View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 23rd, 2014, 2:43 am



Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap 
Author Message
Online
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3694
Location: WSU
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
Quote:
Honestly, I don't remember. She has had a pace-maker for years, and she was having problems with it. I think it was exploratory, but she literally had no other health problems, ever. They were investigating her heart and took out her appendix, and literally said that they just did it for precautionary reasons, because it doesn't do anything and it can only cause problems later. It was more or less "we did it because we were in there, looking around, and didn't see anything else."


well if they were in her abdomen anyway removing the appendix is standard of practice and wasnt the reason for the high cost. the question is why were they in there.

Quote:
She has "total heart block" (her heart is healthy, but the nerve that tells her heart to beat doesn't operate, at all), and totally relies on her pacer. What's really effed up is she died three times the next day or the day after she got out of the hospital, and the last time she was dead for 12-20 minutes and has long-term memory problems, and emotional problems now. I'm sure she could have sued for a TON of money, but she refused.


im sorry to hear that, that is a hard way to live and a lot to go through


May 10th, 2012, 5:40 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
The Legend wrote:
Quote:
Honestly, I don't remember. She has had a pace-maker for years, and she was having problems with it. I think it was exploratory, but she literally had no other health problems, ever. They were investigating her heart and took out her appendix, and literally said that they just did it for precautionary reasons, because it doesn't do anything and it can only cause problems later. It was more or less "we did it because we were in there, looking around, and didn't see anything else."


well if they were in her abdomen anyway removing the appendix is standard of practice and wasnt the reason for the high cost. the question is why were they in there.

Quote:
She has "total heart block" (her heart is healthy, but the nerve that tells her heart to beat doesn't operate, at all), and totally relies on her pacer. What's really effed up is she died three times the next day or the day after she got out of the hospital, and the last time she was dead for 12-20 minutes and has long-term memory problems, and emotional problems now. I'm sure she could have sued for a TON of money, but she refused.


im sorry to hear that, that is a hard way to live and a lot to go through



It's really not that bad... She doesn't remember the 90's, but otherwise takes care of herself for the most part. She gets emotional about weird things, can't handle some things, and "gets into trouble" like a 15 yr old, but she's got it better than a lot of people, and she's generally happy. That's all that really matters to me.


May 10th, 2012, 5:43 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
This sounds very interesting. In your earlier example of "what do you do when you find that someone has early cancer?" How would that be handled under your proposal? The 'bare minimal care' aspect covers the tests that discovered the cancer, and the 'catastrophic care' covers the needed treatment? What limits, if any, are there for the catastrophic care? What would the expected out-of-pocket costs be in this scenario?

