troops there. Pulling US troops out of Iraq seems as far away as ever.

 

He has failed to stop the process of rendition (link), whereby US citizens can be secretly abducted and questioned for indeterminate periods.

 

Despite promising to close Guantanamo Bay it is still active, with no date set for its closure.

 

A presidential executive order stated that "The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." January 22, 2009

 

 

If I were one one the US citizens who'd voted for him on the basis of the Iraq issue, I'd be mightily disappointed in him.

[Harleyman]

'Tricare' is what you used to know as Champus.

 

When you first became entitled you were probably offered 'free healthcare for life'. That's gone, but Tricare is still a good programme. Like many programmes (and many offered by HMOs) it has holes big enough to drive a truck through!

 

One of my physicians prescribed a therapy for me last year. A therapy which was first provided to me by the USAF 10 years ago. It works and it's remarkably cheap. - Tricare say 'It's not proven and we're not paying' ... Amazing! - The government provide it to me in 1999 and in 2009 their own healthcare plan pretends it doesn't exist.

 

The government health plan was prepared to pay for (outrageously) expensive medication (which may work, but which has nasty side-effects) so I put my hand in my own pocket and bought the treatment I preferred. (Then tax-claimed it through FSAFEDS)

 

You said: "One of the complaints against Obama's heallth plan and it's a valid one is that the plan will be partially financed by the withdrawal of ten billion dollars from the Medicare Subsidy Fund over the next ten years. The ramifications are that because of this loss to Medicare the additional funds (subsidies) that Medicare pay to the HMOs for additional treatment not covered under the basic Medicare plan will be drastically reduced and that either the HMOs will no longer cover these additional treatments or start increasing co-payments or impose fees on top of the 96 dollars a month payment. For this reason many people are unhappy with it and it's understandable if one is living on a tight budget which fortunately I am not."

 

Thanks for that - that's the sort of info which I was looking for and it's information which is not widely available overseas.

 

A modest medicare 'hike' isn't going to hurt me, but it could be a serious blow to a number of elderly people who are not well off; particularly those with chronic ailments. I wonder how many people will be tempted (or indeed forced) to 'stretch' prescriptions, or to do without meds until they realise (perhaps after they've been damaged) that they absolutely have to have them?

 

There are older people who may well suffer. Some may die and should that happen, then Obama (who I think is certainly a well-intentioned president) could be labelled as "the President who was prepared to kill the elderly to get votes."

 

It's a balancing act ... but the drop from that particular tightrope could be fatal.

 

You said: "I used to be a Republican but quit later on."

 

One of the candidates in a congressional election where I used to live (in 200/knocked on my door. He asked me whether he could rely on my vote. I told him he couldn't and he was a bit upset (particularly as there was a very large display for a candidate for Lt Governor on my lawn and they were both from the same party.)

 

He said: You're goingto vote for ****, why aren't you prepared to voet for me?

 

I said: "**** is a personal friend of mine, you're not."

 

That really upset him! ... Then I gave him a break and told him that I wouldn't be voting for either of them - If they were lucky.

 

"What do you mean?" he asked.

 

"Well, I'm a foreigner. If I vote for you and anybody finds out, there could be trouble."

 

I voted for both of them - about 3 times.

 

(Well, it was Mississippi) - Vote early; Vote often.

 

One other thing I forgot to mention in the new plan is that HMOs will no longer be able to refuse a person because of a pre-exisiting medical condition nor will they be able to refuse treatment or terminate a person's membership because of a particular illness. Both very positive improvements. I'm sure that the new plan will not be perfect and there will have to be some changes and adjustments made but it's a step in the right direction.

 

Nothing more sad than a working man or a working woman with kids who loses his/her job and health coverage with it but it happens all the time

 

I'm not familiar with the Tri-Care or Champus you mention. I was self employed during all my working years here and had coverage through an HMO which I paid for out of my own pocket. My wife had coverage through her employer's plan

Edited April 14, 2010 by Harleyman