The solution will be an experiment - US states as 'laboratories of democracy'

Perhaps not. The EU would be the best example of a “soft conquest”. The EU offers a bunch of carrots to member states - but requires that they adopt democracy, a stable government, various principles on human rights, allow free movement of other EU citizens, adopt the euro, and so on. Also total failure countries like Greece are being handled somewhat differently.

I could see a situation arising where a single world power manages to develop some really compelling technology. Something that requires a highly sophisticated economy to develop, a mass effort that uses software systems more sophisticated than anything we’ve ever seen. The product would of course be a medical system capable of curing almost all disease and reverting a person’s biological age to their physical peak.

Anyways I could see the powers that have something like this using it as leverage. If you think about it, any nation that refuses terms is having it’s own citizens die from disease by the millions every year. I don’t know about you, but if China had this tech and I had to renounce my citizenship and flee this country to get it, I would. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t all your neighbors?

You would do so only if you believe that what you’ve seen and heard about this tech is ‘true’, i.e. that you, yourself, will receive it and all its purported benefits.

I’m not sure that’s something that can ever be said now. ‘To be certain’. Rudy may have been on to something.

Valid points. Also the minimum wage here is far lower than it is in blue states and big cities.

It seems like something that couldn’t be faked. And I am assuming the other nation with this kind of tech would allow wealthier and more educated Americans to jump ship to their side.

If the US had an immigration deal with Europe similar to what the EU has within its own borders I could see a lot of human capital leave the US.

Brutal, overpriced health care. Insane politics. Lack of respect for science and minorities. Lack of labor laws. These things all damage quality of life for societies more productive members.

I think the US would undergo a brain drain, at least somewhat, if it were easier to immigrate to Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. Especially when real time translation devices become mainstream in a few years.

The best of the best in most fields would probably stay here due to our tertiary education system being world class, but a lot of skilled technicians and middle management types would leave if they could.

But even the best of the best may leave, China is trying to create a society friendly to entrepreneurs.

Our system is designed so that every state can try something different, and then whatever solution is the worst ends up being implemented nationally. The incentives are perverse.

Do you think any one nation could maintain a monopoly in something like that? The government espionage and corporate espionage would spread that technology pretty fast.

If Europe, Canada, and Australia have immigration laws that deter / prevent “societies more productive members” / “a lot of skilled technicians and middle management types” from immigrating, they’re doing it wrong.

It is pretty difficult for an American to get residency in Europe or Canada. If it were easier I’m sure a lot of talented people would leave America due to health care and politics.

Ok, what’s the source of your certainty? Did you read a poll? Conduct a study? Is it just based off personal conversations you’ve had with a few acquaintances? Something else?

Have you looked at the forms? It’s a pain in the ass. We can look at the requirements for a specific nation after work later. Name a country that is higher than the USA on the human development index you think is easy to emmigrate to from USA.

On election night 2016 The Canadian immigration website was overloaded with traffic and crashed.

It may not happen today, but if Americans knew they could have the health care and labor laws of Canada or Europe anytime they wanted, I’m sure many highly skilled people would leave.

Not everyone, but I’m guessing 5-10% or more of adults would seriously consider it.

Where do I sign?

Dibs on the Dakotas!

Except we’d merge them into one province and re-name them “Lower Saskatchewan”.

What would be your master renovation plans for Mount Rushmore … and the Crazy Horse Memorial for that matter?

Everything in this is accurate, but essentially irrelevant. In Canada, the federal government mandated that each province and territory create a single payer system and set up fairly strict rules on what it had to cover (basically most things except dental, still not covered), copay (permitted at first, then banned) and deductible (banned). If the US federal passed such a law, it would be thrown out by courts so fast, you would have to duck.

The best proposal I have heard is to have the eligibility age for medicare gradually decline, so that the change comes slowly. That would leave the federal government take over. It would also leave deductibles and copays, not to mention doughnut holes, in place, but hey, you can’t win them all.

I suspect that if the Taft-Hartley act hadn’t replaced the Wagner act (which allowed closed shops–real agents for discrimination), it would have been thrown out by now. The real mistake was giving states the option of opting out of the union shops. That led to the race to the bottom that has destroyed unions. Maybe that was intentional. Truman vetoed it, but it was passed over his veto.

No, the Canada Health Act and its predecessors didn’t mandate or require the provinces to provide Medicare. That would be unconstitutional. Parliament doesn’t have that authority under the division of powers.

Rather, the Feds in Canada used the power of the purse, just like the Feds in the US did with the Medicaid expansion in the AMA. Nor did they threaten to take any established funding away from the provinces, which was held to be unconstitutional in the SCOTUS.

The Canadian Feds offered money to the provinces for health care, on conditions that the provinces comply with requirements like comprehensive coverage and portability. A province didn’t have to accept it, but it was financially too good an offer to turn down. All the provinces opted in.

Why would that be unconstitutional in the US?

Oh, come on, you can do better than that: Baja Saskatchewan.

I’m not claiming there is such a country. I accept WC’s claim that it’s difficult and believe that “they’re doing it wrong”. I’m also unconvinced by WC’s website anecdote that “many highly skilled people would leave”. I think it’s at least as likely that the people crashing the Canadian immigration website were losers and morons, immature and prone to emotional reactions.

No, if we went bilingual, more likely Bas-Saskatchewan. :slight_smile: