erynaught

Now let's look at Cuba. It's a 'poor' country, isn't it? The life expectancy, on average, is higher than the U.S., and nearly as high as the wealthiest in the U.S. (78.5).

Cuba is an interesting choice. I agree that Cuba has good national healthcare. Cuba also exports many physicians and health services (as a money making enterprise of the goverment, incidentically), though sponsoring countries are not always happy with this because the Cubans work for substantially less than market rates.

However, considering that it is against the law in Cuba to publicly criticize the national health care system and that we do not have verifiable information on the true cost of national health care (at what expense to other social programs/infrastructure), I don't really put much weight in the information which is available.

Personally, I think the US government has been acting like a spoiled baby for years when it comes to relations with Cuba and relations really should be normalized, but I'd still opt for obtaining my health care here in the US than travelling to Cuba even if I was allowed to.

http://www.workplacebullying.org/2013/01/25/le/

If you're rich, you can afford the best healthcare. The richest Americans live to be 79.2 years old on average, the poorest live to be 74.7. Sounds pretty good, eh?

Now let's look at Cuba. It's a 'poor' country, isn't it? The life expectancy, on average, is higher than the U.S., and nearly as high as the wealthiest in the U.S. (78.5).

What do you reckon the difference is?

Let's look at Iceland. Universal health care, 81.2 year-old life expectancy. There are barely any Japanese without health insurance, because it's a law that everyone must have it. Smoking rates in Japan are much, much higher than in the U.S., and yet, somehow, they live to be 82.7 years old on average.

Canada? 80.5 years.

I don't know enough about Obama care to know if it's any good or not, but we need medical aid to be accessible to everyone for free. That should be a basic right.

There's no reason doctors need to make so much money, in my opinion. Those who become doctors should be motivated by helping people, not by raking in hundreds of thousands per year. If education is supplied by the government, healthcare should also be.

Healthcare is supplied by the government. Think medicare/medicaid/veteran's benefits/state programs subsidized in part by federal dollars/etc.

You've a lot to learn if you think that healthcare (or any other service, be it public or private) is free; there is no such thing as free healthcare. You will pay for it one way or another. Tax rates in the countries you mentioned are all very significantly higher than the US (personal and corporate taxes).

And limiting earning potential of people is encroaching on their freedoms and simply not fair. I am self-employed and am happy with my income - should I be held to some maximum income determined by some governing body? Who decides? I actually got into my line of work because it is interesting and affords me opportunities and a schedule I desire; the income is a nice perk, but not my motivation as I'd be able to manage with less.

Besides, the majority of medical doctors (MDs and DOs) in this country do not earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some do, but not the majority.

Yes, insurance spreads the costs. However, since every insurance plan has different negotiated rates for the same service/provider, not everyone is sharing the burden of the uninsured costs equally. It is entirely dependent on the underwriter's negotiating power and not on the capacity of individuals to shoulder the extra costs.

However, the ealier implication was that negotiated rates were irrelevant in a world without insurance and the regular/rack charges were extortionately high. However, in a world without insurance the regular/rack charges would also be different. This is why they are both relevant in understanding where the true cost lies.

I'm the type who thinks that everyone has a good side, and it can be accessible to anyone who is kind to them. For example, if I met Kim Jong Un, I'd be his friend like Rodman. If I met Ahmadinejad, I'd use the three words of Farsi I know, make him laugh at how stupid I am, and strike up a friendship. I could probably even get along with George W... maybe...

Being able to keep things friendly and avoid confrontation is something that the U.S. is not very good at, overall, but on an individual level, it's totally possible to get along with practically anyone. If aliens force everyone to get along, everyone will.

Yeah, sure, to sensible people. There are many people in the world who aren't sensible or are guided by a different set of circumstances, who would rather shoot you dead than trying to figure out who you are and what impact you may have in their environment. And just because you get along with someone doesn't mean they get along (or even want to try) with you.

From a global business perspective, I've had many experiences whereby I can say Americans are known for being friendly and good at arriving at consensus. I've witnessed many situations where foreign clients preferred to negotiate with their American vs. European counterparts.

For the alien hypothesis, humans haven't been able to come together as one global voice since started out as humans; hardly any reason to expect that to change, especially with a much larger base of differences and opinions. I think you'd see a fairly large consensus come together against the aliens, a smaller but significant portion(s) with the same end goal of defeating the aliens but with substantial enough differences of how to achieve those goals that they'd be working separately ... and an even smaller faction who'd try their best to align themselves with the aliens figuring that was the best move for self-preservation. Survival is the strongest human instinct and it will trump alliances, friendships, family bonds, friendliness, love, hatred, etc. every single time.

I like your positive attitude though ... it's a good start.

Maybe you mentioned it earlier, but do you have sole legal custody as well as sole physical custody?

If not, you may want to look into doing what you can for the sole legal custody. In most states, this is essentially proving the woman is an unfit mother and stripping of her of any rights to the child. It can be difficult as 'unfit' is difficult to establish (mothers who are drug addicts routinely lose physical custody but retain legal custody) and 'unfit' will be in the eyes of the Court, not what you perceive to be 'unfit'. Still worth the expense of a 60m consult with a good family attorney.

But those are irrelevant in a world without insurance.

Not really. Hardly anyone pays the 'rack rates'; I'd say no one but I don't have access to the data for that, but I'd be willing to bet it is very, very low. The real cost is likely somewhere between the rack rate and the lowest negotiated insurance rate, likely closer to the insurance rate. So, in the hypothetical world without insurance the cost would be less than the rack rate, likely much less. This is why it is relevant.

healthcare should be available to whomever needs it, no matter their ability to pay.

Yeah, within limits though. Health care is not a right, much like food to eat is not a right. However, there are social safety nets in place to ensure people have food to eat. A basic nationalized health care plan to provide this social net should be available; in many cases it already exists. Nationalized health care also needs to consider the impact of the limited funds available to spend. It's called health care rationing and all nationalized plans practice it; indeed, insurance companies practice it too.

However, for those who want and can afford better quality care, then they should be able to do so.

I can answer that question for you. This is because government in other countries are not letting themselves be ripped off by big pharma. Here, it is a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. That is why meds are insanely expensive here - because big pharma has bought and paid for the legislation to make that happen. And they're reaping sweet dividends on that expense.

Kind of. We are a free market system here, that is why pharma companies can charge what they want in the US. Their pricing is limited by the availability of generics and/or the influence of prescription insurance plans who can decide what drugs are on their formularies and what tiers they occupy. It gets extremely complicated because even in the US people almost always pay the different amounts for the same drug. Sometimes it is even cheaper to get the drug without the insurance plan.

The other thing to consider is that the lower costs of drugs in other countries does not necessarily reflect the true cost of the drugs. Global pharma companies essentially depend on profits from the US to subsidize global development costs. And pharmaceuticals is a very risky business (risks) and should be compensated by larger profits (rewards) than something less risky like manufacturing and selling toys or cotton balls or some other commodity.

Even after considering all of this, the cost of drugs is a very, very small part of the overall cost of healthcare.

Now if I may interrupt to give an update on the topic...

Seems Israel realized this one was getting too much publicity.

Maybe his US citizenship helped him out afterall. I've learned there are hundreds of others in his same predicament yet without the media attention because of this kid's US citizenship status.

31 days is still too long.

Hopefully the kid will do what he can to keep out of trouble in the future.

The International Court of Justice's advisory opinions are the official determination of whether or not a particular issue is a violation of international law. "Non-binding" does not mean that ICJ rulings have no effect or don't matter or are "just opinions;" it means that it is not the body with the jurisdiction to enforce those findings. Its role is to advise the body that does have the jurisdiction to enforce.

Correct. Glad to see you're catching up on the process.

ICJ determinations and the 4th Geneva Convention are certainly legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its rulings.

Incorrect. Rules of jurisprudence define a legal precedent as a rule or principle established in a previous legal case.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties/protocols that establish standards for International Law as it relates to humanitarian treatement during war/armed conflict. There is much case law resting on these standards, but the Conventions themselves are not legal precedent.

As noted above, the previously referenced Advisory Opinion is not a legal case therefore cannot be a legal precedent. If the body having jurisdiction to act on the opinion makes a legal ruling, then that could be used as a legal precedent. Otherwise, it remains an advisory precendent which, while not useless, carries much less legal weight.

Good luck with that in front of the ICC

I have no plans to be in front of the ICC.

An excellent lawyer presenting to ICC would be accurate in their description.

Glad to see your obsession with accuracy doesn't have the concomitant complication of obsessive precision.