This created the following scenario in my wacky brain: Remembering that we're for 'personal responsibility' and that some cancers can be caused by environmental factors and that some Govt policies (or lack thereof) could be responsible for those environmental factors, who should be responsible for the needed care? Should it be the affected person, that did nothing more than 'be' in said environment? Should it be the Govt, that is responsible for the policies (or lack thereof)?
At least how I envision it, the catastrophic care insurance would be sort of al la cart. There are relatively cheap methods of "curing" or "treating" cancer, and there are uber, uber expensive methods. Bare minimum insurance would give the cheaper forms of care, more expensive programs would give higher levels of care, but again, you would have to have this insurance before you contract the disease, other wise you literally get no care for your ailment. For any "real" insurance program to work you have to have the insurance before the disease is contracted. That's what insurance is for, you pay now in order to not potentially get stuck with a bill later. In this country people want health insurance to act as a discount for medical care, meaning, they want to buy the insurance when they're sick, get 80% off of their medical bills, and cancel their insurance after they're cured.
The bolded part concerns me a bit. If I understand correctly, then you're saying that in order for insurance to cover any instance of cancer, diabetes, arthritis, tuberculosis, appendicitis, etc then the individual has to purchase a "rider" for said disease. While that may sound good in principle, I'm not sure how successful or realistic that is in practice.
First off, with cancer would said "rider" cover all forms of cancer? or would you need to purchase separate 'riders' for each type? If so, that's an awful lot of additional 'riders' to be purchased. Furthermore, what about someone in my case where cancer, leukemia and diabetes are all within my family history, does that mean I have to pay higher premiums? If so, why? It wasn't my fault my ancestors got sick.
Secondly, wouldn't the timing of the disease be open for debate and therefore allow the insurance provider to deny claims on those grounds? We all know that diseases are missed all the time during tests. Just because a disease may not show up on a test doesn't mean its not there.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I've been in emergency rooms before a few times and didn't notice anything that would resemble 'over-serving', in fact I rarely saw anyone the entire time I was there sitting on a gurney. In my anecdotal story, I sat on said gurney for over 90 mins before seeing a Dr; the triage took approx 30 mins to be seen. That said, anecdotal stories are rarely a good source for creating policy on any level IMO.
How about surveys where 70-80% of the people state that they've been "over-cared for" after an emergency room visit?
While I'm not going to discount someone's personal experience, when is something more likely to be reported - after a good experience or a bad experience? From what I have seen, it is usually the bad experiences that get reported the most often, not too mention the loudest. Unfortunately, we as a society don't pass along the good experiences with the same vigor as we do with the bad ones.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Or:
Quote:
Elliott S. Fisher of Dartmouth College details analyses demonstrating that decreased use of discretionary services in the Medicare program could save approximately $50 billion a year, or approximately 20 percent of current spending.
Is there waste in govt programs? Yes, undoubtedly. But let me ask you, where, in what industry, is there NO waste? Can you name one? Personally, I have yet to find any waste-free company. Everywhere I have worked, someone, somewhere has wasted money. Whether it be the employee that is taking home pens & pencils, envelopes, etc or the one that decides to do a little 'surfing' on the internet during work hours :oops: it is still waste.
The obvious difference between private and public 'companies' is that the private ones are there to make a profit, not so when it comes to the public.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I agree that a 'phased in' approach would prolly be better, not too mention less stressful on the current system. How would you suggest the phases to go? What comes first? second? etc?
I would suggest first getting everyone on some plan. That's step one, insuring everyone with some sort of health care that provides them real access to the HC system, gets their medical charts started and gets their preventative care rolling, and reducing waste/corrpution and implementing cost savings mechanisms into our system. Step two would be increasing that coverage to perhaps broken bones and larger ailments (normal surgeries like tonsils, removing an appendix, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney stones, etc.). And step three would be adding to our HC system (adding doctors, nurses, hospitals) along the way, to reduce costs, stream line waits, and hopefully increase universal coverages, ALL while multiple HC companies are competing for our business AND health insurance IS being sold across State lines (again reducing costs).
If I may be so bold, why are you waiting until step 3 to start adding to our HC system, shouldn't that be #1? Wouldn't your approach also leave us in the situation Trump described? Too many people seeking help and not enough providers?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
BTW - Nothing is "just plain not do-able" IMO - more defeatist attitude.... Isn't this part of capitalism? Companies that cannot adjust to the current climate go out of business and new ones that can handle it replace them? One would think this is a good thing, no? While I'm not one to support policies / efforts that are distinctly anti-business, I'm also not one to coddle them either. These insurance companies have been screwing the insured for decades, perhaps its time for them to 'pay the piper', so to speak. (Karma)

You must be off here somewhere... In Capitalism companies go out of business all the time, but they at least have a business model to succeed. Forcing an insurance company to cover someone for a reasonable cost ($1,200 - $3k a month) to treat a million dollar disease is forcing them to have a business model that causes them to fail. NO COMPANY could succeed under that system. Success, for a company in that environment, would be impossible, BY DEFINITION. There is no company that could "handle" that handicap, none.
Perhaps I'm just not understanding you here. Are you saying that businesses should never have to adjust to any potential changes in the business climate? Really? Don't business models change all the time? I would think so; I mean do you think that any company that existed in 1900 would be able to exist in today's climate without making any changes?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
How have these insurance companies been screwing the insured for decades? BCBS is a NON PROFIT COMPANY! How does it screw the people it insures? The only people "screwing the insured" are the free riders that don't have insurance. They drive up the costs of HC and force the insurance companies and the Federal Govt. to bridge the gap, driving up health insurance costs. It's not the "bad companies" (again a Liberal mantra) screwing "the people."
In my admittedly brief search I haven't been able to find much repeatable data on insurance companies profits (seems to be a whole lot from the extremes of both sides picking and choosing the data to prove their particular point), I'll keep searching to see if I can find anything concrete. That said, from what I can see, BCBS is not non-profit. Granted they may be "not-for-profit" in Michigan and perhaps other states, but nationally BCBS is for-profit:
wiki wrote:
Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, organizations administering Blue Cross Blue Shield were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked that exemption because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation but entitled to "special tax benefits"[8] under IRC 833. In 1994, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations.[4] Some plans[specify] are still considered not-for-profit at the state level.


wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Did you listen to yourself writing this? Seriously? The bolded part is screaming to me that the 'Repubs are right! Dems must submit to our ways' Do you realize how silly that sounds? Imagine it in reverse 'Everyone agrees that it is a good idea, so why don't Repubs and Conservatives get it done?' As someone that aligns with conservatives, how would hearing that make you feel? I'm guessing you'd feel a bit like you're being attacked and blamed for something is the fault and responsibility of BOTH parties. IMO it is thinking like this that has brought us to our current state of hyper-partisanship. Each side blaming the other for the wrongs and claiming they have the correct solutions. That said, don't get me wrong the way the PPACA was pushed through is disgusting. There should've been televised bipartisan discussions on how to solve this issue, not the backdoor deals.

