Put the Us in the top 10 WHO's list f...

Put the Us in the top 10 WHO's list for best Healthcare

Posted in the Healthcare Law Forum

First Prev
of 274
Next Last

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#1 Jun 1, 2008
Rep. Conyers Single-Payer Health Bill
Bill # H.R.676

Original Sponsor:
John Conyers (D-MI 14th)

Cosponsor Total: 76
(last sponsor added 12/05/2006)
75 Democrats
1 Independents


About This Legislation:
The U.S. National Health Insurance Act (H.R.676) would provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services. H.R. 676 is a non-profit, single payer program. Non-profit means less chance that health care cost would increase due to insurance company profits and single payer means that bill payment would not involve both the insurance companies and the individual but solely the government. Funding for this program would come from multiple sources, including a modest payroll tax on all employers and employees (4.75%), a health tax on the top 5% and 1% of income earners (5% and 10% respectively), and a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
E-mail your state rep to support this Bill!
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#2 Jun 1, 2008
Thanks -- going to read up on it.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#3 Jun 2, 2008
After reading the bill it starts to sound like what Obama was advocating in his speech yesterday in South Dakota.

The bill does address some of the major issues regarding affordable and equitable health care for all citizens. You may already know this but most of the countries that we are losing jobs to have some form a government subsidized health care as well as lower wages. The rapid increase of this employer paid benefit has been a major impetus for sending good jobs to other countries. That said let me address my major concerns about medical care in the USA.

{1) Get the lawyers out medical care. Presently you can not sign away liability so if the doctor, therapist, nurse errors they will be sued. I want that waiver choice to lesson the overall cost of premiums. Presently doctors perform numerous expensive procedures and tests to satisfy legal requirements rather than medical on the remote chance they may be sued in this litigious society we live in. Insurance cost for a medical professional is prohibitive as a result. Choose your doctor wisely and trust him, you can always change if you can not communicate sadly people are aware that they control their own health not the clinician. No health treatment is without risk and no doctor, therapist or nurse errors intentionally. I like to believe they all do their best which is all anyone should ask.

(2) Trusting your health to a company that is profit driven is idiocy unfortunately there are few other options. To cite an example I am all too familiar with is therapeutic care. A therapist faces ethical dilemmas every day as a result of company pressure to make a profit at the expense of a person’s health. Group therapy substituting for individual care which is what you are paying for or a token measure of time rather than the allowable hour. Unnecessary therapy sessions are performed to maximize profits often using your Medicaid / Medicare / Insurance caps and monies depriveing funds for later in the year or treatment in the continuation of care.

(3) Too many specialist doctors interested in a perpetual caseload rather than ending medical procedures when possible. It is very profitable for them and costly to for you in time and insurance premiums. This abuse is often unnecessary and at times risky.

(4) Spread reimbursement more evenly top to bottom. Pay the employees more providing daily care so more and better skilled people will join the profession. One CNA over an 8 hour shift which quite normal equates to less than 15 minutes per. Doctors may be overpaid but certainly the opposite end of the spectrum is underpaid.

(5) Charge the actual cost for a medical procedure to all patients. For example: A hospital will charge the uninsured $20,000 while the insurance company pays $2,000. Be equal and fair with the cost of care and maybe some procedures can be paid out of pocket if necessary.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#5 Jun 2, 2008
One last thing – Allow more competition on over the counter and prescription drugs. My father before he died was paying ½ his pension every month for medication till I found out about it. His doctor spoke Spanish so I had all his prescriptions rewritten and with the doctors understanding and approval for the next 11 years I bought them all at 1/3 the cost on every visit to Colombia.

Pfizer Pharmaceuticals has their South American headquarters about 1000’ from my front door in a place called Salitre a barrio of Bogota. Salitre translated into English means saltpeter the primary ingredient for gun powder and limp peckers. This does give me pause at my advanced age however Pfizer is the maker of Viagra and has guards everywhere protecting their headquarters with bomb sniffing dogs.