It's clear as per the Geneva Convention that Israel's settlements are war crimes. The ICJ reaffirmed it. These will both be legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its determination that yes, the settlements are war crimes.

The Israeli government is already preparing its defense for that inevitable day, a defense which seems to hinge on claiming that there actually is no occupation.

An Advisory Opinion is not a legal precedent, it would be an advisory precedent. A legal precedent is a rule or principle established in a previous legal case; neither of your citations qualify.

It's clear as per the Geneva Convention that Israel's settlements are war crimes. The ICJ reaffirmed it. These will both be legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its determination that yes, the settlements are war crimes.

The settlements are not war crimes.

The establishment of said settlements may be determined to be a war crime, based in part on the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ. Agreed.

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel's settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are a grave breach of the 4th Geneva Convention:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6

The 4th Geneva Convention describes such grave breaches as "war crimes."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

Your reference is to an Advisory Opinion which is NOT a binding legal judgement NOR a conviction of a war crime.

Your 'war criminals' remain alleged/accused war criminals and nothing more. (I do believe the allegations, though.)

If his family wanted to live in the USA, they could be here right now. They don't need an "anchor baby" to come here. You're not making any sense.

How do we know that? Perhaps I missed it somewhere earlier, but that would require a valid visa/residency permit. All I know is that they lived in the US at one point in time and their son was born in the US, hence his US citizenship.

The 'anchor baby' concept is very, very common and that is why Darnell's statement makes a lot of sense.

The Rome Statute is very clear.

Yes, it is. The Rome Statute not only establishes the Court and its jurisdiction, it also defines the various crimes for which it has jurisdiction. The criteria you quote are expressly for the purposes of the Statute.

The Rome Statute does not contain provisions for anyone outside of the Court to label someone a war criminal.

Either you'd have to argue that Israel does not in fact transfer its civilian population into the occupied West Bank, or you'd have to argue that there is in fact no occupation.

Good luck with either one.

I don't have to argue either point. Without a conviction, they remain accused/alleged of war crimes.

Personally, I think there are Israelies who should be arraigned/tried/convicted of war crimes/crimes against humanity. Various entities and individuals within Palestine have previously been accused/tried/convicted and rightfully so.

They are not "convicted" war criminals until they are convicted.

This is the reason for Israel's freak-out over international recognition of the Palestinian state. Next stop: ICC.

Then, in your obsessive quest for accuracy, you should have referred to them as "accussed/alleged war criminals"

Read up on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, particularly Article 8: War Crimes.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf

I am familiar with the Rome Statute, that is why I stated that there is likely enough evidence to arraign/convict.

However, they are not war criminals until convicted of such crimes. The Rome Statute doesn't change that.

I'm asking a question based on a certain scenario. Hypnos implied that the K1 is an immigration roadblock for the beneficiary and I'm not sure that it is.

Israeli settlers and the soldiers and government that is protecting and enabling them are war criminals.

Alleged war criminals. I am not aware of any Israeli being arraigned or convicted of a war crime in this conflict.

I do think there is plenty of fodder to change this though.

Maybe Israelis are the ones makes the "wrong choice."

Agreed.

Palestinians are just so unreasonable.

I've met many, many reasonable Israelis and Palestinians alike.

However, the leadership on both sides are 'just so unreasonable.' If they had sense of reason, they'd have found a way to work through their problems by now.

It doesn't matter if she marries someone else, since she entered on a K-1 she can only ever adjust status to the person who sponsored her for a K-1, i.e. you.

What if immigrant married someone other than K1 sponsor and later filed VAWA petition to adjust status claiming abuse by the spouse?

Most physicians/clinics are going to want you to undergo an exam before prescribing you a prescription. Do you have any records from home that can verify you've been prescribed the BC before? That would be helpful. Also, if your fiancé has a regular physician whom he knows fairly well, you could discuss it with him/her and see if he/her could help you out.

ATL 9/10

SVO 2/10

CDG 1/10

BCN 7/10

ORD 3/10

LON (all three) 2/10

AMS 8/10

NRT 10/10

DCA 8/10 (took off a point for the name change from Washington National to R**g*n National)

IAD 1/10

JFK 2/10

LGA 5/10

PVD - T.F. Green Airport Providence RI

LOVE this little airport ... worth the drive to avoid BOS. Also offers commuter service to Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.