skirtcafe.org

moonshadow wrote:

Jim wrote:

Ray wrote:If a country doesn't have a free healthcare system, it's a bit backward; uncivilised.

I agree.

Technically it's not free. Somebody has to pay for it, even if it's tax payers. I would call it a "communal healthcare system"...

But I get what your saying and I too agree.

Of course we all pay. But not extra when we need it, so there's no reason not to get treatment when needed. Most would stay healthier that way.

Moonshadow,

You really need to research things before you pop off about them! Saying all of the evidence shows that running for President was purely an exercise in ego on Hillary Clinton's part demonstrates you don't know a single thing about her.

From the time she was in high school through her church youth group she was involved in community servicer. In law school and immediately after she worked on children's issues. The head of the Children's Defense Fund is her personal mentor because she was so deeply involved in those issues then and since. During the whole time Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas she was working on children's legal and welfare issues. When she became First Lady she headed up the group that tried to create a public health system that the Republicans shot so full of holes. Next she wrote a book about children's issues, "It Takes a Village." Look it up on Wikipedia.

Hell, look HER up on Wikipedia. Her public service record's so stellar even Trump in his victory speech said we all owe her a debt of gratitude (Are we SURE that guy who delivered that speech was really the Donald? )

Fred,

Be honest, the ACA is not 200,000 pages long.

There may be close to that many pages of regulations, but it's closer to 1,000 pages.

I'd love to know what you think is scary in there. I do know there's money to do research on the cost-effectiveness of accepted treatments. Utterly essential because our current patchwork system will pay for almost anything that hasn't conclusively shown itself to be deadly so long as a doctor will do it. As a businessperson, wouldn't you prefer that someone at least find out which of those treatments actually work and provide the most bang for the buck?

It also allows Medicare to pay for a doctor visit every 5 years where you and your MD can spend the time discussing your end-of-life care options. With that kind of guidance you can leave detailed instructions on what you want and don't want. Without carefully worded, written instructions they'll do everything they can to keep your heart pumping and your EKG showing SOMETHING. In the meantime, the meter's running. BIG TIME. 70-90% of the money spent on the average person's medical treatments are spent in the last year of their life to extend their "life" another 3 months. Wouldn't you rather your heirs have that money? If not, doesn't make sense to give people the information they need to make an informed choice? It was a REPUBLICAN Senator from Louisiana who put that amendment in. And it was another Republican, Sarah Palin who described it as providing for a "death panel!"

Did the ACA create a lot of business for the insurance companies? Yep. Would a public system of universal have been a better choice? Certainly in my opinion! But guess what? The Congress and Senate weren't going to go for that! The President struggled for years to even get that cobbled up mess through that only addressed one facet of the bigger mess that we oxymoronically call a health care system. (There's nothing systematic about it except in its ability to suck funds out of our economy and deliver some of the poorest overall results. Before you dispute me look at life expectancy, infant mortality and incidence of major disease and compare to other developed nations.)

For all of its flaws 90% of us have health care coverage, an all-time high, and 20 million more folks have coverage than previously. The mandate for coverage made it possible for insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Remember those?

Yes, overall healthcare spending skyrocketed, and with it premiums, after it went into full effect. Before then, the premium increases were LOWER than they had been. What happened? Now that they had coverage, people got their chronic conditions dealt with and lots of people kept going to the place they always had, the ER for their treatment. Consider them start-up costs. Here in Oregon we used our federal funding from the ACA to set up comprehensive health care consortiums. One of the most effective things those consortiums are doing to hold down costs AND improve patient care is to set up call centers to remind people to fill their prescriptions (nationwide lots don't get filled), take the pills on schedule (see prior note) and come to their follow-up appointments (ditto).

In short, as limited as the reach of the ACA is, it's making a difference. But the Republicans are determined to repeal right when it's on the verge of delivering some results are of pure, simple spite toward it's author (or as Carl would prefer adapter to the whole nation).

Don't like the "spite" typification? What do you call the Republican Party's support for that birther nonsense? And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's stated goal of limiting Barack Obama to one term (clearly he failed at that) and then thwarting everything else he attempted as President since, the needs of the country be damned (most recently and notably filling out the Supreme Court)?

I was sure that my fellow countrymen were too smart to be fooled by Trump and that his candidacy would demonstrate to the Republican Party how foolish they have been over the last couple of decades with the tenor of their campaigns. Clearly, my crystal ball's not the best. Maybe if I had taken some college level classes in political science ... ?

Where was I?

Oh yes, Carl,

Your super majority idea would defeat one of the main purposes of the Electoral College, yes the Framers really did have something in mind, namely to see that the smaller states didn't get neglected by the Presidential candidates. And indeed, because the race for the President is a state by state affair, it starts in Iowa, in the heart of the Great Plains. Only 2% of our population still works the land, but where would we be without them? Shifts to New Hampshire with just 3 or 4 electoral votes because so few people live there. During the time period between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries nearly every resident meets nearly every candidate and those folks measure the Presidential wannabes by the New England standards that launched the country (well the Northern half anyway).

If the contest was determined by the popular vote, including a super majority, the candidates would never leave the major urban areas. Never give a single thought to the people who till the soil, who live in small town America, etc. Do you really want that Carl?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill's thoughts on democracy, the Electoral College system is the dumbest way to elect a President, except all the others.

Every 4 years the newspapers and now the Internet is full of alternatives, but they never go anywhere. Even though as a nation we have clearly outgrown the other original purpose* of the Electoral College, no serious alternative has convinced enough Congressmen and Senators or state legislatures to reduce the idea to a Constitutional amendment.

* One of the Framers overriding concerns was that a popular vote might select, as the refrigerator magnet put it, "a friggin' moron" or worse yet a demagogue. They really didn't have a lot of confidence in the average individual or even their collective wisdom. They assumed that the people selected for the Electoral College would be the best of the best and if need be they'd ignore the results of the ballot box and choose the best person in the country. Since then, the state legislatures have made that scenario a near impossibility by limiting the Electors' prerogatives to next to zero in most cases.

I'm sorry if I've taken up too much of the forum's storage space with an over-long, amateur hour civics lesson, but it's one of my passions!

To our cousins in the UK,

Are you sure your Queen isn't looking to reclaim that prize real estate her ancestors ceded? Perhaps her solicitor should reexamine the terms of the Treaty of Paris to see if there is a provision for nullification if the successors on this side of the pond prove themselves incapable of effective self-rule ...

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:In short, as limited as the reach of the ACA is, it's making a difference. But the Republicans are determined to repeal right when it's on the verge of delivering some results are of pure, simple spite toward it's author (or as Carl would prefer adapter to the whole nation).

I'm not against the concept of the ACA, I'm against the way it was implemented. Had it gone the route of Germany and got profit motive out of it (and backed that up with proper oversight) I'd have been OK. What I am NOT OK with is is conferring unto private for-profit enterprise the power to tax.

Perhaps it's, "Romneycare: The new Poll Tax".

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:[Carl's] super majority idea would defeat one of the main purposes of the Electoral College, yes the Framers really did have something in mind, namely to see that the smaller states didn't get neglected by the Presidential candidates. [...] If the contest was determined by the popular vote, including a super majority, the candidates would never leave the major urban areas. Never give a single thought to the people who till the soil, who live in small town America, etc. Do you really want that Carl?

Note that the crux of my argument does not or necessity abolish the Electoral College; what it does require is that there at least be some form of mandate from the general electorate. This 48.5% / 48.8% nonsense has to stop since we effectively have a two-party system (no matter what the rulebook says) -- neither candidate even got a simple majority of the votes. Even a small simple majority in the popular vote can produce large swings in the Electoral College, but having to win both might make the results a wee bit more palatable.

I've humorously commented in the past that another way to solve the issue would be to strip the leading candidates naked, grease them, issue each a rubber chicken, and lock 'em a room and the one that comes out alive wins. Video surveillance optional. (This is not a reasonable or civilised way to deal with things.)

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Are you sure your Queen isn't looking to reclaim that prize real estate her ancestors ceded? Perhaps her solicitor should reexamine the terms of the Treaty of Paris to see if there is a provision for nullification if the successors on this side of the pond prove themselves incapable of effective self-rule ...

Gee, who's the spy now?

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Moonshadow,

You really need to research things before you pop off about them! Saying all of the evidence shows that running for President was purely an exercise in ego on Hillary Clinton's part demonstrates you don't know a single thing about her.

From the time she was in high school through her church youth group she was involved in community servicer. In law school and immediately after she worked on children's issues. The head of the Children's Defense Fund is her personal mentor because she was so deeply involved in those issues then and since. During the whole time Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas she was working on children's legal and welfare issues. When she became First Lady she headed up the group that tried to create a public health system that the Republicans shot so full of holes. Next she wrote a book about children's issues, "It Takes a Village." Look it up on Wikipedia.

Hell, look HER up on Wikipedia. Her public service record's so stellar even Trump in his victory speech said we all owe her a debt of gratitude (Are we SURE that guy who delivered that speech was really the Donald? )

Fred,

Be honest, the ACA is not 200,000 pages long.

There may be close to that many pages of regulations, but it's closer to 1,000 pages.

I'd love to know what you think is scary in there. I do know there's money to do research on the cost-effectiveness of accepted treatments. Utterly essential because our current patchwork system will pay for almost anything that hasn't conclusively shown itself to be deadly so long as a doctor will do it. As a businessperson, wouldn't you prefer that someone at least find out which of those treatments actually work and provide the most bang for the buck?

It also allows Medicare to pay for a doctor visit every 5 years where you and your MD can spend the time discussing your end-of-life care options. With that kind of guidance you can leave detailed instructions on what you want and don't want. Without carefully worded, written instructions they'll do everything they can to keep your heart pumping and your EKG showing SOMETHING. In the meantime, the meter's running. BIG TIME. 70-90% of the money spent on the average person's medical treatments are spent in the last year of their life to extend their "life" another 3 months. Wouldn't you rather your heirs have that money? If not, doesn't make sense to give people the information they need to make an informed choice? It was a REPUBLICAN Senator from Louisiana who put that amendment in. And it was another Republican, Sarah Palin who described it as providing for a "death panel!"

Did the ACA create a lot of business for the insurance companies? Yep. Would a public system of universal have been a better choice? Certainly in my opinion! But guess what? The Congress and Senate weren't going to go for that! The President struggled for years to even get that cobbled up mess through that only addressed one facet of the bigger mess that we oxymoronically call a health care system. (There's nothing systematic about it except in its ability to suck funds out of our economy and deliver some of the poorest overall results. Before you dispute me look at life expectancy, infant mortality and incidence of major disease and compare to other developed nations.)

For all of its flaws 90% of us have health care coverage, an all-time high, and 20 million more folks have coverage than previously. The mandate for coverage made it possible for insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Remember those?

Yes, overall healthcare spending skyrocketed, and with it premiums, after it went into full effect. Before then, the premium increases were LOWER than they had been. What happened? Now that they had coverage, people got their chronic conditions dealt with and lots of people kept going to the place they always had, the ER for their treatment. Consider them start-up costs. Here in Oregon we used our federal funding from the ACA to set up comprehensive health care consortiums. One of the most effective things those consortiums are doing to hold down costs AND improve patient care is to set up call centers to remind people to fill their prescriptions (nationwide lots don't get filled), take the pills on schedule (see prior note) and come to their follow-up appointments (ditto).

In short, as limited as the reach of the ACA is, it's making a difference. But the Republicans are determined to repeal right when it's on the verge of delivering some results are of pure, simple spite toward it's author (or as Carl would prefer adapter to the whole nation).

Don't like the "spite" typification? What do you call the Republican Party's support for that birther nonsense? And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's stated goal of limiting Barack Obama to one term (clearly he failed at that) and then thwarting everything else he attempted as President since, the needs of the country be damned (most recently and notably filling out the Supreme Court)?

I was sure that my fellow countrymen were too smart to be fooled by Trump and that his candidacy would demonstrate to the Republican Party how foolish they have been over the last couple of decades with the tenor of their campaigns. Clearly, my crystal ball's not the best. Maybe if I had taken some college level classes in political science ... ?

Where was I?

Oh yes, Carl,

Your super majority idea would defeat one of the main purposes of the Electoral College, yes the Framers really did have something in mind, namely to see that the smaller states didn't get neglected by the Presidential candidates. And indeed, because the race for the President is a state by state affair, it starts in Iowa, in the heart of the Great Plains. Only 2% of our population still works the land, but where would we be without them? Shifts to New Hampshire with just 3 or 4 electoral votes because so few people live there. During the time period between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries nearly every resident meets nearly every candidate and those folks measure the Presidential wannabes by the New England standards that launched the country (well the Northern half anyway).

