Chinese Girl Offers to Marry Whoever Can Save Her Brother

A Chinese girl offers to marry any man willing to save her younger brother by paying for his expensive medical expenses.

From QQ:

Kunming Girl in Wedding Gown Looks for a Husband at Train Station, Bringing Along Her Sick Younger Brother

“I will marry whoever is able to save my brother, and can even immediately take the train with him back to his home to marry at once!” On the morning of January 24, Weibo user @黄习超 posted a series of “sister seeks husband to save younger brother” pictures, which caught the attention of many netizens. The pictures show 24 year-old Huang Xiju in a wedding gown together with her younger brother, who suffers from leukemia, at the Kunming train station, where she was hoping to find her brother’s savior among the crowd of travelers returning home to celebrate [Chinese] New Year’s.

Dressed in a white wedding gown, Huang Xiju certainly stood out from the crowd of travelers hurrying to catch trains to go home to celebrate [Chines] New Year’s. She held in her hand a sign, saying: “My little brother has leukemia. We borrowed more than 300,000 yuan for a bone marrow transplant, but complications after the surgery caused systemic sclerosis. We are now in need of 300,000 yuan more to ensure his full recovery. Since we do not have the money to pay the medical expenses, I am looking for a husband [who is willing to help us pay]! If there is someone who is willing to pay my brother’s medical expenses, I am willing to marry him, and am even ready to take the train home with him to register our marriage. I am Huang Xiju from Zhijin county in Guizhou province. I am 24 years old, 150cm tall, and I have a junior college degree! If you are interested you can go to the Hematology Department at Kunming People’s Liberation Army General Hospital to verify my brother’s condition. My brother’s name: Huang Xichao! His Doctor’s name: Li Yu! Serious inquiries only!”

Kunming-siblings-cancer 7

In the last three years, in order to cure Huang Xichao, the family has accumulated a debt of more than 300 000 yuan. A month ago the mother passed away after having suffered a bad fall while looking after her sick son. In a household that has suffered multiple tragedies and misfortunes, the still unmarried older sister Huang Xiju is willing to take on the responsibility of saving her little brother, and to sacrifice her own happiness in order to raise the money needed to cure him. Due to her strong eagerness in finding a good-hearted man who is willing to save her brother, she even put on a wedding gown, saying: “I’m ready to marry whoever is willing to save my little brother, and I am ready to travel home with him to marry at once!”

Kunming-siblings-cancer 3

On 2015 January 24, on the square by the Kunming railway station, Huang Xiju is wearing a wedding dress and holding a sign as she looks for a marriage partner together with her younger brother, who is wearing a patient gown. The two quickly attracted a large crowd of passers-by.

Kunming-siblings-cancer 4

In a ward at the hematology department of Kunming People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Huang Xiju is holding up her “urgently seeking marriage”-notice while wearing her white wedding gown. Her brother, who is lying in the hospital bed, feels sorry that his sister is using this way to raise the money needed to save him.

Kunming-siblings-cancer 5

Behind Kunming People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, in a room smaller than five square meters, Huang Xichao helps his older sister Huang Xiju to put on a wedding gown. They are getting ready to go out in the street to search for a marriage partner who can pay for Huang Xichao’s treatment.

Kunming-siblings-cancer 6

2015 January 24, at the Kunming railway station square. Huang Xiju is wearing a wedding dress as she looks for a marriage partner together with her younger brother. The two quickly attracted a large crowd of passers-by.

Comments from QQ:

READ  Buried Under Textbooks Preparing For Entrance Exam

香水百合

Her brother looks like a “white-eyed wolf” [ungrateful person] anyway, without the slightest feeling of gratitude [for his sister’s desperate act]. As a younger brother, can you ruin your sister’s life like this!

…臭屁神豆…  

You should go to the airport; most train travelers are not rich!

缘来是你

Act fast all you single tuhao!! Save a life and get a wife in the bargain!

明亮

Hope there is a good-hearted person out there who will save him.

夏大燕

Without any other option, the sister can only sell herself to save her brother. A sister’s love moves heaven and earth. I hope this loving sister gets her reward! I hope the little brother gets help from a good-hearted person soon!

雪上一只蒿

Best to go find the Red Cross, and it might even work, [but] what you’re doing is thoroughly improper!

豆奶

China’s entrepreneurs and charitable foundations, now is a great opportunity to become famous, seize it!!

贝贝

When the lives of our loved ones are in danger, no one will be so rational as to put much thought into [what they’re doing]. Marriage when compared to the lives of our loved ones is nothing! Don’t be inconsiderate towards other people’s difficulties, and don’t think you’re so rational in refusing to believe these things; that just shows how sad you are! And if you don’t believe it, don’t attack others because you have nothing better to do. Think of how you behave [and how you are perceived by others]!

[Note: This is in partial response to many skeptical netizens who suspect this is just a publicity stunt.]

沙漠绿洲

If you are willing to help then go ahead and give some help. Those who are not willing to help, be nice! We all have loved ones! We all face difficulties at some point!

漂亮小妞

Rich men already have wives; those who don’t have wives, how much money could they have…

彼岸花开

This story is probably true. I believe this girl’s approach was a last resort; she wants to raise money fast. The well-fed don’t know how the starving suffer. Those people who have more money than they can spend should help these siblings out.

Since Fauna wasn’t willing to marry whoever can save chinaSMACK, we can only ask for a form of polygamy.
Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • mr.wiener

    *Sigh*… another sad China story. We are left wondering if this is a scam, or worse is it for real. We will speculate if we were the brother we should not burden our family and force our sister into marriege or why the sister is willing to do this… maybe that stupid Chinese millionare will show up in his green suit and pop a few wheelies on his BMX bike.
    …but at the end of the day we all know nothing will change at all.

    • Irvin

      Reminds me of the quote “we are either alone in the universe, or we are not, both are equally terrifying”. In this case, she’s either for real, or not, both are equally fucked up.

    • Guest

      I like to be hopeful. A lot of modern China right now, reminds me of Victorian England, a truly awful place full of child labouring in dangerous condition, young girls being married off to old man for money, victim blaming, virginity obsession, pollution so bad that policeman had to wear masks in the london ‘fog’ – and lots of farmers being kicked off their land so that they are either crammed into the cities or have to go aboard and ruin other people’s countries too, in their desperation.

      But England today is much better than Victorian England right? They got better.

      The big difference is that Victorian England had some semblance of democracy and a traditional of Christianity where you were at least supposed to good for goodness’s sake – their god isn’t a god of money – but if I was looking at Victorian England at that time, full of people who are okay going through their daily lives while children swept chimneys, die, get swapped out, and women are practically sold – I would have thought nothing could change too.

  • Raymond

    Reading about systemic sclerosis, I found that it is not curable and only the symptoms can be alleviated. 65% of patients diagnosed with systemic sclerosis live for at least 10 years. So whoever is asking them for 300,000 yuan to cure him seems very sketchy.

    • JayJay

      I thought it was rather suspicious too. No logical person will marry her for this very reason anyway. It would be morally wrong. And what happens if she divorces him?

    • Free Man

      Maybe the girl wants to marry and is desperate to find a groom, but too ashamed to offer herself like this. So she needs an excuse to pull publicity.

      Or she’s just plain stupid and wants to save her brother any way there is, even though an educated person would understand that there is no way.

      • Poodle Tooth

        This is a way to be sure the suitor is at least somewhat wealthy.

      • Vance

        If all she wanted was a husband, she could use an online dating service I would think. Not as embarrassing as going out on the street to “panhandle” for a husband. I do wish them the best though.

    • Jahar

      She might just be ignorant. Or the doctors are full of shit(like most doctors I’ve seen here).

      Maybe a quick death would be the best help for him.

    • Guest

      I’m guessing that the girl is offering to publicly ‘marry’ whoever will give her brother medical money, because to advertise prostitution is illegal – but she’ll probably accept sex/mistress-ship for medical money – even though that wouldn’t even offer her the legal protection / legitimacy of marriage. (Considering that many Chinese men don’t want to marry non-virgins – it’s something that is going to damage her happiness). : (

      It’s like something out of Charles Dickens, this.

  • Great jingle from above…
    “Act fast all you single tuhao!!
    Save a life and get a wife
    in the bargain!”

  • Luke the Duke

    They’d need to be some pretty small medical bills.

  • TexasRiverBum

    No universal healthcare in China?

    • Poodle Tooth

      Not as such, no. Very cheap state hospitals, but if you’ve got a serious illness and you don’t have money, you’re in trouble.

      It’s the second worst system among the world’s major economies.

      • Qiu Shi Sheng

        Hey at least there’s a system at all :p better than ones with nothing

        • Probotector

          All’s well and good then!

        • vincent_t

          sounds like the right time for xijinpingcare!! except you can’t put up any demonstration against it.

  • kingObing

    The matter of whether or not this is “proper” or “improper” is a matter of how society looks at this. In a poisoned society functioning to maintain surface harmony while everything below rots, this may be considered improper. On the other hand, in a society that understands desperation and doing the things you HAVE to do, this is just another part of life.

  • Amused

    Oh Jesus. Really? Just when you think that shit can’t get any more fucked up, China goes and proves you wrong again.

  • Mighty曹

    It’s always touching, heart warming and sad to see family making sacrifices for each other. But as the younger brother I would feel I have caused enough burden and suffering to my family so much that I would be the one to make the sacrifice – if I can even call it that – to ensure that my sister has a fruitful life ahead of her.

    BTW, the photo of the sister in the poster looks quite different. Nice cosmetic job.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Edit: Nice Photoshop job.

  • Qiu Shi Sheng

    I don’t see anything wrong with offering one self to pay the 300k debt.
    Financial pressure has always been there in the past no matter how far back you look.
    Females are always looking for ways to be taken care of.
    Gold diggers offer their youth and looks for $$$$ and others offer various other things in exchange…. the majority of man only want one thing…. And it just happens we men really value that one thing which leads to the thriving porn and sex industry.

    • Amused

      It’s so very sad that any guy who called himself a man would ever feel he had to pay for some ass… I mean, I can understand it if you were in a fire and got your face burnt up or something, or maybe if fate stuck you with a 2 inch micro-penis, but daaaaaamn that’s got to kill your ego.

      • sudon’t

        There’s a shortage of females in China, due to the “one child” policy, and a preference for male babies. Competition is a little rougher there.

        • Amused

          Not really. I live in China and I’d say its just as easy to meet someone here as it is in most places. Difficult to find a GOOD person, but hell that describes everywhere.

      • Qiu Shi Sheng

        I have non of these problems but I think paying for ass is pretty normal, money exist for a reason ;)
        And talk about short penis… I was in Japan last year in a hot spring…some 5year old kid had a longer penis than a 50+ dude.
        I truly felt sorry…. for him it was wider than its length.

  • Repatriated

    Medical costs ANYWHERE are just FUBAR. It cost me 674 for an ER visit for a flu here in the US. Seriously? I was there for 2 hours, consulted with a DR for 5 mins…and ended up with one helluva bill. They did end up doing a multitude of tests, but even so, shouldn’t we be more worried about taking care of people than making a few (well LOT) of bucks?

    Prescription meds were NOT included in the cost either. Add another 120 for those.

    • icup ✔️

      there are free clinics but you usually have to wait sometimes 2-4 hours before you’re seen… but you still need to pay for your meds.

    • Teacher in China

      Not anywhere, bub. In Canada, that would have cost you $0.

      • Alex Dương

        Obligatory ‘murican retort: don’t tax me, bro.

      • Irvin

        My mother had brain surgery in ‘merica , with her skull opened and all and it also cost her $0

        • Probotector

          Dude, a gangbanger clocking your momma over the head for 10 cents doesn’t count as brain surgery.

        • Teacher in China

          I guess she was lucky enough to have the right insurance and the right hospital. Not everyone is so lucky.

        • RickyBeijing

          cost her $0?!?! no insurance?!?! because you know if you pay for health insurance that you are paying for health care, right?!?!

          • sudon’t

            She might’ve been on welfare. That, or simply not paying the bills.

        • Raymond

          I’m guessing she spent enough co-pay to reach her deductible from previous exams, tests and medication?

    • NAG

      If you think the flu is worthy of an ER visit and prescription meds, than you deserve to get fleeced.

    • Probotector

      “shouldn’t we be more worried about taking care of people than making a few (well LOT) of bucks?”

      America needs to grow up and join the rest of us providing free medical care.

      Reminds me of John Lithgow in ‘Santa Claus The Movie’.

      • Luke the Duke

        Americans pay less tax and more ‘on the day’ costs, people wherever you’re from pay more tax and lower ‘on the day’ costs. I don’t see why it is that you think you’re winning.

        • Probotector

          God you Americans and your butt hurt is almost as nationalistic as the Chinese. The point is, it’s about having the compassion to provide medical care for those who are unable to afford the ‘on the day’ costs or the costs of long-term treatment. Higher taxation in the long run is not as crippling to those on lower incomes as on the day costs would be. Is saving or improving human life all boiled down to money in yankeeland then?

          • Amused

            I understand your arguments from a pure humanitarian point of view man, but look at it from the other side as well.
            Why do we owe anyone free anything? The whole reason people work hard, sacrifice comfort and generally live like shit in order to pull themselves out of poverty is so they can have security and comfort for them and their families as they get older. Now you want to turn to these hardworking folks and say,”Ok, now pay for the bums too, its the right thing to do”? Of course they’ll balk at that just a bit.

          • Probotector

            The premise of your point is similar to that of 宋易. Why is a person who cannot afford to pay for healthcare automatically a bum? Granted, there are those who don’t work, and there are those who get themselves into shitty health situations, i.e. smokers and what have you, but then there are those who do work and can become spontaneously ill, but cannot afford to pay for it, especially if it’s expensive surgery or a condition that requires long-term care.

            The mentality you Americans need to get out of is that socialism is not some kind of Robin Hood penny-pinching scheme, but about all of us chipping in to help those in need, and others doing the same for you when your time comes. Now, it’s not a perfect system, and perhaps premiums or something should exist for those who become unhealthy due to their own negligence, but in this day and age, it’s the best we’ve got.

          • Luke the Duke

            And what if it turned out that leaving healthcare to be provided by private companies, funded by insurance, is actually a better way of delivering good quality healthcare to all members of society?

          • Ale Jandro

            No, the coverage would be good quality only for those who take out an expensive insurance policy.
            So no quality for everyone.

          • Luke the Duke

            Says who? You?

            The healthcare system in the US is better quality than its counterparts in almost all European countries and, contrary to what some people on here are suggesting, the unemployed and others on state welfare also receive some state healthcare entitlements. So what’s the problem?

          • gregblandino

            Forbes (not a liberal rag) and Bloomberg (corporate centrist) both disagree with you on the quality of US healthcare.
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

            http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-efficient-health-care-2014-countries

            The problem is we pay the most, for substandard care, and still medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. You don’t have to be unemployed or on welfare to be wiped out by medical bills, especially with plans that have high copays in the $5,000-$10,000, or chronic illnesses. The notion that people won’t work unless the threat of illness-caused bankruptcy looms over their heads is ridiculous.

          • Luke the Duke

            I can’t open the Bloomberg article but if we look at the Forbes one, the US ranks fifth for quality of care. Still not the very best in the world, but better than half the other developed countries mentioned.

            I don’t have time to go through the exact methodology of the study Forbes is quoting so we’ll just have to take their word for it.

          • gregblandino

            Well thanks for the civil reply. Upthread you wondered about whether the private market can cover all member of societies. At least according to this survey, it doesn’t. I also can’t imagine a for profit company ever covering everybody, just for the mere fact that some people are just unprofitable to cover. If you do have time, this is the 32 page report http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

          • Luke the Duke

            If I have time I’ll check out the report and if necessary amend my posts accordingly.

            Personally if I had to choose any system I’d choose Germany’s. As far as I remember it’s a kind of Obamacare that everyone in the country participates in – everyone has to purchase insurance, no discrimination by insurers is allowed, healthcare provided by private providers. This way everyone is throwing in money for their healthcare, poor people aren’t overwhelmed by any large treatments they need, and the overall cost of the system is lower than a nationalised one would be on account of the competition that takes place between the private providers.

            If the only two choices are a totally private healthcare system or a totally nationalised one then, well, I’m not convinced a nationalised one will actually produce the fairy dust results that some others have been suggesting it would, bearing in mind the track record nationalised industries tend to have of being wasteful, ineffecient and substandard.

          • gregblandino

            True, the choice between totally private and totally nationalised healthcare is a false one. The ACA, which doesn’t at all equal a totally nationalised healthcare, is at the very heart a compromise solution between private and nationalised health care. I wanted to take issue that you equated the ACA with a government takeover of 18% of the economy. While that is the percentage of the GDP devoted to healthcare, the government is not taking over hospitals or making doctors and nurses state employees. As much as nationalised industries have a reputation as being wasteful etc. etc., the current American system is more wasteful and ineffecient than its counterparts in other developed industrial countries.

          • Luke the Duke

            I don’t know about that 18% thing. You might be confusing me with someone else there.

          • gregblandino

            Oh, d’oh. My b.

          • sudon’t

            One of the big differences between the rest of the world and Obamacare is that other countries control the costs of healthcare. That why, for instance, the same drugs are so much cheaper across the border.

          • Luke the Duke

            Just fyi, when you say ‘control’ the word you are actually looking for is ‘subsidize’.

          • sudon’t

            Costs to the payer, (i.e., the government itself, or private insurers, depending on the system), not the consumer. Although, in the end, it is the consumer who benefits when costs are controlled. In other words, you don’t see wildly varying, and nonsensical costs for procedures or items in most countries. Think $300 aspirin. They don’t allow providers to just make up any price – it’s regulated, not subsidized.
            The problem with Obamacare is that these costs haven’t been addressed. That is subsidization.

          • Luke the Duke

            And where does the government get that money from? Oh yeah, people paying tax money to it. Derp.

          • David

            you need to look up state high risk pools. I think it will give you a better understanding of how people ith high risks are covered.

          • gregblandino

            Thanks for the suggestion. From what I gather, these high risk pools receive state funding, have a price cap, and after the passage of the ACA, I believe they receive federal funding as well. If this still counts as a free market solution in your book, then we agree on this issue!

          • David

            I believe most people should be responsible for themselves. But some (a small percentage) are dealt such a terrible hand they need a little help and most people don’t mind this. It is a safety net for those who are in the worst case. Of course I will be the first to admit it is not perfect but few things involving people are. Pure free market does not exist anymore than pure socialism does (and if you live in China you already know about pure communism being dead) and I do not pretend it does. But when I speak of free market I mean as little regulation as is necessary to insure proper running and some sort of safety net for the very worse (i.e. If I chose to not exercise and increase my health risk because I am obese I will pay more but if little Timmy is born with multiple sclerosis his parents have a way of making sure he will get the best treatment available). Those regulations that do exist should be stringently enforced (i.e price gauging, insurance fraud, predatory practices) and people who defraud the system should be made to pay. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money for their investors, if they did that they would not exist.

          • gregblandino

            Sure, sure, it just seems lately a type of “fundamentalist free marketism” has taken hold. Be it “libertarians” or someone reading Ayn Rand and taking it for gospel, there seems to be a rejection of all things government in favor of this unquestioning, unwavering belief that the free market and private sector can solve everything. I agree that a mixed economy is by far the best. Then it becomes an argument of what the right “mixture” is, I guess.

            Any ideology that requires human nature or human behavior to magically radically change in order to get to the utopian final step is suspect to me. Extreme deregulation and cutting of social services resulting in a better society is about as likely as “Homo sovieticus” arising in the Soviet Union. Anyways, thank you for your reply.

          • Teacher in China

            The US healthcare system is better quality than almost all European countries? I’ve never heard such patent nonsense in my whole life. Facts, figures, and sources, please.

          • Paulos

            “Better” is always going to be subjective, but for all of this back and forth about ideology, healthcare systems in the US and EU produce almost the exact same results. In either region you can live to around 80, survive a stroke/heart attack, and have a good shot at beating cancer. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

            Facts/figures/sources:

            Life expectancy
            US: 79.8 (WHO, 2012)
            EU: 79.2 (EC, 2012)
            http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688?lang=en
            http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-2287_en.htm

            Survival rates
            (see stats.oecd.org)

          • Teacher in China

            That’s a good point, to be sure. And thanks for the sources!

            The one thing that it doesn’t address though is the amount of people who go bankrupt paying for medical costs or outright die because of inability to pay medical costs. That’s a major difference between a private system and a government tax-based system.

          • Paulos

            No problem.

            Cost is definitely critical, but I don’t think the US is a clear-cut example of private healthcare, in fact, I’m not even sure how I would begin to describe our web of Medicare, HMOs, non-profit/gov’t owned/for-profit hospitals, drug lobbies, and who knows what else.

            Personally, it feels like we have the worst of both worlds in terms of cost. The system isn’t private enough to allow market forces to work effectively, and it’s not public enough to make sure everyone is included. I’d support a move in either direction, but there’s just too many hard-liners these days.

            *Sorry for the late reply, I was out in the sticks visiting the in-laws most of last month.

          • sudon’t

            Number one, that’s simply not true. Number two, the problem is that many employed Americans couldn’t access the system.

          • Probotector

            Well it can’t because not everyone in society could afford it.

          • Luke the Duke

            So?

          • Probotector

            How can a system that not everyone can afford be “actually a better way of delivering good quality healthcare to all members of society?” Universally free doesn’t necessarily mean poor quality.

          • Teacher in China

            But the U.S. experience has proven that to be completely untrue.

          • Amused

            So why not just go for full on communism so we can all sit at home and chill knowing that our free(albeit not so good) healthcare, housing and food will be provided by our nanny, err government? I mean we want everything to be fair, right? I’d hate to bust my ass working all my life and accidentally end up with a better situation than others…

          • Probotector

            Free healthcare doesn’t equal communism.

          • Amused

            Sure doesn’t, but don’t you want things to be fair? Isn’t that the gist of why I should cough up my cash to pay for someone else’s medical bills?

          • Probotector

            The same can be said of any social care programme that is funded by taxation. What about welfare, or social housing, or medicare? Why is the line drawn at only healthcare?

          • Alex Dương

            I personally am against those as well, especially if the U.S. is going to become an open borders country.

          • moop

            I…. take back all the bad things I said about you….

          • Alex Dương

            Feel free to agree or disagree with me anytime.

          • Amused

            Probably because its the last bit to completing the welfare state.

          • Probotector

            What’s wrong with a welfare state?

          • Amused

            Nothing if you don’t like to work and want others to pay your way.

          • sudon’t

            You’re already paying for other’s medical bills. Just not efficiently. Single-payer saves everyone money.

          • Teacher in China

            And the funny thing is, so many people in America claim to be Christians, Roman Catholics, and what have you, yet so many are so quick to say “Why do we owe anyone free anything?” It’s called compassion for your fellow man. Pretty sure that’s in your Bible somewheres.

          • moop

            Never read the Bible have you? Christians are called upon to show compassion for their fellow man, but Christians are also called upon to not tempt God and to not be lazy or not give life your all. Where in the Bible does it say “allow government to be compassionate for you”?

          • Teacher in China

            I have actually read the Bible although I have luckily forgotten a lot of the poisonous and awful things it tried to “teach” me in my younger years.

            I think that a responsible government should act in the same way that it expects its people to act; it should act as the ultimate role model for its citizens, and try to represent their ideals and values. For me, that extends to taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves, especially for legitimate health reasons. You’ve obviously never known anyone who has really been in need since you immediately jump on the “lazy” bandwagon, as if everyone in need of medical care is somehow asking for it because of some inherent laziness problem.

          • moop

            I didn’t jump on the lazy bandwagon, but lets be honest, the. Huge jump recently in US disability claims didn’t come from a sudden influx of people injured on the job, etc. I think history has shown that governments are neither responsible or moral.

            I grew up poor until my mid teens, and part of our troubles besides low income was due to medical bills.

            People have a duty to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, I just don’t believe you should pat yourself on the back just because a group of politicians carve out the fruits of other people’s labor under the threat of force.

            Yet for every Christian who thinks gays are going to hell, there. Are more who contribute their own time and resources to help their fellow man, instead of patting themselves on the back while productive capital is used to treat indigents like dogs.

          • Teacher in China

            I don’t know much about the spike in disability claims you mentioned. But I stand by my main point that making the argument “free health care is bad because lazy people will take advantage of it” is nonsense. Sure there are probably a few lazy people in there, but I think it’s worth putting up with them to help the majority, which are people who actually really need medical help (whether they’re poor or otherwise).

            I’m surprised at your opinions, given how you grew up. Your family would have been much better off in a country with free healthcare. Can you honestly not see that?

            “I just don’t believe you should pat yourself on the back just because a group of politicians carve out the fruits of other people’s labor under the threat of force.”

            Most people in Canada simply don’t see it that way. Once a society has gotten used to a certain standard of care, that kind of negative thinking tends to be obscured by the fact that you, your family members, and your loved ones can all survive serious illnesses without going bankrupt.

            Yes, I’m sure there are lots of nice Christians, just as there are probably lots of nice Muslims, Jews, etc etc etc. My point was not against each individual Christian, but more on the idea of a Christian nation as a whole: the whole idea of the U.S. being a Christian nation (which I’ve heard said by right-wingers quite often) is ridiculous, especially when you consider how greedy people are in regards to something that can help so many people that actually legitimately need it. Politicians hide behind ideology but the reality is they are greedy – the private insurance companies make a ton of cash that they don’t want to give up; rich people don’t want their tax dollars going to help those “lazy (insert minority here) down the street with their X kids”.

          • moop

            What “poisonous” things were taught to you by the way? Was it the detestable Golden Rule? Was it the command to help the poor and the sick? Was it the preaching of non-violence and humility? There were several covenants between God and man, the last of which was with Jesus and supersedes any previous contradictions, so I am wondering what about the teachings of Jesus was “poisonous” to you?

          • Teacher in China

            Since I said “the Bible” and not Jesus, I will start with nearly the entire Old Testament. The parts with Jesus actually were not so bad, I’ll grant you that. Even so, his moral superiority became tiresome ;)

          • moop

            “The parts with Jesus actually were not so bad, I’ll grant you that.”

            hence the name Christians. like i said before, anything in the Old Testament that conflicts with the teachings of Jesus are considered more or less irrelevant.

            for example “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” in the Old Testament was superseded in the New Testament with “turn the other cheek”. Most readings of the Old Testament today tend to stick to books like proverbs and psalms or other segments that has relevance or cohesion with NT scripture. I’ve never attended a service that expanded upon or even mentioned the passages on homosexuality in Leviticus. I am pretty sure this is a normal non-fundamentalist Christian experience.

          • Amused

            Ehhh, Eye for an eye etc is actually the Code of Hammurabi= Babylonian, but I think we get your meaning

          • moop

            It’s found in [Exodus 21:23~25] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for …

          • Amused

            Funny how people will copy something useful from even their worst enemies huh? :D

          • shit religion

            You’re right, but free healthcare wont work. In The Netherlands we have to pay 70-200 (depending on the package) euro a month for healthcare. But when you get sick or had a accident, you still have to pay a part of it. (Unless its a very expensive surgery) This way it stays equal for the rich and the poor.

          • Luke the Duke

            As amusing as your xenophobia is, I’m not actually American.

          • Probotector

            Then why defend them?

          • Luke the Duke

            Defending Americans? Where in this discussion thread have I made any comment, either negative or positive, about Americans?