You can never be too careful -:)

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#6 Jun 2, 2008
Phew! finally a non-confrontational thread!
Well Cue, as you probably know, I've lived most of my life under the British National Health system, and have never had the need to question the affordability of healthcare until I became a permanent resident in the US.
I now feel that I have the right, as do all Americans, to question why we are being screwed out of affordable healthcare.
Healthcare for all should be a right and not a privilege as the Republicans would have us believe.
We have a right to drive our cars on Federally funded Interstate highways, but have no right to free healthcare.
We have a right to free education for our children
but our children have no right to free healthcare.
The US is still one of the most advanced countries of the developed world in the field of medical science, that said, we are also listed by the 'WHO' as being #37 (at the bottom of all developed countries)
The apologists for the status quo dismiss the WHO as a liberal organization with a socialist agenda.
But the WHO uses criteria gathered from all aspects of healthcare, not just who's the most advanced in medical science, but more importantly the egalitarian aspect.
Not much good if only the country's elite and those with entitlements can afford this high tech medical service, while the rest of us make do with
outrageously high deductibles and out of pocket expenses ( and we're ones with insurance)
This also contributes to us having the lowest life expectancy, highest infant mortality rates, and most accidental patient deaths of all developed countries.
People are afraid to seek preventative medical care because of it's cost, and what should have been prevented becomes an ER admittance.
We haven't even addressed the 43,000,000 or so uninsured, as there are probably six times that figure who are under-insured because of exorbitantly high premiums.
One of the most damning indictments for "the most powerful country in the world", besides the fact that people are dying from lack of basic healthcare is that people are actually losing their homes to foreclosure for their inability to pay medical bills.
This does not happen in any other developed country in the world.
As you can see Cue, I'm very passionate about everybody's RIGHT to healthcare, it's a matter of political will of the powers that be.
Well! bedtime for me the wife is calling.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#7 Jun 3, 2008
WHO as I recall has dropped the USA in rank each of the last 5 years and Colombia where I also have a home has risen over the same period to #11. I have medical options and information in both countries not available to many people because I have 3 medical doctors in the family. My company even during retirement pays for all my medical premiums and the co-pays are small by today’s standards yet for many procedures I choose to go to Colombia because of the quality of care is much better and pay for it out of pocket. As an example: I can have a doctor visit me if I am sick in the home, place the order with the pharmacy wait for the delivery which is quick do a follow up visit for less than 100 dollars. The drugs are about a 1/3 less across the board with many that require a prescription here available over the counter like prednisone.

We donate to several political action committees regarding our concerns about medical care although the doctors, lawyers and pharmaceutical companies can outspend us 50 to 1on lobbyists. We also send a few letters to our congressmen such as Mel Martinez in Florida the closest thing we have to a democrat in the state. Here is part of return e-mail we received just yesterday.

“As you may know, Medicare physician reimbursement rates were scheduled to be cut by nearly 10 percent on January 1, 2008. In response to this, Congress quickly passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act (S. 2499) and the President signed it into law on December 29, 2007. This law increased the physician reimbursement rate by 0.5 percent and postponed the cut until July 1, 2008.”

As you can see Bush is not looking out for the best interests of the majority of Americans once again as are most republican congressmen however Democrats are not exactly free of blame either when you consider this paragraph.

“In response to the looming physician payment cut, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the Save Medicare Act (S. 2785) on March 13, 2008. This bill would extend the current 0.5 percent increase in the physician reimbursement rate through December 31, 2008, and would provide physicians with a 1.8 percent payment increase starting in 2009. S. 2785 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, where it awaits further consideration.”

My point is this the present system is broken beyond repair however there are many areas that could be improved upon such as the issues brought up in Bill # H.R.676 you started the forum with. Sadly till we get a president focused on that it will not happen. Clinton was and still is interested in a national healthcare program which is why I would like to see her on the ticket in some capacity. McSame seems not to give a shit and Obama lacks the political acumen to pull it off.

Just my view.

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#8 Jun 17, 2008
OFF TOPIC
An old, well maybe new, Irish proverb.

Tax his tractor, tax his mule; tell him, taxing is the rule.
Tax his car, tax his gas, tax his food, tax his cash
Tax him good and let him know, that after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more; tax him till he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave, tax the ground in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove him to his doom."
Once he's gone, we won't relax, till we collect the inheritance tax.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#9 Jun 18, 2008
reza june wrote:
OFF TOPIC
An old, well maybe new, Irish proverb.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule; tell him, taxing is the rule.
Tax his car, tax his gas, tax his food, tax his cash
Tax him good and let him know, that after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more; tax him till he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave, tax the ground in which he's laid.
Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove him to his doom."
Once he's gone, we won't relax, till we collect the inheritance tax.
OFF TOPIC

Since it is an IRISH proverb I did notice the English did not tax the "BEER". Probably a wise move considering their propensity for "Home Rule".

I suspect however somebody is taxing that and more these days in Ireland and England. This could be an American proverb as well.

I need to start my own tax free church. I think it will be called the "Sheeple church with a Steeple" with a paid lobbiest in Wash. D.C. to further my agenda.

Send Money!

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#10 Jun 18, 2008
Thought you might like this one, Cue!

A Solution to Midlife Crisis:

When I was married 25 years, I looked at my wife one day and said, Sweetheart! 25 years ago we had a cheap apartment, a cheap car, slept on a sofa bed and watched a 10-inch black and white TV, but I got to sleep every night with a hot 25-year-old blonde.'
Now we have a $500,000 home, a $45,000 car, a nice big bed and a plasma screen TV, but I'm sleeping with a 50-year-old woman. It seems to me that you are not holding up your side of things.
My wife, a reasonable woman said, Reza go out and find a hot 25-year-old blonde, and I will make sure that you will once again be living in a cheap apartment, driving a cheap car, sleeping on a sofa bed and watching a 10- inch black and white TV.
Aren't older women great?
They really know how to solve your mid-life crises!

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#11 Jun 18, 2008
Cue wrote:
<quoted text>
OFF TOPIC
Since it is an IRISH proverb I did notice the English did not tax the "BEER". Probably a wise move considering their propensity for "Home Rule".
I suspect however somebody is taxing that and more these days in Ireland and England. This could be an American proverb as well.
I need to start my own tax free church. I think it will be called the "Sheeple church with a Steeple" with a paid lobbiest in Wash. D.C. to further my agenda.
Send Money!
Cue wrote:
<quoted text>
The English did not tax the "BEER". Probably a wise move considering their propensity for "Home Rule".
The same couldn't be said when they taxed the tea in Boston!
I guess the English didn't count on tea having the same effect on Americans!
Funnily, the Americans never took up tea drinking after that.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#12 Jun 19, 2008
OFF TOPIC

While not trying to make a political statement I am having a little fun with this area at the moment inother forums. I think a case could be made that both presidential candidates are not according to the United States Constitution legally qualified to be running for president. I suspect neither party wishes to bring it up because both candidates have an issue.

The terminology of citizenship in the constitution is not consistent. Article II refers to “Natural Born”(born on American soil) and the 14th amendment refers to the naturalization process to become a citizen.

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States”. McCain was not born on American soil and no where in amendment “8 US 1403” does it refer to natural born.

§ 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

Many people also consider the 14th amendment unconstitutional for these reasons and should be considered null and void:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing this amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

McCain by definition is not allowed to run for president because he is a naturalized citizen as noted by the above quote from the 14th amendment.

Until the citizenship ubiquity of the United States constitution is resolved by the court system McCain in my view is not electable.

Obama has his own issues. Hawaii became a state in 1959 and he was born there in 1961 to a mother that was a US citizen but not a father – here is his problem.

"If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years".

Hawaii was a territory but not a state creating some legal issues of his own. What is interesting Obama taught constitutional law at Chicago University for 12 years. I believe at very least his candidacy should receive a judicial review just like McCain.

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#13 Jun 19, 2008
More Hot Topics, err I mean Off Topics!

Cue, just to reiterate what you have already said,
the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment)-- and news reports dealing with presidential eligibility almost invariably misstate the rule in this manner -- the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

This following paragraph seems to have the most legitimacy!
The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".[Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper:

Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson.

George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US.(Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney's parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney's campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been "brainwashed" by the military establishment into supporting US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

John McCain, an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans' eventual nominee, George W. Bush.
However, this time around nobody is questioning the constitutional legality of McSame to run.

Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case.

We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college's choice were challenged.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#14 Jun 19, 2008
Agreed. Electorial College -- one more antiquated non-democratic issue lol.

Another interesting thing I forgot to mention regarding McCain. He was born in Panama in 1936 yet the military hospital that he has said he was born in was not built and commissioned until 1942. Even if that is true the hospital is not located in the Panama Canal Zone mentioned in the 14th amendment and is located across the bay from the military base.

Natural Born" is only used to refer to the President and VP qualifications for this reason. The people that wrote the constitution felt it was important not to have dual citizenship and allegience with another country while holding these two important offices. McCain was given Panamanian a citizenship at birth and US citizenship when the 14th ammendment was modified and may still have dual citizenship. The term “Natural Born Citizen” in the context of the constitution is misunderstood and needs to be clarified in court or another amendment passed to modify that terminology.

That will take ¾ of the states to radify it and I am sure California will be the first in line to do it :)

Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#15 Jun 19, 2008
reza june wrote:
Thought you might like this one, Cue!
A Solution to Midlife Crisis:
When I was married 25 years, I looked at my wife one day and said, Sweetheart! 25 years ago we had a cheap apartment, a cheap car, slept on a sofa bed and watched a 10-inch black and white TV, but I got to sleep every night with a hot 25-year-old blonde.'
Now we have a $500,000 home, a $45,000 car, a nice big bed and a plasma screen TV, but I'm sleeping with a 50-year-old woman. It seems to me that you are not holding up your side of things.
My wife, a reasonable woman said, Reza go out and find a hot 25-year-old blonde, and I will make sure that you will once again be living in a cheap apartment, driving a cheap car, sleeping on a sofa bed and watching a 10- inch black and white TV.
Aren't older women great?
They really know how to solve your mid-life crises!
Sounds like my ex-wife however my lovely wife of today enjoyed it.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#16 Jun 19, 2008
The "OTHER" forum probably think we both got banned by Joan W aka aka aka Sanda Dee -- I am tired of the crap.

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#17 Jun 19, 2008
Cue wrote:
Agreed. Electorial College -- one more antiquated non-democratic issue lol.
Another interesting thing I forgot to mention regarding McCain. He was born in Panama in 1936 yet the military hospital that he has said he was born in was not built and commissioned until 1942. Even if that is true the hospital is not located in the Panama Canal Zone mentioned in the 14th amendment and is located across the bay from the military base.
Natural Born" is only used to refer to the President and VP qualifications for this reason. The people that wrote the constitution felt it was important not to have dual citizenship and allegience with another country while holding these two important offices. McCain was given Panamanian a citizenship at birth and US citizenship when the 14th ammendment was modified and may still have dual citizenship. The term “Natural Born Citizen” in the context of the constitution is misunderstood and needs to be clarified in court or another amendment passed to modify that terminology.
That will take ¾ of the states to radify it and I am sure California will be the first in line to do it :)
I am sure California will be the first in line to do it :)
Interestingly, Gov. Schwarzenegger has retained his Austrian citizenship throughout his term as Gov. of California.
The subject of dual nationality is also interesting, especially since the US requires, as part of the naturalization process, that everyone must take the Oath of Allegiance in which you are required to renounce all ties to any and all foreign nations.
But at the same time recognizing dual citizenship.
The danger lies in who's jurisprudence are you subject to, of course in reality it's usually the country where one resides.
However, lets say the US and Colombia were to declare war on each other, a very unlikely scenario, poor Cue might be interred in a POW camp as an enemy combatant, or worse as a spy.
Long live confusion!

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#18 Jun 19, 2008
Cue wrote:
The "OTHER" forum probably think we both got banned by Joan W aka aka aka Sanda Dee -- I am tired of the crap.
Honestly Cue, the amusement wore off for me, and I have since deleted that thread from my computer.
I did enjoy the back and forth banter from the likes of Gadfly and yourself, but the ladies, as articulate as some obviously were, were boring me to death with all the mundane crap.
Mama San I liked, and I noticed that she had the sense to make quick exit before getting dragged into a catch 22 of bitchiness.
I enjoy wit, and dry humour (which I think we both share) but intermingled on occasion with some serious thought.
I may even get back on topic with the healthcare issue.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#19 Jun 20, 2008
reza june wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly Cue, the amusement wore off for me, and I have since deleted that thread from my computer.
I did enjoy the back and forth banter from the likes of Gadfly and yourself, but the ladies, as articulate as some obviously were, were boring me to death with all the mundane crap.
Mama San I liked, and I noticed that she had the sense to make quick exit before getting dragged into a catch 22 of bitchiness.
I enjoy wit, and dry humour (which I think we both share) but intermingled on occasion with some serious thought.
I may even get back on topic with the healthcare issue.
Me too -- I check in but I am about to blow it away as well. I liked MIA a lot,she was 19 years old, Netherlands I believe and very well spoken for her age. She may been gone before you appeared. Not any men posting this week -- practicaly NONE -- just a rant by "The Bitches of Eastwick" The other forum seems to be less active but GADFLY visits there often it appears -- I not so much.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOQUUNK...

If you happen to be on a thread with a little wit and banter post it here and I will join you. It would appear we have this one pretty much to ourself to talk about anything we wish:)
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#20 Jun 20, 2008
“ON TOPIC”

I may have mentioned at some point wife runs the rehab department at a large religious retirement community of over 2,500 people with an average age of about 75. A problem I deal with often as I assist people trying to get payment for medical services I will share with you.

When a person is not Medicare eligible and has private insurance payment is pretty straight forward according to the terms of the policy. When Medicare eligibility is reached the fight ensues as to who pays for what. Then add another layer to that confusion by living in a retirement community that when you pay a monthly fee they will provide some services like wheelchairs, prosthetics etc. Now the real fight begins and nobody wants to pay for anything because they think they can get out of it.

To complicate matters are patients who are demented, incognizant with families in another state that do not give a shit.
Cue

“Rack-em, Sit, Shut-up, Repeat”

Since: Feb 08

Your Gene POOL Needs Chlorine

#21 Jun 20, 2008
reza june wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Interestingly, Gov. Schwarzenegger has retained his Austrian citizenship throughout his term as Gov. of California.
The subject of dual nationality is also interesting, especially since the US requires, as part of the naturalization process, that everyone must take the Oath of Allegiance in which you are required to renounce all ties to any and all foreign nations.
But at the same time recognizing dual citizenship.
The danger lies in who's jurisprudence are you subject to, of course in reality it's usually the country where one resides.
However, lets say the US and Colombia were to declare war on each other, a very unlikely scenario, poor Cue might be interred in a POW camp as an enemy combatant, or worse as a spy.
Long live confusion!
My wife has dual citizenship and yes when you take the oath you must promise to give up all allegiance to another country. They do not enforce it like so many laws in America nor do they check on it after you become an American citizen.

It used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S.(1952)-- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.

Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent -- at least in theory -- to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation and continues to consider the person's original citizenship to be in effect.

The wife when she travels uses both passports depending on the country she is in. Colombia wants to see both, USA only the American passport. I am not a citizen of Colombia so I have no value as a spy but a little ransom money is always a possibility.

Do you or your wife have duality in this regard?

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#possibl...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 274
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Healthcare Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Has anyone heard of Pfizer's Chantix (Dec '06) 11 hr medview 70,585
chantix - problems after quitting or weaning (Jun '07) Aug 23 melissa88 6,496
News GOP Gov: Brewer Defends Medicaid Expansion: 'We... (Jun '13) Aug 22 Ole Miss Heroin 31
News Al Franken: Health reform has made a difference... (Sep '10) Aug 22 Vote Trump 245
News U.S. judge says funeral home had religious righ... Aug 20 Sneaky Pete 4
News As Florida's Zika battle escalates, money to fi... Aug 20 Malcolm 3
News Fanny pack mixup unravels massive Medicare frau... (Jul '14) Aug 18 Dalsimer 666 14
More from around the web