If the contest was determined by the popular vote, including a super majority, the candidates would never leave the major urban areas. Never give a single thought to the people who till the soil, who live in small town America, etc. Do you really want that Carl?

To paraphrase Winston Churchill's thoughts on democracy, the Electoral College system is the dumbest way to elect a President, except all the others.

Every 4 years the newspapers and now the Internet is full of alternatives, but they never go anywhere. Even though as a nation we have clearly outgrown the other original purpose* of the Electoral College, no serious alternative has convinced enough Congressmen and Senators or state legislatures to reduce the idea to a Constitutional amendment.

* One of the Framers overriding concerns was that a popular vote might select, as the refrigerator magnet put it, "a friggin' moron" or worse yet a demagogue. They really didn't have a lot of confidence in the average individual or even their collective wisdom. They assumed that the people selected for the Electoral College would be the best of the best and if need be they'd ignore the results of the ballot box and choose the best person in the country. Since then, the state legislatures have made that scenario a near impossibility by limiting the Electors' prerogatives to next to zero in most cases.

I'm sorry if I've taken up too much of the forum's storage space with an over-long, amateur hour civics lesson, but it's one of my passions!

To our cousins in the UK,

Are you sure your Queen isn't looking to reclaim that prize real estate her ancestors ceded? Perhaps her solicitor should reexamine the terms of the Treaty of Paris to see if there is a provision for nullification if the successors on this side of the pond prove themselves incapable of effective self-rule ...

Maybe you should take your own advice before popping off on Moon. Hilary calls kids retards there's recordings of it.She's also allowed a rapist to walk and admitted he was guilty there's recordings of that. She LIED to the FBI there's proof of that as well she is not good to run our country with how corrupted she is and I don't give a sh*t what you say about that either it's pure facts. Now maybe she had accomplishments but the woman had her fair share of issues too just like Trump does it can't always be pointing fingers at Trump and no one realizes that Hilary isn't perfect too. As long as you make your post you should have ran for President

It's about time we actually have someone in the White House that isn't family linked. For example Kennedy's, Bushes, Clinton's. Every time you get someone in that White House that's family linked this country goes to hell in a hand basket. Now I respect those who voted for Hilary but respect my views. I don't like the woman. She was committing crimes way back when Bill was in office with the Whitewater Scandal. She's still doing things to hurt this country and if you require proof I'll get it for you. Bottom line is yes Trump isn't experienced but I feel he stands a chance in getting our country fixed. When Obama ran he screwed things up worse for us. Such as Obamacare half the doctors won't even see patients. If you have to go to the hospital they require a good lump sum towards your bill. It's ridiculous. All these riots and fights over whose in office like it or not he made it and that's something everyone's just going to have to deal with. We seriously do need to Pray for him that he lives up to doing what this country needs and getting us whole again. Right now this country is a mess. If he doesn't workout then yes I will be the first to admit it but I can't bash someone who just got into office. I'd like to see how this four years goes. All I'm asking is that you all do the same. We can all Pray and hope for the best.

JennC03 wrote:It's about time we actually have someone in the White House that isn't family linked. For example Kennedy's, Bushes, Clinton's.

For the record, a more accurate (and descriptive) term for that is political dynasty.

Judah14 wrote:

JennC03 wrote:It's about time we actually have someone in the White House that isn't family linked. For example Kennedy's, Bushes, Clinton's.

For the record, a more accurate (and descriptive) term for that is political dynasty.

Maybe so but I'm sure you get my point.

JennC03 wrote: Maybe so but I'm sure you get my point.

Of course I get your point as political dynasties are very common here in the Philippines. Very often the mayor of a town or city will be from the same family, like the Binay family associated with Makati City, Jejomar Binay also was the previous vice-president of the Philippines.

Judah14 wrote:

JennC03 wrote: Maybe so but I'm sure you get my point.

Of course I get your point as political dynasties are very common here in the Philippines. Very often the mayor of a town or city will be from the same family, like the Binay family, associated with Makati City.

I understand that.

I'm all for sitting back and seeing where this thing ends up -- not that any of us have any choice or say in it now. I heard about the violence in Portland, OR this morning on the radio, and it seems like it was meted out by civilians and police alike. The protesters don't want to recognise Trump as their president. I don't. However, that is no excuse for random violence and vandalism. Portland, for crying out loud. What has the US come to?

So, we need to wait and see what happens. My personal bet is that we'll see more erosion of personal and civil liberties, a generally much nastier society, and that, financially, it'll be "business as usual". That's precisely what's been going on since 2000; but it's the nastiness that worries me because I like things civil. Yes, I'll probably be bankrupt with most of the rest of the working class by 2020, but that's been in the cards since the 1980s when the neocons first swept into power. The thing that's scary about Trump is that no-one knows what he really stands for.

In any event, I went to bed early on Tuesday night. This was mainly because I had to get up at 01:15 on Wednesday to prep for a major batch of computer work that commenced at 02:00, but also knowing that I was going to be torqued off by what I read in the morning; I'd known that since 2015, so the fact that I was torqued off come about 07:00 came as no surprise. I do admit surprise at the outcome as every indication I saw was that Clinton had it locked up (one way or another).

The question now is whether the Wall Street types can keep The Donald's toes on the line; my guess is that they will. The rest may be more risky for us "Little People" who happen to be able to think and draw our own conclusions because it's the smart ones that ask the sorts of troubling questions that the leadership doesn't want asked.

crfriend wrote:I'm all for sitting back and seeing where this thing ends up -- not that any of us have any choice or say in it now. I heard about the violence in Portland, OR this morning on the radio, and it seems like it was meted out by civilians and police alike. The protesters don't want to recognise Trump as their president. I don't. However, that is no excuse for random violence and vandalism. Portland, for crying out loud. What has the US come to?

It makes you wonder. These are the same people that complain our country is going to hell. Well pulling stunts like above will not fix our country.

Okay you two, nobody's popping off on anyone.

Listen Dave, as far as politics go, I do generally align slightly more on your side of the spectrum than the more conservative members on this site granted, but lets face it, not to cast labels and pigeonhole people, but on the scale of politics (which is a sliding scale, similar to gender), you're obviously deeply blue. And that's okay, that's your right, and as I've said, many of my political opinions side with the blue's. But not all. Generally I'm a middle'er, a moderate, a "purple". My point is, that during my time on this site, as I read your post, it is quite clear that in your eyes the Democrats simply can't go wrong. Now Dave, I don't agree with that. I don't disagree with the Democrats most of the time, personally I think Kaine was a fine governor, and I think Obama would have gone down in history as a stellar president had it not been for the disaster of the ACA.

As I said in my last comment, I'm not saying Clinton was a "bad" human being, I'm simply saying that you can't attest with absolute certainty that she was a "good" one. It's impossible. You don't know her intimately. Even her closest family and friends don't know the insides of her head, heart, and soul. Maybe it [her heart] is in the right place, well, so is mine- and I make lots of mistakes, and sometimes I can even be a little vindictive myself, but I admit to being... human. She's not Jesus resurrected Dave. Yes I'm sure she's done some fine things over her life. Were they the result of a golden soul, or just another politician trying to project herself as a humanitarian, or some combination of the two? My bet is it's probably the result of the latter. Dave, that's everybody, that's human nature. Hell, I'll even admit I've done some charitable things in my life too, and I admit, I do get some satisfaction when I get a pat on the back for it, we all do. I do nice things at work, and of course I paint the picture that "oh it's not for my benefit... it's because I'm just a nice guy.... ", and I am a nice guy, but lets face it Dave, the fact that it looks good come evaluation time doesn't hurt either. I'm simply saying Ms. Clinton is most likely the same way. I'm sure deep down, as far as humanity goes, she's average, typical. I'm sure it swells her heart when she does good for humanity, but I'm also sure she likes that pat on the back, and like myself when it comes time for employment raises, she doesn't mind bragging about how great of a person she is when it comes election time.

As far as the ACA goes, no offence Dave, but once again, you've taken something that was that was created by a Democrat and painted it as flawless (Carl, I know what you're going to say, but Obama's the one that mandated it across the other 49 states). No it's not flawless Dave. It's not even near good. It's fraught with problems and issues. Dave, not everyone lives in a blue state. Not every state embraced the ACA with open arms like the west coaster's did. For those of us who live in states that didn't we got the worst of it all. I've talked to people here who have lost their tax refunds and had to pay out of pocket because of some snafu with tax credits, or they lost their job, or this, or that... as it said it's a cluster-f__k all the way around. If I lost my job tomorrow I'd be expected to provide my own insurance, but with what money? Unemployment? Assuming that my employer doesn't pull a "republican" and say I grazed a french fry, or extended a break 2 minutes too long and fired me for "theft" (to avoid paying unemployment). Even if I could score unemployment, what's that worth, a few hundred dollars per week? What will amount to around a thousand dollars per month? With rent coming in a $550, electric averaging around $150, water $100, groceries for three $80 per week, car payment at $300, car insurance at $80 other life expenses, it doesn't leave a lot to pay the profiteers at the health insurance company the several hundred dollars the DEMAND from me just because I'm an American citizen.

Boy sure would be nice if we had a national plan that covered us all regardless, and funded by a simple payroll tax. But no, our lawmakers dropped the ball on that one, Democrats and Republicans combined. So don't sit here and tell me the ACA is world class legislation. I may not be college educated, and I may not be as politically savvy as you and the others, but the simple fact is, I expect and demand my government to provide systems that work and provide for my and my families safety and security. I shouldn't have to be a political guru, or college grad. I shouldn't have to spend hours and hours trying to calculate how to maximize the most out of the ACA and locate all of it's little loop holes. My government should have provided a health care system that just works. Works for everyone, not just the smart, not just the well educated, but for everyone. Dave, you're an accountant, naturally you know where all the savings are at. Not everyone's an accountant, not everyone is good at crunching numbers. And even among those who are, not everyone wants to. I may be the best political and math wiz in the world, but I'd still rather have my free time to enjoy life, not sit here and vex over how to work the ACA to my advantage. That's not freedom, that's just wasting your life.

JennC03 wrote:It makes you wonder. These are the same people that complain our country is going to hell. Well pulling stunts like above will not fix our country.

Precisely. Random violence never achieves anything without the active collusion of other parties -- it's terrorism. The only time that succeeds in anything is if society as a whole cowers in the corner or the government cracks down on its own citizens. Sadly, it's the latter that usually happens. Part of the "enhanced nastiness" I sense coming will be a wholesale increase in police brutality, likely aided by relaxed laws on how the (increasingly non-civilian) police can act and how many more entirely militarised they can become.

I wonder if in a year's time I can accurately say, "I can see Russia from my porch." (Quite unlike Sarah Palin.) Because it does look like it's getting closer.

In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

Your new prime minister, Teresa May, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour’, ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.”

3. You will learn that the suffix ‘burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’; you may elect to spell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you find you simply can’t cope with correct pronunciation.

4. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

5. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

6. You will relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”,
but only after fully carrying out Task #1 (see above).

7. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. November 8th will
be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in the UK. It will be called “Come-Uppance Day.”

8. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun.

9. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

10. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

11. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of conversion tables… Both roundabouts and metrification will help you understand the British sense of humour.

12. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling “gasoline”) – roughly $8/US per gallon. Get used to it.

13. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with malt vinegar.

14. Waiters and waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

15. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “Lager.” American brands will be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine,” so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

16. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors as English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one’s ear removed with a cheese grater.

17. You will cease playing American “football.” There is only one kind of proper football; you call it “soccer”. Those of you brave enough, in time, will be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American “football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a
bunch of Jessies – English slang for “Big Girls Blouse”).

18. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable and forgiven.

19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

20. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due, backdated to 1776.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Ray wrote:In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.

Your new prime minister, Teresa May, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour’, ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.”

3. You will learn that the suffix ‘burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’; you may elect to spell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you find you simply can’t cope with correct pronunciation.

4. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

5. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

6. You will relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”,
but only after fully carrying out Task #1 (see above).

7. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. November 8th will
be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in the UK. It will be called “Come-Uppance Day.”

8. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun.

9. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

10. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

11. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of conversion tables… Both roundabouts and metrification will help you understand the British sense of humour.

12. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling “gasoline”) – roughly $8/US per gallon. Get used to it.

13. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with malt vinegar.

14. Waiters and waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

15. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “Lager.” American brands will be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine,” so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

16. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors as English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one’s ear removed with a cheese grater.

17. You will cease playing American “football.” There is only one kind of proper football; you call it “soccer”. Those of you brave enough, in time, will be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American “football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a
bunch of Jessies – English slang for “Big Girls Blouse”).

18. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable and forgiven.

19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

20. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due, backdated to 1776.

Thank you for your co-operation.

See here Guess it wasn't a joke!