          • Probotector

            “Americans pay less tax and more ‘on the day’ costs, people wherever you’re from pay more tax and lower ‘on the day’ costs. I don’t see why it is that you think you’re winning.”

            Especially that last sentence, you can’t blame me for assuming you’re a defensive American, but if you’re not then whatever.

          • moop

            It is the job of private charities, churches, and individuals to help their fellow man. How you can claim moral superiority for relying on a government to distribute charity through threat of force is beyond me.

          • Thor

            Charities, churches and individuals are not elected, the governments are. And these private organizations or people as a whole will never be rich enough to sustain the costs involved, especially in the long run, of a true healthcare. The government is there not only to pick the bills but also to define a health policy. That’s why it has to be involved to a high level, and it is in each and every single western country. The government isn’t there to “distribute charity”, but set a policy in motion and, again, do so in the long run.

          • Repatriated

            Problem is…here in the US, the more you make, the less you pay in taxes! LOL.

          • David

            Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of medicare and medicaid. Look them up. And instead of telling people in another country how to run their lives, how about take care of your own? Talk about butt hurt.

          • Probotector

            Medicare and Medicaid were never universally free services.; they don’t compare to the NHS, sorry Dave.

            I called him butthurt because of the anger he exuded in his post. Calling me butt hurt for pointing that out, and how unfair the American system is, is not in of itself butt hurt. However you yourself jumping on me about all this being patronising and so forth, possibly points to butt hurt on your own part, if we’re getting down to brass tacks.

            Not sure what telling me take care of my own means. I don’t really have the power to enact social policies, and as an expat, I can’t really vote on them from abroad easily. Nevertheless, I’m sure the social conditions in my country are far better than in yours.

          • David

            No, they were not intended from the first to be universal but they are meant to take care of (meaning help) the old and the poor. In addition, there are laws that prevent anybody from being turned away from the emergency room who need immediate care. This is not a free service but you will at least be alive to argue about the bill later. That is the boundary we draw for giving away free service and free medicine in our democratic society. I realize it is not the line that is drawn in Canada or Britain (or other European countries) and why should it be? Why should we not do this the way the people in this country (through their representatives) want it to be. I could say many negative things about a universal health system like the NHS (and if you were honest you could also) but those countries have enacted them and if the citizens don’t like it they can vote to change it. Being an expat does not mean you are no longer connected to whatever country you come from (unless you want to be). Since there is no system that is perfect or even that wonderful (except my own of course, in my opinion lol) my comment meant why don’t you criticize the system you might go back to some day instead of simply American bashing on a thread that has nothing to do with American health care. As for butt hurt, it is a phrase I am not even familiar with, I only used it because you did, I assume it means something like hurt feelings? But the point was simply repeating what you said, no matter what it means (unless by some far stretch it is supposed to be a compliment). I have lived in a dozen countries, I don’t know ho wmany years you lived in the U.S. to make that comparison but I suspect never. The U.S. is like every country (yes, even yours, which ever it is) the more money you have the better your life is. However, even poor people have many social nets available to them to help raise themselves up (6 of our 9 Supreme Court justices, for instance, were born in abject poverty and raised themselves up through their own effort). Also, you are making a faulty comparison when you compare one part of one country to another. To simply say country A has better healthcare, for instance, than country B is not an equitable comparison, without meaning in and of itself. Canada pends a lot of money on its health care system because the U.S. spends $400,000,000 a year on defense that guards them and Europe and much of the Pacific from unfriendly countries so that other countries do not have to spend that much (obviously we don’t do it to be nice we do it because it helps us and we are able to). This is one simple comparison. You comparison of your countries social conditions to mine has the implication that your country is somehow doing things right and therefore a better place live. I am sure there are plenty in your country who do not agree.

          • Probotector

            You shouldn’t use phases you don’t know the meaning of.

            You’d be hard pressed to find anyone from my country who thinks the NHS is a bad idea.

          • David

            LMFAO Are you joking? I have relatives who live in Scotland and I hear complaints all the time. Your news papers are full of horror stories about the NHS on a daily basis by reporters who are lot more informed than you are. Now, of course there are two sides to every story, some people swear how wonderful it is and other hate it but to say that it is universally liked is just blatantly dishonest.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2825969/Yet-NHS-horror-story-Wales-Dying-elderly-cancer-patient-left-screaming-pain-trolley-E-nine-hours.html

            http://www.npr.org/2015/01/11/376384632/overcrowded-hospitals-overwhelm-uks-national-health-service

            http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/500868/NHS-ambulance-scandal-as-heart-attack-victims-forced-to-wait-up-to-four-hours

            I could do that all day long (and many people do) and these are simply a small sampling. If you want to argue on a tangent that the NHS is a good thing, use facts (or don’t). I don’t care, it is not my country and you can have whatever system you have cobbled together. If you like it and serves your needs I am happy for you and your family that you have never had a bad experience from it. However, that does not convince me it is a model that should be followed (or even continued, but it is not my problem).

            As for using a phrase I am not familiar with. Repeating a phrase that is not proper English (i.e. slang) that another person uses is a form of ridicule. That means I was making fun of that person and his comment.

          • Probotector

            Oh you have relatives… in Scotland no less?

            Oh, you’re posting stories from a bunch of left-wing rags?

            Nevertheless, I’m the one who’s ill-informed, yet I’ve lived in the country for 25 years, and spent much of my life being served by the NHS system. Right.

            Yes there are horror stories, and people get frustrated with it, and it definately needs reform, but no one wants to disband the system completely. That’s what I meant by “You’d be hard pressed to find anyone from my country who thinks the NHS is a bad idea.”

            btw, I missed this one before

            “U.S. spends $400,000,000 a year on defense that guards them and Europe and much of the Pacific from unfriendly countries so that other countries do not have to spend that much (obviously we don’t do it to be nice we do it because it helps us and we are able to). This is one simple comparison.”

            We way to justify your country’s meddling (some call it Imperialism) and thank you for taking care of all us little inferior people because we simply cannot afford to because we’re wasting all our money on socialism… but then you’re ‘not doing it to be nice’ after all. You are aware that up until the defence spending cuts of 2010, the UK was the third largest defence spender in the world after the US and China? You are aware that many from these European and Pacific countries have fought, bled and died alongside America in defence of world peace and the war on terror? (myself included). Take your arrogant American head out of your arse, seriously, ffs.

          • David

            So the relatives who have lived there for 50 years mean nothing compared to your 25 years of experience, I understand. The fact that they live in Scotland means nothing either. I think I understand what you are saying now. No need to discuss anymore.

          • gregblandino

            While doing nothing to belittle the personal experiences you have with your relatives in Scotland, surveys have shown that the NHS remains popular amongst the vast statistical majority of the UK population, and people even support raising taxes to keep it funded at or above current levels. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-prepared-to-pay-more-tax-to-support-the-nhs-poll-finds-9574384.html

            If your relatives are unsatisfied with the NHS, there is always the option of private insurance in the UK. Also, I would note that while the NHS in Scotland and the NHS in England are both called “the NHS,” they are actually separate organizations. The Scottish NHS is run by the devolved Scottish government.

        • Ale Jandro

          Because a surgeon can cost you hundred thousands of euros and you can’t afford it. But you are not alone, you live in a society so they can help you to pay through taxes. That’s how it works.
          And then the first is winning but the second could win this help in case that he needs it.
          It is like private insurance but everyone contributes and anyone can get the benefits.

          • Luke the Duke

            ‘Because a surgeon can cost you hundred thousands of euros and you can’t afford it’

            Well that’s rather the point of insurance.

          • RickyBeijing

            Do you think an operation costs you more from an insurance company or from a country with free healthcare, and do you have equal possibility that you will actually get the operation, as in a country with free healthcare?

          • Luke the Duke

            Well that ‘free’ healthcare isn’t really ‘free’ – someone is paying for it. The only difference between healthcare paid for by private insurance and healthcare provided by the government is that in the former case the costs are more evenly spread.

            As to your point about waiting times: waiting times for operations on the UK’s (public) NHS are fairly diabolical. In contrast, waiting times for the UK’s (private) BUPA are significantly lower.

          • RickyBeijing

            Because there are several more points that differentiate the two apart from the points you made:

            1. An insurance company works for profit and to please investors and shareholders, the government wouldn’t overcharge for profit.
            2. If there is free healthcare, then there is no fraud.
            3. The insurance company won’ pay if you broke the contract somehow. Having a preexisting condition, or not mentioning a condition that you have on your insurance form can nullify your insurance, meaning you don’t get care.
            -In law class we studied a case where a man’s house burned down, but the insurance company refused to pay out because he omitted on the insurance form that he lived on a flood plane.

            in the end, universal healthcare would work out a lot cheaper, for roughly the same care at the basic level.

          • Arbite

            1. An insurance company works for profit and to please investors and
            shareholders, the government wouldn’t overcharge for profit.
            I believe the counter-argument for that is

            “But they WOULD overpay and overtax because it’s a lot easier to get lots of free votes with bread and circuses from a perpetual underclass strung along on government aid”

          • moop

            “the government wouldn’t overcharge for profit.” you’re right, they would just waste so much in their usual inefficiency that they might as well overcharge. i wonder how many $1000 dollar staplers would find their way into the budget.

            ” If there is free healthcare, then there is no fraud.” because the government and representatives thereof have never engaged in fraud? any morally lax companies or individuals contracted with the government will suddenly be on the up and up?

            lets not be naive

          • gregblandino

            On a public policy point, the American private insurance-centric approach provides a portion of the population that receives inadequate medical care and provides a vector for disease and/or epidemics to spread. It is, quite simply, a public health hazard.

            An example of this that was thankfully a near miss was the Liberian guy with Ebola, Eric Duncan. When he went to the hopsital complaining of fever and stomach pains after coming back from Liberia, the Texas hospital he went to first sent his uninsured ass back home with some Tylenol and antibiotics. While in this case, luckily no one else got infected, Universal Healthcare (no matter how it is financed) needs to be something that we achieve, and soon. While I’d have preferred a single-payer option, at least Obamacare was a step in the right direction.

        • Jahar

          Americans actually pay more in taxes to health care than we do, and get no free health care. pre- obamacare anyway.

      • 宋易

        Idiotic idea. God, people who say this kind of shit… just, no brains at all. As if medical care just comes out of the air, and someone else is stealing it and selling it back for mucho dinero.

        Medical care is not free anywhere. You just want the government to steal money from some people and cover other people’s bills with it.

        Maybe YOUR country should grow up and start making people responsible for themselves.

        • Probotector

          Um dude, first don’t get so angry just because America is a backward corporatist nation. Sorry for calling you out on your bullshit, but you’ve got to face facts.

          “As if medical care just comes out of the air, and someone else is stealing it and selling it back for mucho dinero… You just want the government to steal money from some people and cover other people’s bills with it.”

          State healthcare is funded by taxation primarily; so you’re saying that taxation = stealing? No, state medical care is not strictly ‘free’, but it’s provided to someone no matter whether they can afford it or not. The idea of it being ‘free’ is that you don’t have to pay out of your own pocket if you can’t afford to.

          “Maybe YOUR country should grow up and start making people responsible for themselves.”

          I can’t believe you said that. Aren’t you aware that a person can get critically sick or injured, no matter how careful they are? You obviously know nothing of compassion and helping those who cannot help themselves, yet you’re telling others to grow up.

          • 宋易

            So, let me get this straight…. there are only two choices for healthcare:

            1. Steal money from successful people and give it to poor people so they don’t have to pay anything at all for their own medical care.

            2. Have outrageously expensive medical care that excludes a portion of the population.

            Nothing in between, huh? Either laws that encourage huge expenses (like in the U.S.) or a magical wonderland of ‘sustainable’ (lmao) ‘free’ (read: not actually free, but paid for by someone else) medical care.

            I’m no stranger to high medical bills in the U.S. I had a 45 minute doctor check-up and some bloodwork done back in July that cost me $800. Insanely expensive. I haven’t broken a leg or developed leukemia, but I’m familiar with high medical bills.

            There are better solutions to reducing medical costs in the U.S. than placing the burden on the most productive people in the populace. They are already carrying more than their share of the weight.

            What’s happened in the U.S., and for some reason *nobody* says, is that federal laws were written to protect insurance companies and industry practices cemented high costs for individuals who don’t have insurance. THAT’s the real problem. The fucking U.S. government helped to make healthcare expensive, and then used that as an excuse to co-opt the system.

            So, now they’ve come along, passed the bill to others, erroneously branded it as “free”, and my idiot generation cheered and masturbated to press conference footage of Obama.

            Goddamn it!

          • Ale Jandro

            We all should contribute to the system no matter how much do we have. That’s how works in the Old Continent since more than 40 years.

          • 宋易

            That’s what I’m sayin’!

          • Luke the Duke

            That’s how it works in every country.

          • 宋易

            And… I’m not angry! Just emphatic!!!! :-)

          • RickyBeijing

            He’s a yank, he’ll never understand.

          • moop

            Yes, taxation of income is stealing. If you dont pay your taxes men with guns come and take you away. an income tax of even 0.1% is immoral and is theft. it assumes that you do not own your own labor. The only “moral” tax would be a consumption tax that didnt tax necessities. Tell me, where is the social contract you signed? I don’t remember signing one

          • Probotector

            Tax is stealing now? Really? Moop you’re a good guy, everyone in the world pays income tax, sorry, but his is not an argument you’re going to win.

          • moop

            I said an income tax is stealing. Your income is a result of your labor, in which you’ve invested your time, effort, and talent. Under an income tax your income doesn’t belong to you. The government decides how much you get to keep. They lay claim to your labor, they lay claim to you.

            It’s a mafia shakedown. Give us a cut, Keep your pittance and we’ll provide “protection”. If you don’t want our protection we’ll come with guns, take you away, and take the money anyway.

          • Yes!

            Good grief.

          • Probotector

            So what are going to do about it? Income tax is the primary way in which governments collect funding for the societal benefits that they provide to everyone. You want the cops to protect you from criminals? You gotta pay for it. You want maintenance to be done on your roads and city infrastructure? You gotta pay for it. In this day and age, how else do you expect these things to be paid for if not by income tax?

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t always agree with @disqus_Yu9CRCs2Uz:disqus, but logically, how is he wrong about income tax being theft? It’s legalized theft; until the early 20th Century, the U.S. didn’t even have an income tax.

          • Probotector

            Um, ok then… you guys can go organise a second american revolution then in protest of taxation without representation… again. Seriously, it’s not that big of a deal.

          • Alex Dương

            Well, the Constitution was amended to allow for an income tax, so that was taxation with representation. Still, it’s legalized theft.

          • gregblandino

            Allright, so how do we pay for roads and inventions like the internet or electronic computers without taxes? How much income are you going to make if you live in an anarchic society? The prerequisites to a civil society are provided by a government, and that government needs money of some sort to fund it.

          • moop

            The US did fine relying on duties and tariffs before the income tax, and the US had roads before the income tax was ratified. Have the individual states that have no income tax magically imploded? Do they not have roads?

          • gregblandino

            If you think that the United States, which is the largest international force for so called “free trade,” is going to start relying on tariffs and duties for its revenue, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you man. The states get by on sales tax and property taxes mostly. Notice I didn’t say income tax, in your worldview how are sales taxes and property taxes less of a form of “theft” than income tax?

          • moop

            I said Ina previous comment that the only “moral” tax is a consumption based tax that exempt necessities. Who cares if the present US system doesn’t lend itself to tariffs and duties? I thought we were talking about ideals here. Is the current US system of interventionalism and world policing ideal to you? Could they do this without an income tax and fiat money?

            The conversation was whether the income tax is theft, what does that have to do with anything regarding the US status as promoting a laizefaire-leaning mixed market economy?

          • moop

            i said in a previous comment that the only moral tax would be a consumption tax that exempted necessities.

            we were talking about whether income tax was theft. what does the US’s status as an international force of freeish markets have to do with that? a lot of things the US does are hypocritical when it comes to the free market, why is taxation so sacred?

          • gregblandino

            I don’t think that the income tax is theft, but if it was theft, how is a consumption tax any more or less moral than an income tax? You’d still be forced to pay a tax anytime you “consume” something. Income tax has the benefit of the rich paying more. Those that both benefit most from the system and can afford to contribute more contribute more.

            The point of mentioning the free trade agreement policy is that we have signed treaties and legally binding agreements against raising tarriffs. It eliminates a source of revenue. You can’t just talk about ideals without facing realities on the ground. To raise money from tariffs would imply deconstructing the entire world economic order we’ve constructed since 1947.

          • moop

            A consumption tax that exempted necessities is more moral than an income tax because one can choose to pay it. It also effects the rich more as they buy more things. While the poor may spend exclusively mirror less on necessities the well off do not. It also returns the power of the purse back with the people. I like the idea of the masses refraining from luxury goods in order to express dissatisfaction with the govt, I think the politicians wouldn’t be so quick to force laws or policies we don’t want down are throats.

            I don’t want the government to do more, I want them to do less. Less involvement in individuals lives, less military adventurism. The massive amount of revenue from the income tax and fiat money allow not only for a bloated welfare state but it also facilitates the govt in their world policing and interventionalism

            I actually wouldn’t mind deconstructing the world economic order. I still don’t see how enforcing duties and tariffs are any less free market than say enforcing massive subsidies in agriculture.

          • gregblandino

            A sales tax that excludes necessities would have to be astronomically high to replace even a portion of the income tax. And since I assume you would also abolish any taxes on capital (do captial gains taxes count as ‘theft’ in this worldview?), the tax burden would be even more regressive. Rich people spend a finite amount of their wealth on consumption while the rest is stashed in investments or stocks beyond the scope of “consumption.” Unless you wanted to count buying stocks as a taxable purchase at whatever rate you’d have to set to replace income tax revenue.

            I’m not going to touch fiat money because that sort of gets into paranoid loon “Ron Paul” territory. If you want to go back to the gold or silver or bimetallic standard, we’ll have to face a whole new slew of economic problems that we solved by going to the post Bretton Woods system of fiat money.

          • moop

            If the poor consume less in general and their income is spent mostly on necessities and the rich consume more as a whole, including luxuries, are the rich not paying more taxes? How is that regressive? Their finite amount on consumption is still more than the poor, so they are paying more taxes. And what do you care if they are astronomically high if the rich are paying it? I thought you want them to pay more.

          • gregblandino

            The poor will proportionally pay more of their income, more of their wealth too if their consumption involves dipping into savings, than the rich will pay. A poor person consumes nearly their entire income every month out of necessity, while a rich person spends a fraction of their income.

            Proportionally, this would shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor. They would pay a higher amount of taxes than under income tax, where they pay almost none. They are going from 0% of their income being paid to <0% of their income being paid in the form of sales tax. The rich will go from hypothetically paying 39% or whatever to whatever the "consumption" sales tax rate would be. If its less than 39%, even if they spend their entire income every month, they would be getting a tax break.

            I assume your "prebate" plan is similar to the FairTax proposal that has been baning about congress the past decade or so, and if not, I apologize. But if it is, the plan will not be revenue neutral, and will either result in even higher deficit spending and debt, or a drastic cut to programs for the poor. If it's the second, it would be an effective tax hike on the poor combined with a benefits cut, all for the final effect of giving the rich a tax break

          • moop

            i didnt say anything about a prebate.

            its not regressive if the rich are still paying more than the poor. you can argue it is regressive compared to the current system, but it is not regressive in an of itself.

            factoring out other taxes would also lower the price of goods

          • gregblandino

            It’s not regressive in relation to us giving our liege lord 1/3 of all our produce and prima nocta. It is regressive in the country of United States in year 2015 AD. It would…regress us….to a previous time where we relied on sales tax. If fits the definition of a regressive tax, which is, the effective tax rate decreases as the income of that person increases.

          • moop

            the poor’s rate of tax is still more or less zero and the rich pay more. it doesnt effect the poor disproportionally unless they decide to binge on prada and gucci or their second home in the hamptons. i think this conversation has reached the point where it is devolving.

          • gregblandino

            Well, the problem is “regressive tax” versus “progressive tax” are words that have a very specific definition, and you’re a just plain wrong with how you are using them. Also, out of curiousity, I looked up the luxury goods market in the US. According to http://www.statista.com/statistics/245645/leading-personal-luxury-goods-markets-by-country/, it is 62.5 billion Euros, or 70.7 billion USD. Out of a Federal Budget of 3.8 trillion USD, it would require a 5,375% sales tax on luxury items to balance the budget. The conversation is devolving because your plan is nonsensical in the real world, and would not do the things you say it does.

          • moop

            You do realize that when I said necessities I didn’t mean everything that wasn’t a Tiffany ring, Prada bag, or Rolex, right? So that figure is less reasonable than you claim my ideas are.

            Anyways, I said I felt the conversation was devolving because I felt like it was going to devolve into flaming each other at any moment. I’m trying not to do that anymore.

          • moop

            You don’t need to be a Ron Paul fan to understand that the govt ability to print money out of thin air gives it significant leeway to engage in military adventurism and pump more and more money into the military industrial complex

          • gregblandino

            Yea, sure I do, but if government is using the ability to print money to engage in idiotic foreign policy, change the foreign policy, don’t cut off your ability to control money. It’s cutting of your nose to spite your face. The only thing worse than what they’re doing know would be to continue the policy only using “real” money. It would have led to a foreign policy disaster as well as an economic disaster at home.

          • moop

            yeah, but i want to control the govt on spending in general, not just militarism. i think we do too much domestically and abroad.

            no worries, we arent going to come to any conclusion to this because we’ll just keep going deeper into the rabbit hole.

          • Alex Dương

            Income taxes aren’t the only taxes. We didn’t have a “permanent” income tax until the early 20th Century, so we went through several major wars without one.

          • Here’s a shock Alex!

            The Federal Income Tax was implemented the same year we were given the Federal Reserve.

            Does everyone understand that the bankers control the Fed and they receive a 6% return? They Create money out of thin air, they do no work for this.

            Wouldn’t it be great if you were able to set up a 6% annuity for you and your future generations on Trillions of dollars in perpetuity?

            Andrew Jackson (7th US President) recognized that the banksters were evil – bankers have stated several times over history that they would destroy civilization rather than let go of their control over it. (They tried to assassinate Jackson as a result)

            I encourage all US citizens and all people who truly want to be FREE MEN to read what Jackson wrote in his veto of a 2nd American Bank in 1832
            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp

            People haven’t changed over the years. We all have similar motivations and desires. Do NOT doubt the evil that runs the world today. Eventually you will have to make a choice…acquiesce or resist…but most people today are running, looking for a way to bide their time hoping this blows over…while these few who control everything consolidate their power

          • gregblandino

            The revenue would have to come from somewhere else. Income and corporate taxes are the best way to raise revenue from the people who can afford to contribute to the tax base, and who conversely also receive the most benefit from the society and economy that the US government maintains. It is the fairest tax. I’m more curious how income tax is “theft” and other taxes, like sales tax or consumption tax or tariffs or what have you are not “theft.”

          • Alex Dương

            Yes, the revenue would have to come from somewhere else if you wanted to keep the size of government constant. Alternatively, we could reduce the size of government, and thus the “loss” of revenue would not be problematic.

            Taxation is theft, period. Nonetheless, as I am not an anarchist, I don’t have a problem with all taxes. The difference between sales tax and income tax is that with sales taxes, what I earn isn’t being taxed; I’m being taxed on what I do with what I earn.

          • gregblandino

            And in you worldview that difference in when a tax is applied has a moral quality that makes the one more palatable than the other? From my point of view, the sales tax is less moral because it effects poor and normal people disproportionately and leaves the rich paying a fraction of their income. The people that benefit the least from society should not bear the brunt of the taxation burden.

          • Alex Dương

            Yes. I have never liked the idea that as your income increases, you will pay more in tax per dollar of income. Do we want to discourage people from earning high incomes? I don’t think we should. As for your claim that sales taxes are regressive, that can be partially addressed with prebates.

          • gregblandino

            We have an income tax now, and no one I know is looking to lower their income.

          • Alex Dương

            Why do you think Steve Jobs took a $1 salary? Clearly, salary was not the only component (and indeed, was the least important) of his total compensation, but there is a pretty good reason why he and many other CEOs have relatively low salaries as a percentage of their total compensation.

          • gregblandino

            In order to abuse our insanely low capital gains tax? If stock income was taxed the same as ‘income’ income, you wouldn’t see stuff like this amongst CEOs. CEO’s are also not representative of the population.

          • Alex Dương

            There you go. People exert effort to avoid taxes, and the effort that is spent on that could be used on much more productive endeavors. So you can always try to make “the rich” pay “their fair share,” but they will always try to avoid it and pay less.

          • gregblandino

            So…fix the income tax system so that capital gains is not at a different rate then monetary income? How does that lead to “abolish it?” People try and succeed with getting away with all sorts of crimes, we don’t just throw our hands in the air and say “oh well.” It isn’t just “their fair share,” not to take away with what Steve Jobs did, but what he did could not have been possible without the existence of a legal system, a police force, a regulatory body that controls patents, regulations on use of frequency bands, secure roads, secure water transportation, an electricity grid, the internet, etc. These things benefit everybody to an extent, but he gains more benefit from theses “services” and should therefore pay more.

          • Alex Dương

            Tax avoidance isn’t a crime, and I didn’t say abolish all taxes. Plus, you only pay capital gains taxes if you sell at a profit. Hold on to your positions, and you don’t pay taxes. In fact, if you sell your losers, you can use them to offset any future capital gains taxes. Again, “the rich” will find ways to avoid paying “more.”

            I don’t see how “we’re all in this together” means that Steve Jobs or others like him should be paying more tax per additional dollar of income than people with lower incomes.

          • gregblandino

            Because he is more able to pay. A loophole in a law doesn’t mean we should abolish the law, but close the loophole. Capital gains taxes are done yearly on dividends and at the point of sale.

            If is only because a CEO like Jobs has enough cash on hand that he is not reliant on his salary to live from paycheck to paycheck that he can take advantage of maniupulating his stock options in order to partially avoid the all ready low capital gains taxes and completely avoid the income tax that the rest of us pay. If you paid a “middle class” salaried worker completely in stock options with a $1 salary, he/she would have to liquidate those assets on a regular basis in order to pay the mortgage/rent, buy groceries, etc. How this situation cries out for “abolish the income tax!” and not “close the loophooles” is beyond me.

          • Alex Dương

            Differential tax rates for income, capital gains, dividends, and so forth isn’t a “loophole.”” And “more able to pay” does not convince me that he should pay more tax per additional dollar of income, and most U.S. firms don’t pay dividends. My point is that people who share your way of thinking almost never ask yourselves this question: given that you want to make sure “the rich” pay “enough,” what is their best response to your objective? Actually pay more? Or find ways to pay less?

          • gregblandino

            Whatever you want to call it, write a tax code that doesn’t allow accounting tricks (or legitimate accounting techniques, whatever) to evade or avoid taxes. If accountants can figure a way to avoid taxes, other accountants can think of a way to make them unavoidable. If you want to argue against a progressive tax system, then we’ll just agree to disagree. It seems self evident that someone who benefits more from the services that government supplies, the rich, should pay more than those that don’t, the poor.

          • Alex Dương

            Given the goals you have, writing such a tax code is much, much, much easier said than done. Somewhat ironically, the only tax code I can think of that would easily accomplish that is one that you favor the least (i.e. consumption tax in place of income tax).

            All else equal, any tax system – regressive, flat, or progressive – would have those with higher incomes pay more than those with lower incomes. So that is indeed self-evident. Progressive taxation, however, is not self-evident.

          • gregblandino

            Perhaps it is. However, in the case of Steve Jobs receiving a $1 dollar salary and relying on stock income, I’d think the solution to be elegantly simple: raise the capital gains tax rate to the income tax rate, and ditto for the dividends rate. Income on capital should be treated as the same as income from labor, with a PAYE (pay as you earn) system similar to how wages are garnished for income tax and social security.

          • Probotector

            I didn’t agree with you in the past greg, but you are spot on in this case. The idea of taxation being a kind of theft is ridiculous. Services need to be paid for. This nonsense other commenters are espousing is just some uber conservative, founding-father bullshit that somehow contends that Americans have a destiny not to be taxed, and that is the basis of freedom. Honestly, I thought the British Stamp Act taxation in 1775 was the final straw in a long list of abuses, not the be all end all definition of American exceptionalism.

          • gregblandino

            Yea its a sad commentary how far to the right American discourse has gone that issues that wouldn’t have even been up for debate even 100 years ago are now being brought up as if they are new or “revolutionary.” Guys, we tried libertarianism, honest. It was called the Gilded Age, and there are reasons why our ancestors fought and even died for worker protection, regulations and a progressive income tax. In my cynical eyes, “libertarianism” is a cover for tearing down these hard fought protections while doing nothing to strike at the hand in hand relationship between business and government. I live in China, and sweet baby Jesus would I pay some taxes to get some “regulations” or “government interference in the free market” here.

          • moop

            Modern libertarians are against worker protection? You think in a libertarian society that a worker injured on a job by his company’s negligence would have no legal recourse? Are there not companies now that go above legal requirements for their workers already.

            With regards to regulation Libertarians are against federal regulations, but they are not against legal remedies. If your company’s product or pollution, what have you injures a person, they have legal recourse in the courts. If your factory’s runoff pollutes my privately held land legal recourse can be sought.

            The roll of the free press, especially in the digital age would also has a regulatory effect

          • gregblandino

            Disparity of power makes this hypothetical unlikely. Unless a larger power represents this injured worker, or landowner affected by pollution, or a consumer affected by faulty products, the company responsible can use their superior resources and familiarity with the legal system to squash all but the most egregious cases.

            Furthermore, these cases when brought to court often use federal regulations to determine if the company is or is not negligent. Without federal regulations, would a plantiff in these types of cases have to independently establish their own metric to what constitutes a dangerous level of negligence out of pocket? This would stack the deck even further towards the companies and make holding them accountable (already a dicey proposition after decades of de-regulation from the same voices clamoring for libertarianism) even more unlikely.

            The role of a free press has been to spur the government out of inaction. Without a regulatory body, bad press will not suffice to provide enough pressure to remedy problem behaviors from companies.

          • moop

            I don’t think a larger power representing them is out of the question, I would expect many environmental lobbies may simply shift their focus.

            I think the role of the press has demonstrated especially recently the role that digital media and social media campaigns can effect a companies decisions. I believe this would become more so in my hypothetical. I think responsible citizens would have a greater sense of urgency.

            I hold the same view on e sense of urgency regarding charities. Americans have demonstrated how generous they are even with the presence of the the welfare state and when disasters happen even more so.

          • gregblandino

            How about proving negligence without federal regulations? Each company makes their own in house regulations? What metric does a worker use to hold a company accountable?

            Who is the larger power that’s going to help go up against negligent companies? Greenpeace had a world wide budget of 236.9 million Euros in 2011. While not small, that’s worldwide, all operations. It would make them a mid-sized company. Unions, to our nation’s detriment, have been dying slowly since their peak in the 60’s. To pretend that free market solutions exist to these type of problems is laughable.

            Unless we want to have worker’s daughters jumping from buildings or girls selling themselves in the street for their brother’s hospital bills, what we need is more regulation and a retrenchment of the welfare system.

          • moop

            expert witnesses and investigators for one,precedents can play a role. industries as a whole can also make their own standards

            have worker’s conditions gotten worse since the 60s as unions have decreased? are workers in “right to work” states working in abysmal working conditions without the presence of unions?

            charities and special interest groups. how many law suits are you expecting? how many employees sue their employers per year?

          • gregblandino

            No, because those workers are still under the same, federal regulations that unions have fought for and were generally implemented in the 10’s and 20’s. Worker safety has gone up significantly since that era. As both American history and current worker’s safety in China have shown, there is no reason to think companies would not place profit over their workers’ safety.

            Your not understanding my point. The federal regulations, set the bar, the standard, the “rules” that determine if something is negligent or non negligent. Expert witnesses and investigators just provide evidence for whether that particular case does or does not meet the standard of negligence. If you didn’t have them, you’d have to establish a standard of negligence for each case.

            You don’t think having the industry that operates for profit creating it’s own standards of negligence is the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas? After a mine collapse, we’re supposed to ask the mine industry “Was the mine safe?” and they’re supposed to be like “Well, we came up with our standards, and surprise surprise, it’s safe!” The Sanlu milk guys should have just got the Chinese dairy industry to be like “Safety standards allow for less than 100 dead babies” and then bam! problem solved. Sorry parents, your claim doesn’t meet the standard for negligence.

            As to your “charities and special interest groups”….Workers comp cases are literally in the hundreds of thousands each year. Environmental cases are widespread. The machinery that runs the modern world cannot just be torn down and replaced with “charities and special interests.” This is the 21st century, we live in an urbanized interconnected world, and only in a fantasy will the government recede and charities and special interest groups step up and take their place. You can’t abolish the “federal regulators” of say the FAA and replace them with the Association for Airline Passengers Rights

          • moop

            a company can’t submit their standards as public record? if they breach their standards and cause harm, the injured party can sue them. if a company doesnt want to make their standards public another company offering the same product would. which company do you think would get more business?

          • moop

            Why does the fact that services need to paid for make it not theft? The mafia needs money for their operations to work as well, does that make their revenue any less ill-gotten?

          • Probotector

            So you want everything to be free? How would it be funded? Are you really comparing legitimate, elected government to the mafia?!

          • moop

            what i am saying is just because money is needed for something and collected doesnt automatically mean that it was not ill-gotten.

            if a charity that helps the poor gets some of its funding from stealing, a portion of their funds are ill-gotten despite the noble purpose the money is used for.

            so while the money may be used to inefficiently help the poor, the means in which a large portion of the funding is obtained is through theft.

          • Thor

            You’re out of the mark here. Steve Jobs never claimed a 1 $ salary for tax avoidance : he was paid out of Apple benefits only. He wanted to prove that he could do so, i.e. being paid only if Apple made money. It had nothing to do with his predecessors attitude in that matter.

          • Alex Dương

            “Apple benefits”? What does that mean? Jobs was paid in Apple stock.

          • gregblandino

            For an interesting analysis of the factors surrounding the rise of the “$1 salary” and the demise of “manageralism” in corporate America, check out this article. https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAttachmentDownload.aspx?target=JUBRxi51IIBoe1yul9uERnfCmQoglFl9k5qwJSfHx8w%2fWCnFLmEb2MC9GoFnZVlslR5NzCRY1ajgn503icBv67VQg%2fNVUMWsYvi3A2%2fL%2bS28A7Pthjp7LmOfLYQfHMJc

          • Roads would not be built if the givernment doesn’t build them?
            Companies would not create and develop new ideas unless funded by the government?
            Is the dollar you spend more likely to help your community or is it more efficient to have it taken from you go into a black hole?
            (yes, you will go to jail if you do not comply and you will be shot if you resist)
            The Beauty of the US Constitution is that it recognizes that a VERY Limited Federal/Central government is needed, but anything not specifically listed in this document (duties of the Federal branches) are intended to be under the sphere of influence of the State or the Individual.
            This gives you, the average citizen much more influence and control over what happens in your State or Town.

            Good Will is Created by MAN, not by governments. If people weren’t taught to rely on the federal government, then there would be more successful measures in States and cities to help people become productive members of society

          • gregblandino

            The capital requirements for the US interstate and the development of the infrastructure necessary to make something like the Internet, space flight or GPS would have been impossible or at least unfeasibly difficult for private entities to accomplish without government help and intervention.
            Power concentrated in monopolies or economic cartels are much more impervious to the influence and control of the citizenry compared to government power. I’m not arguing against the federal nature of the US, in fact the rise of state mandates has been increasing ever since the 90’s, leaving policy implementation to be wholly decided at the state or local level. Government, at the end of the day, is a collection of men (and women), so I’m guessing they can make some good will if they wanted too.
            I’m a bit confused by this shocked hushed tone people are carrying on about taxes. Yea, the government enforces tax law. Are we supposed to have a government without taxes? When a court charges someone with a fine, we aren’t like “Well if you don’t choose to pay they will come and shoot you, so it’s really just legalized theft.” The income tax is in the Constitution. 16th Amendment.

          • That Amendment was ratified in 1913. What a coincidence – same time as the creation of the Federal Reserve, as mentioned in another post.

            Everything you mentioned can be funded privately and has been. There are numerous private roads. Richard Branson (et al) is planning to start commercial space travel in the next few years – motivated by the successful completion of the “X”Prize. This is when good things develop…letting the marketplace work things out and make these advancements.
            Taxes should never be on the table as being acceptable and should be resisted. What starts out as being temporary or minor grows into a bureaucracy that needs to justify its existence and becomes some form of social welfare. If there is a real need, then the marketplace will offer a solution that you can pay for if you want it. Government does not need to get involved. If government is sticking their nose into how our money is being Re-Allocated, I can guarantee you that it could be done better without their involvement

          • gregblandino

            You think Richard Branson starting commercial space travel decades after government developed the technology of space travel is a good example of the private market leading the way? The United State Highway system is the biggest and most complex in the world, if the private market could have created it, why didn’t it? Do my other examples not count? I guess the “free market” could have developed those things, but they didn’t, so you’re using hypotheticals to argue against my realities. You keep mentioning the Federal Reserve….is that supposed to mean something?

          • I’m really not interested in extended this – thanks
            I believe that limited government is always the right answer.
            f there is a specific need, then something will fill that need.

          • Probotector

            How can taxation with representation be legalised theft? Like I said to moo, in the 21st century (and the 20th for that matter) how can public services be funded without income tax? Do you know why income tax was introduced in the first place?

          • Alex Dương

            The Constitution was amended. That’s the legalized part. Taxation itself is theft. It’s not voluntary; you have to pay, or there will be criminal penalties.

            Even if I were to support the level of public services that you do, it is not as if income tax is the only tax. I pay sales taxes for example. I’m of the opinion that we should have a much smaller government, and thus it is not at all problematic that tax revenues decrease. As for why income tax was introduced, we needed another source of revenue to replace import taxes.

          • The Federal Reserve is paid a 6% ROI every year…
            created same time as the Income Tax …takes money from the many and re-distributes to the Few

          • Probotector

            Let me explain it to you. When did income tax first arrive? The end of the nineteenth century. Why? Because an industrialised economy, with a growing urban infrastructure, requires public services: police/emergency services/sewage & sanitation/road and building maintenance/local government etc. etc. As technology and public needs have grown from then until now, income tax has become more relevant. Taxing a pseron’s income is the most effective way of making sure that they equally pay a share for these services. How is this to be paid for? Dude, if you enjoy these services in your day-to-day life, you have to pay for them somehow. Or would you prefer the old Roman way, where a taxman knocks on your door and demands money whether you’re employed on not?

          • Alex Dương

            Our countries didn’t have such public services before the end of the nineteenth century? The NYPD was established in 1845, before we had a permanent income tax. The railroads were built before we had a permanent income tax. So I don’t find your explanation very convincing.

            As for paying for services “somehow,” again, income tax is not the only tax.

          • Probotector

            Yes, but not on the same scale as there is today, you’re just nitpicking. The point is, a developed society needs to have it’s services paid for. You can disagree with that Alex, but either write to your Congressman or take up arms if you want income tax abolished.

          • Alex Dương

            No, it’s not nitpicking. We don’t need an income tax to have those services; we had them before we had a permanent income tax. Maybe we need an income tax if we want such a high level of public services, but I don’t think we should have such a high level of public services. That’s why I try to vote for candidates who have serious intentions to reduce the size of government, even if they “cannot win.”

            And yes, of course, writing to my representatives is a way to voice my opinion on this matter.

          • moop

            The first modern income tax in 1799 was enacted to pay for war, not the welfare state as were many of the subsequent ones. in fact income taxes in the past had a tendency to only be used during war time. it was because of empire building, not public services that lead to peacetime income taxes in britain. The first income tax in the us was also for war.

          • Probotector

            Granted, although war is not what income tax is levied for today, when you consider all the countries around the world that levy it. In any case, if you want to protest the existence of this tax, and point out alternatives, I encourage you to go through the normal political channels in your country to do that.

          • biggj

            Let me tell you how it will be
            There’s one for you, nineteen for me
            ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

            Should five per cent appear too small
            Be thankful I don’t take it all
            ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

            If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
            If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
            If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
            If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

            Don’t ask me what I want it for
            If you don’t want to pay some more
            ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

            Now my advice for those who die
            Declare the pennies on your eyes
            ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
            And you’re working for no one but me.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyu5sFzWLk8

      • moop

        Memoir on Pauperism by deToqueville is a pretty good book

    • 宋易

      Jesus… why is so difficult for people to understand that medical care is just plain expensive. It’s not cheap! The materials and equipment, the schooling of personnel… billions of dollars worth of research, manufacture, study, administration. Decades of expensive research and development for medication to make sure it doesn’t slowly kill you as you’re trying to get better.

      Medical care does not come off an assembly line in rural China. It’s expensive shit, duh. So fucking sick of people (Westerners, in particular) complaining about this and braying “oooooooh, give us free medical care. we are so poor and the evil rich people are stealing our money. ooooooooh.”

      Then YOU go be a doctor or researcher, you *non-contributing zero.*

      • Probotector

        It seems to work in all other Western countries except “MURRRRICCAA!”, which says more about your society than anyone else’s. Explain that one.

        China could have universal, tax-funded healthcare, any nation could, but, in the case of China, there’s so much corruption and flouting of the rules that the money would never siphon through. Also, China’s overwhelming population growth (which is still ongoing btw, despite the one-child policy (another rule they flout)) and lack of basic human education would make it next to impossible to implement. Now whose fault is all that?

        • shit religion

          Use your brain before typing.
          Universal healthcare for 1.4 billion people, no matter how much money China has, it will never be enough. Basic human education? Go to any 3rd world country and see how they behave, do I have to remind you that China was a 3rd world country about 30 years ago?

          • Probotector

            How is what I said brainless? I said healthcare won’t work there now because of the population/education issue. However it could have worked if these problems were curtailed or had never existed. Therefore, we are in agreement, it’s just a shame it is the way it is in China.

          • Yes!

            Isn’t China still a 3rd world country today?

        • Ale Jandro

          Taxes, what they need to do is to collect taxes…and end the system itself

  • guest

    How long before a Chinese cgirl atches onto the idea of autioning off her virginity online…

    Then the games will fly….

  • Teacher in China

    I agree with the Chinese commenter – go to the airport if you want to find a rich man to take care of you.

  • biggj

    She did it….she has one the officials to thank for the money. The official never wanted marriage…….all he wanted was her and her brothers soul to add to his collection…..and unlimited blow jobs.

    • Probotector

      You’re good at this, but it’s gettin’ old ;)

      • Free Man

        Nah, not yet. Keep going, biggj!

    • T

      Don’t stop man. I am looking forward for the “three official photo series” every day.

      • Free Man

        Yeah, chinasmack should hire biggj and make this a daily thing. Full support.

    • RickyBeijing

      aw man! I love these!!!

  • biggj

    Desperate times call for desperate measures.

  • FYIADragoon

    A very admirable older sister. Although what she’s saying with all the PC BS shoved aside is she’ll be the sex slave of whoever saves her brother. Not sure why one guy things the brother looks ungrateful. Leukemia isn’t really fun times, I think he just looks frail.

  • WFH

    I’m sure she’ll find plenty of middle aged white dudes here that are willing to have her.

    • FYIADragoon

      She’s looking for people with money, not STDs and a bad case of preventable acne.

      • vincent_t

        damn! I was about to say the same thing and you beat me!

    • Amused

      She better hope so bro, because the middle aged Chinese guys with that kind of money won’t settle for anything less than their 12 year old little sister…

  • Probotector

    The desperate lengths people feel they should go to is staggering. It’s pretty much impossible that China can offer universal healthcare with the demographic, economic and resource demand that such a public service would inevitably have. Meantime, expect more stories like this.

    • Martin

      Agreed, the more I stay in China the more I am glad to come from a developed country with universal healthcare, free education (well, paid with taxpayers’ money) for everyone and a civil society in which people have concern for each others and their surroundings.

      • vincent_t

        I guess quite some expats here in China are here merely for the money, experience or make China a stepping stone for their career. I don’t come from a developed country, but I am damn sure will be returning to my home country that provides relatively cheaper and higher standard healthcare, free education and on top of the list, fresh air to inhale.

  • Thor

    Crowd funding doesn’t seem to have made its way to China yet.

    • Alex Dương

      Unless she had polyandry in mind, I think an auction would be more appropriate than crowdfunding.

  • Jahar

    She is willing to sacrifice her happiness to save her brother. That’s a marriage I want a part of.

    • roger rabbit

      She is willing to sell herself to save her brother. That’s prostitution I want to be a part of.

      Will she leave you first thing in the morning, or will she stay a day or two ?

  • Alex Dương

    Not at all. I’m saying that in this case, I don’t think “crowdfunding” is an appropriate model.

    • vincent_t

      I bet he meant public donation instead of crowd funding.

  • donscarletti

    If she was willing to be a kept mistress instead, she would find 300K in hours.

    That said, personally, if I was 50 and divorsed I would probably take the deal as it is, though who knows how much it would really cost all up.

  • ShihonoRyo

    She’s kinda cute, and the sum she’s asking for isn’t crazy high, however I doubt she speaks English, so it would be too difficult.

  • Xio Gen

    Are there no NGOs or nonprofits in China? Where are the missionaries who supposedly care so much for the populace? The poor girl who loves her brother so much. I hope an update comes soon.

  • Guest

    Take this show to Hong Kong – foreigners have more money and are less mean about it (and if they were, western family law treat women better).

  • JH

    in my little corner of the world, men are more likely to marry for money than women;

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»