On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:48:17 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:38:43 GMT, john_kulp@hotmail.com (John
>Kulp) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:23:48 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the health care, I can't speak for Sweden, but I would
>>>>>rather have the health care in Finland than here in the USA, were
>>>>>it not for the fact that I have excellent retirement coverage
>>>>>through the California Public Employees Retirement System.
>>>>
>>>>If you have excellent care through the California system, why would
>>>>you opt for Finland?
>>>
>>>Hence the phrase "... were it not for ...".
>>
>>Then, presumably, you would go anywhere that provided healthcare then
>>if you didn't have it here. Why just Finland?
>
>It's the only country where we've used the health system and
>where I have lots of relatives to tell me about it.
Makes sense. Scandinavians do have high quality healthcare when you
can get it.
>
>As for the other implicit part of your question, were I to go to
>some other country it would be Finland for the simple fact that I
>have inherited fast track immigration and citizenship. I wouldn't
>mind having EU citizenship.
My children and grandchildren like having both. Gives them a lot of
flexibility and choice.
>
>On the other hand I once moved to Montreal, Canada, as a landed
>immigrant (qua "green card") with the intention of taking up
>permanent residence, but after one winter my wife asked if I
>could go to grad school in a warmer climate and lo! we moved to
>Tucson.
Cold weather doesn't bother me, as I live in Colorado. The lack of
sun up north does though. |