Not at all Wags, you're taking the position of a jaded Liberal "why me" "why am I always wrong" "why do you think you're always right"... IMO the Reps approach to HC IS right, but it's only because the Dem approach is so radical and improbable and its rife with holes and issues. Reps want to fix the system incrementally. The Dems want to pass a bill that no one knows whats in it, stress the system to the point of failure, and try to run around like a chicken with our heads cut off and patch the holes in the process. You really think that's the way to go?
What are the differences between PPACA / ObamaCare and what the Republicans proposed in HillaryCare days? I'm hoping to find some information on this simply because if it is true that the PPACA is the Rep plan from the 90s, then IMO most of the aforementioned complaints would be pretty much null and void, wouldn't they?

wjb21ndtown wrote:
I'm not saying that the Dems should "submit" to the Reps "ways," and I'm not saying that anyone is "right" or "wrong." If they have another plan, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. What YOU said was "the Reps have talked about fixing corruption for decades and have done nothing..." and you said it as if it was the right thing to do, and as if THEY and THEY ALONE were the ONLY ones that could stick with their own idea. That somehow the Dems were free of guilt for NOT fixing corruption, and that somehow corruption couldn't be fixed because it was a Rep thing and they're not going to finish the project that they started.

This isn't a car in the garage. It's not an "item" that one side possess that they and they alone need to fix. This is a community project that anyone can pick up and run with. The Dems are just as guilty for not fixing the corruption in the system, and ANYONE can step up and fix corruption, and ANYONE can do the right thing.
I'm pretty sure I blamed both parties equally here (bolded for emphasis):
TheRealWags wrote:
How long have the Reps been talking about 'eliminating corruption'? I know at least since Reagan, prolly long before that. Have they done it yet? Nope. Hell, they've had 3 out of the last 5 Presidents and still haven't accomplished it. To be fair, the Dems are no better. (Is there really a difference anymore? Other than social policies that is) In all honestly, there will be corruption as long as there is money in politics. The entire system is broken and needs to be fixed. Neither Romney nor Obama will change a damn thing.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 11:57 am
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
This sounds very interesting. In your earlier example of "what do you do when you find that someone has early cancer?" How would that be handled under your proposal? The 'bare minimal care' aspect covers the tests that discovered the cancer, and the 'catastrophic care' covers the needed treatment? What limits, if any, are there for the catastrophic care? What would the expected out-of-pocket costs be in this scenario?

This created the following scenario in my wacky brain: Remembering that we're for 'personal responsibility' and that some cancers can be caused by environmental factors and that some Govt policies (or lack thereof) could be responsible for those environmental factors, who should be responsible for the needed care? Should it be the affected person, that did nothing more than 'be' in said environment? Should it be the Govt, that is responsible for the policies (or lack thereof)?
At least how I envision it, the catastrophic care insurance would be sort of al la cart. There are relatively cheap methods of "curing" or "treating" cancer, and there are uber, uber expensive methods. Bare minimum insurance would give the cheaper forms of care, more expensive programs would give higher levels of care, but again, you would have to have this insurance before you contract the disease, other wise you literally get no care for your ailment. For any "real" insurance program to work you have to have the insurance before the disease is contracted. That's what insurance is for, you pay now in order to not potentially get stuck with a bill later. In this country people want health insurance to act as a discount for medical care, meaning, they want to buy the insurance when they're sick, get 80% off of their medical bills, and cancel their insurance after they're cured.
The bolded part concerns me a bit. If I understand correctly, then you're saying that in order for insurance to cover any instance of cancer, diabetes, arthritis, tuberculosis, appendicitis, etc then the individual has to purchase a "rider" for said disease. While that may sound good in principle, I'm not sure how successful or realistic that is in practice.
First off, with cancer would said "rider" cover all forms of cancer? or would you need to purchase separate 'riders' for each type? If so, that's an awful lot of additional 'riders' to be purchased. Furthermore, what about someone in my case where cancer, leukemia and diabetes are all within my family history, does that mean I have to pay higher premiums? If so, why? It wasn't my fault my ancestors got sick.
Secondly, wouldn't the timing of the disease be open for debate and therefore allow the insurance provider to deny claims on those grounds? We all know that diseases are missed all the time during tests. Just because a disease may not show up on a test doesn't mean its not there.


It would be silly to think that each coverage would need to be its own individual rider. You don't need a separate rider for a rear-end collision, and one for a front-end collision, but I do think there would and should definitely be different levels of what is covered and how, and I think it should be spelled out. If someone wants to eliminate any and all debates as to when they contracted a disease then they should get the coverage from birth, or if their parents didn't get it for them, at 18. Sure, there will be issues where parents screw up coverages for their kids, but parents regularly do that. It doesn't have to be "individual expensive riders," just like other insurances, it would be a package with different levels of coverage/care.

The timing of contracting the disease is always open for debate, but also remember, insurance companies don't want to litigate this stuff either. Litigation is expensive, probably more expensive than fighting the disease. Coverage would likely be sided with the insured in most cases, where it wasn't clear or is "foggy."

The bottom line is, for insurance to work, you have to allow the uninsured to suffer, period. Otherwise it isn't "insurance" at all, where healthy people pay for something to avoid a risk later on, it's more of a discount program that sick people run to when they want 80% off of their medical bills, and that system will break and bankrupt the industry and ruin it for everyone else.

TheRealWags wrote:
While I'm not going to discount someone's personal experience, when is something more likely to be reported - after a good experience or a bad experience? From what I have seen, it is usually the bad experiences that get reported the most often, not too mention the loudest. Unfortunately, we as a society don't pass along the good experiences with the same vigor as we do with the bad ones.


No doubt, but who cares how many good experiences there are? The fact of the matter is that when someone receives "good" emergency care, they've only gotten what they should have received. I'm not worried about handing out pats on the back here. We're not talking about whether or not "good" care is received, we're talking about cost and waste, only. And how many people would consider "over-care" a good experience? Most people with insurance would consider getting numerous unnecessary tests "good" and "taking good caution," when in actuality they're a medical nightmare and a driver of health care costs. People think that when someone else is paying the tab that "more" is "good."

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Or:
Quote:
Elliott S. Fisher of Dartmouth College details analyses demonstrating that decreased use of discretionary services in the Medicare program could save approximately $50 billion a year, or approximately 20 percent of current spending.
Is there waste in govt programs? Yes, undoubtedly. But let me ask you, where, in what industry, is there NO waste? Can you name one? Personally, I have yet to find any waste-free company. Everywhere I have worked, someone, somewhere has wasted money. Whether it be the employee that is taking home pens & pencils, envelopes, etc or the one that decides to do a little 'surfing' on the internet during work hours :oops: it is still waste.
The obvious difference between private and public 'companies' is that the private ones are there to make a profit, not so when it comes to the public.


There's a difference between "waste" in the form of someone taking home pens and penciles, and $50 BILLION dollars worth of waste and corruption, yearly, like there is in medicare and medicare. To liken $50 billion in medicare waste to "pens and pencils" in the private industry is utterly ridiculous.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I agree that a 'phased in' approach would prolly be better, not too mention less stressful on the current system. How would you suggest the phases to go? What comes first? second? etc?
I would suggest first getting everyone on some plan. That's step one, insuring everyone with some sort of health care that provides them real access to the HC system, gets their medical charts started and gets their preventative care rolling, and reducing waste/corrpution and implementing cost savings mechanisms into our system. Step two would be increasing that coverage to perhaps broken bones and larger ailments (normal surgeries like tonsils, removing an appendix, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney stones, etc.). And step three would be adding to our HC system (adding doctors, nurses, hospitals) along the way, to reduce costs, stream line waits, and hopefully increase universal coverages, ALL while multiple HC companies are competing for our business AND health insurance IS being sold across State lines (again reducing costs).
If I may be so bold, why are you waiting until step 3 to start adding to our HC system, shouldn't that be #1? Wouldn't your approach also leave us in the situation Trump described? Too many people seeking help and not enough providers?


Like I said, build the foundation and get rid of corruption first. Without doing that you're building a shaky house on an even shakier foundation. If you add to the BAD infrastructure that we have now you're going to get more BAD results. Further, we have to reduce costs, and get benefits worked out JUST TO KNOW WHERE TO ADD Wags. Otherwise you're just throwing money into the wind and guessing. You need to know what type of preventitive coverages are going to be covered just to determine what types of clinics to build, and where to build them. There are way too many logistical issues that will pop up later if you "spend now, and figure it out later," like the Dems want us to do.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
BTW - Nothing is "just plain not do-able" IMO - more defeatist attitude.... Isn't this part of capitalism? Companies that cannot adjust to the current climate go out of business and new ones that can handle it replace them? One would think this is a good thing, no? While I'm not one to support policies / efforts that are distinctly anti-business, I'm also not one to coddle them either. These insurance companies have been screwing the insured for decades, perhaps its time for them to 'pay the piper', so to speak. (Karma)

You must be off here somewhere... In Capitalism companies go out of business all the time, but they at least have a business model to succeed. Forcing an insurance company to cover someone for a reasonable cost ($1,200 - $3k a month) to treat a million dollar disease is forcing them to have a business model that causes them to fail. NO COMPANY could succeed under that system. Success, for a company in that environment, would be impossible, BY DEFINITION. There is no company that could "handle" that handicap, none.


Perhaps I'm just not understanding you here. Are you saying that businesses should never have to adjust to any potential changes in the business climate? Really? Don't business models change all the time? I would think so; I mean do you think that any company that existed in 1900 would be able to exist in today's climate without making any changes?[/quote]

This is what makes me think you'll never get it. You think that a company can survive by taking in $10,000 a year from someone, and paying out $1,000,000.00. You tell me what business model that works under. You tell me how that isn't IMPOSSIBLE BY DEFINITION.

Further, if people in impovrished areas started receiving health care, meaning, they could AFFORD preventative care and that preventative care was BEING PAID FOR (opposed to being funded by a free clinic), the private sector would fill the void, and for fee clinics would be popping up left and right in those areas. By DOING step one in my plan, step three begins AUTOMATICALLY, but in a more positive and more directed manner.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
How have these insurance companies been screwing the insured for decades? BCBS is a NON PROFIT COMPANY! How does it screw the people it insures? The only people "screwing the insured" are the free riders that don't have insurance. They drive up the costs of HC and force the insurance companies and the Federal Govt. to bridge the gap, driving up health insurance costs. It's not the "bad companies" (again a Liberal mantra) screwing "the people."
In my admittedly brief search I haven't been able to find much repeatable data on insurance companies profits (seems to be a whole lot from the extremes of both sides picking and choosing the data to prove their particular point), I'll keep searching to see if I can find anything concrete. That said, from what I can see, BCBS is not non-profit. Granted they may be "not-for-profit" in Michigan and perhaps other states, but nationally BCBS is for-profit:
wiki wrote:
Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, organizations administering Blue Cross Blue Shield were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked that exemption because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation but entitled to "special tax benefits"[8] under IRC 833. In 1994, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations.[4] Some plans[specify] are still considered not-for-profit at the state level.


Again, TELL ME HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SCREWING PEOPLE.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Did you listen to yourself writing this? Seriously? The bolded part is screaming to me that the 'Repubs are right! Dems must submit to our ways' Do you realize how silly that sounds? Imagine it in reverse 'Everyone agrees that it is a good idea, so why don't Repubs and Conservatives get it done?' As someone that aligns with conservatives, how would hearing that make you feel? I'm guessing you'd feel a bit like you're being attacked and blamed for something is the fault and responsibility of BOTH parties. IMO it is thinking like this that has brought us to our current state of hyper-partisanship. Each side blaming the other for the wrongs and claiming they have the correct solutions. That said, don't get me wrong the way the PPACA was pushed through is disgusting. There should've been televised bipartisan discussions on how to solve this issue, not the backdoor deals.

Not at all Wags, you're taking the position of a jaded Liberal "why me" "why am I always wrong" "why do you think you're always right"... IMO the Reps approach to HC IS right, but it's only because the Dem approach is so radical and improbable and its rife with holes and issues. Reps want to fix the system incrementally. The Dems want to pass a bill that no one knows whats in it, stress the system to the point of failure, and try to run around like a chicken with our heads cut off and patch the holes in the process. You really think that's the way to go?
What are the differences between PPACA / ObamaCare and what the Republicans proposed in HillaryCare days? I'm hoping to find some information on this simply because if it is true that the PPACA is the Rep plan from the 90s, then IMO most of the aforementioned complaints would be pretty much null and void, wouldn't they?


Why would complaints be null and void just because a Rep prior attempted something similar (if that's the case, but I highly doubt it)? You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim. I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that? Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.

I really don't know what the proposed Rep plan of the HillaryCare days was, but if it's anything like PPACA I won't like it. If its a forced purchase of a government program, I'll hate it.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I'm not saying that the Dems should "submit" to the Reps "ways," and I'm not saying that anyone is "right" or "wrong." If they have another plan, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. What YOU said was "the Reps have talked about fixing corruption for decades and have done nothing..." and you said it as if it was the right thing to do, and as if THEY and THEY ALONE were the ONLY ones that could stick with their own idea. That somehow the Dems were free of guilt for NOT fixing corruption, and that somehow corruption couldn't be fixed because it was a Rep thing and they're not going to finish the project that they started.

This isn't a car in the garage. It's not an "item" that one side possess that they and they alone need to fix. This is a community project that anyone can pick up and run with. The Dems are just as guilty for not fixing the corruption in the system, and ANYONE can step up and fix corruption, and ANYONE can do the right thing.
I'm pretty sure I blamed both parties equally here (bolded for emphasis):
TheRealWags wrote:
How long have the Reps been talking about 'eliminating corruption'? I know at least since Reagan, prolly long before that. Have they done it yet? Nope. Hell, they've had 3 out of the last 5 Presidents and still haven't accomplished it. To be fair, the Dems are no better. (Is there really a difference anymore? Other than social policies that is) In all honestly, there will be corruption as long as there is money in politics. The entire system is broken and needs to be fixed. Neither Romney nor Obama will change a damn thing.


That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.


May 14th, 2012, 12:41 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
What are the differences between PPACA / ObamaCare and what the Republicans proposed in HillaryCare days? I'm hoping to find some information on this simply because if it is true that the PPACA is the Rep plan from the 90s, then IMO most of the aforementioned complaints would be pretty much null and void, wouldn't they?
Why would complaints be null and void just because a Rep prior attempted something similar (if that's the case, but I highly doubt it)?
Simple, you keep saying that you favor the Republicans and their ways of doing things, correct? Well if the PPACA/ObamaCare is really, truely a Republican idea and is being as they would have in the 90s, then your complaints about it now come across as only being complaints because their now a Dem idea. Did you feel the same way about the Republican plan in the 90s as you do about ObamaCare now? If not, what changed? However if you disliked it as much in the 90s as you do now, then you're being consistent.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim.
Please list where I have listed partisan arguments.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that?
Agreed 100%
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.
Examples please.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
I really don't know what the proposed Rep plan of the HillaryCare days was, but if it's anything like PPACA I won't like it. If its a forced purchase of a government program, I'll hate it.
The mandate was, I believe, the Republican's response to make sure everyone was covered. Like I said earlier, I think it would be very interesting (and telling) if we could trace back the history of all these 'proposed health care solutions' to see how they have morphed over time.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
The way I'm reading it, this sounds a bit like semantics. In both scenarios the Govt is using the tax code as social engineering, right? The only difference is if you want to call something a "tax" or "punishment" (directing payment) as opposed to a "reward" or "credit" (rational purchase).

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 2:28 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
Simple, you keep saying that you favor the Republicans and their ways of doing things, correct? Well if the PPACA/ObamaCare is really, truely a Republican idea and is being as they would have in the 90s, then your complaints about it now come across as only being complaints because their now a Dem idea. Did you feel the same way about the Republican plan in the 90s as you do about ObamaCare now? If not, what changed? However if you disliked it as much in the 90s as you do now, then you're being consistent.


No Wags, I'm saying that MY current preferred plan is akin to what the Reps have outlined as their preferred method, NOT the other way around. The way that I would prefer things get done is the way that THEY happen to be going about solving the issue. I don't prefer it because they've promoted it and suggested it, I support it because I think it is the RIGHT thing to do. If they supported something differently in the past I wouldn't care for it. I don't care what the Reps do or don't do, I have a MY OWN preferred method to fixing this thing (which is what the general public also prefers). It's not a "Republican" idea. Get it now?

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim.
Please list where I have listed partisan arguments.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that?
Agreed 100%
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.
Examples please.


Simple, you advocate a rash expansion of the current corrupt system, you advocate for a single payer system, and you denounce "Republican" ideas as "Republican ideas," not as poor policy alternatives. You don't say "we shouldn't fix correption because...." You say "REPUBLICANS have claimed that they're going to fix HC for decades..." and use that as a reason to denounce their plan. That doesn't sound like someone that thinks for themselves. That sounds much more like someone that thinks "Republicans are bad," "Republican ideas are bad," and "I like Liberals and Liberal alternatives."


TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I really don't know what the proposed Rep plan of the HillaryCare days was, but if it's anything like PPACA I won't like it. If its a forced purchase of a government program, I'll hate it.
The mandate was, I believe, the Republican's response to make sure everyone was covered. Like I said earlier, I think it would be very interesting (and telling) if we could trace back the history of all these 'proposed health care solutions' to see how they have morphed over time.


Like I said, I'd have to see it. Having "everyone covered" is a noble goal, but with what sort of coverage, and by whom would be my quibbling points.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
[/quote]

I don't know what you need explained, specifically. I don't want the government directly paying for our health care, but I don't mind a tax credit to allow purchasers that ability to go acquire their own, PRIVATE SECTOR health care.


May 14th, 2012, 2:39 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim.
Please list where I have listed partisan arguments.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that?
Agreed 100%
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.
Examples please.
Simple, you advocate a rash expansion of the current corrupt system, you advocate for a single payer system, and you denounce "Republican" ideas as "Republican ideas," not as poor policy alternatives. You don't say "we shouldn't fix correption because...." You say "REPUBLICANS have claimed that they're going to fix HC for decades..." and use that as a reason to denounce their plan. That doesn't sound like someone that thinks for themselves. That sounds much more like someone that thinks "Republicans are bad," "Republican ideas are bad," and "I like Liberals and Liberal alternatives."
Perhaps I haven't been explaining myself well throughout this discussion, if that is the case I apologize. I tried to present ideas that I have heard being floated around on ways to try to resolve the Health Care & Insurance issue in this Country.
Where have I once said, anywhere on this forum, that an idea or proposed solution is bad JUST BECAUSE A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR INDEPENDENT made the suggestion? WHERE? Prove it to me, if you can't (which I believe the case to be), then I will assume you admit your error.

However I do think you've been picking and choosing some of my statements out of context. For example, this will now be the THIRD time I've said this:
TheRealWags wrote:
How long have the Reps been talking about 'eliminating corruption'? I know at least since Reagan, prolly long before that. Have they done it yet? Nope. Hell, they've had 3 out of the last 5 Presidents and still haven't accomplished it. To be fair, the Dems are no better. (Is there really a difference anymore? Other than social policies that is) In all honestly, there will be corruption as long as there is money in politics. The entire system is broken and needs to be fixed. Neither Romney nor Obama will change a damn thing.
Is there something in there you're not understanding? It seems to me that we AGREE, why must you continue to put words in my mouth? I am BLAMING BOTH PARTIES. What about that is so difficult to understand??? :confused: ](*,)

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
I don't know what you need explained, specifically. I don't want the government directly paying for our health care, but I don't mind a tax credit to allow purchasers that ability to go acquire their own, PRIVATE SECTOR health care.
Perhaps you didn't see that I edited my post:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
The way I'm reading it, this sounds a bit like semantics. In both scenarios the Govt is using the tax code as social engineering, right? The only difference is if you want to call something a "tax" or "punishment" (directing payment) as opposed to a "reward" or "credit" (rational purchase).
And you do realize that the Healthcare Exchanges will contain PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE companies, right?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 3:18 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
I now need to ask assistance from other forum members here. Can anyone, please point out where I have been partisan in any manner? I do strive to stay middle of the road. I do want to keep an open mind and if I have someone misrepresented that, I would like to know so that I may work on rectifying it.

Thanks,
Wags

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 3:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim.
Please list where I have listed partisan arguments.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that?
Agreed 100%
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.
Examples please.
Simple, you advocate a rash expansion of the current corrupt system, you advocate for a single payer system, and you denounce "Republican" ideas as "Republican ideas," not as poor policy alternatives. You don't say "we shouldn't fix correption because...." You say "REPUBLICANS have claimed that they're going to fix HC for decades..." and use that as a reason to denounce their plan. That doesn't sound like someone that thinks for themselves. That sounds much more like someone that thinks "Republicans are bad," "Republican ideas are bad," and "I like Liberals and Liberal alternatives."
Perhaps I haven't been explaining myself well throughout this discussion, if that is the case I apologize. I tried to present ideas that I have heard being floated around on ways to try to resolve the Health Care & Insurance issue in this Country.
Where have I once said, anywhere on this forum, that an idea or proposed solution is bad JUST BECAUSE A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR INDEPENDENT made the suggestion? WHERE? Prove it to me, if you can't (which I believe the case to be), then I will assume you admit your error.


Wags, you made the claim in bold, and then RIGHT on to say "the Republicans supported this idea in the past so YOU must like it, RIGHT?" As if you had some "gotcha" on me, but I don't play your party line game, and no, I'm not "forced" to like something that some Republican may have liked in the past, just because a Republican liked it.

TheRealWags wrote:
However I do think you've been picking and choosing some of my statements out of context. For example, this will now be the THIRD time I've said this:
TheRealWags wrote:
How long have the Reps been talking about 'eliminating corruption'? I know at least since Reagan, prolly long before that. Have they done it yet? Nope. Hell, they've had 3 out of the last 5 Presidents and still haven't accomplished it. To be fair, the Dems are no better. (Is there really a difference anymore? Other than social policies that is) In all honestly, there will be corruption as long as there is money in politics. The entire system is broken and needs to be fixed. Neither Romney nor Obama will change a damn thing.
Is there something in there you're not understanding? It seems to me that we AGREE, why must you continue to put words in my mouth? I am BLAMING BOTH PARTIES. What about that is so difficult to understand??? :confused: ](*,)


Then STOP BRINGING UP PARTIES and START discussing problems, solutions and issues ONLY.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
I don't know what you need explained, specifically. I don't want the government directly paying for our health care, but I don't mind a tax credit to allow purchasers that ability to go acquire their own, PRIVATE SECTOR health care.
Perhaps you didn't see that I edited my post:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
The way I'm reading it, this sounds a bit like semantics. In both scenarios the Govt is using the tax code as social engineering, right? The only difference is if you want to call something a "tax" or "punishment" (directing payment) as opposed to a "reward" or "credit" (rational purchase).
And you do realize that the Healthcare Exchanges will contain PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE companies, right?


Obama Care is nothing more than a back-door attempt at getting EVERYONE on the government program, period. "The Public Option" is going to end up being the "only option," not so slowly, but surely, and everyone that reads between the lines of the Bill knows it.


May 14th, 2012, 3:23 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You claim that you're not a Democrat, yet you CONSTANTLY use partisan arguments to support your claim.
Please list where I have listed partisan arguments.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't give a sh!t who proposed what and/or when. A bad system is a bad system. Why don't you get that?
Agreed 100%
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Why do you say that you "think for yourself" and that you're "not aligned to any party," and CONSTANTLY spout off partisan rhetoric? It really makes you look like a brain-dead Liberal drone.
Examples please.
Simple, you advocate a rash expansion of the current corrupt system, you advocate for a single payer system, and you denounce "Republican" ideas as "Republican ideas," not as poor policy alternatives. You don't say "we shouldn't fix correption because...." You say "REPUBLICANS have claimed that they're going to fix HC for decades..." and use that as a reason to denounce their plan. That doesn't sound like someone that thinks for themselves. That sounds much more like someone that thinks "Republicans are bad," "Republican ideas are bad," and "I like Liberals and Liberal alternatives."
Perhaps I haven't been explaining myself well throughout this discussion, if that is the case I apologize. I tried to present ideas that I have heard being floated around on ways to try to resolve the Health Care & Insurance issue in this Country.
Where have I once said, anywhere on this forum, that an idea or proposed solution is bad JUST BECAUSE A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR INDEPENDENT made the suggestion? WHERE? Prove it to me, if you can't (which I believe the case to be), then I will assume you admit your error.


Wags, you made the claim in bold, and then RIGHT on to say "the Republicans supported this idea in the past so YOU must like it, RIGHT?" As if you had some "gotcha" on me, but I don't play your party line game, and no, I'm not "forced" to like something that some Republican may have liked in the past, just because a Republican liked it.
I'll have to look back in this thread for the 'bold' part you mention, as I didn't see it in this post.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
However I do think you've been picking and choosing some of my statements out of context. For example, this will now be the THIRD time I've said this:
TheRealWags wrote:
How long have the Reps been talking about 'eliminating corruption'? I know at least since Reagan, prolly long before that. Have they done it yet? Nope. Hell, they've had 3 out of the last 5 Presidents and still haven't accomplished it. To be fair, the Dems are no better. (Is there really a difference anymore? Other than social policies that is) In all honestly, there will be corruption as long as there is money in politics. The entire system is broken and needs to be fixed. Neither Romney nor Obama will change a damn thing.
Is there something in there you're not understanding? It seems to me that we AGREE, why must you continue to put words in my mouth? I am BLAMING BOTH PARTIES. What about that is so difficult to understand??? :confused: ](*,)


Then STOP BRINGING UP PARTIES and START discussing problems, solutions and issues ONLY.
You are the one that keeps bringing them up, I only respond to what you were saying. That said, I'm done with this part.

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
I don't know what you need explained, specifically. I don't want the government directly paying for our health care, but I don't mind a tax credit to allow purchasers that ability to go acquire their own, PRIVATE SECTOR health care.
Perhaps you didn't see that I edited my post:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
That's why I think the private sector is the best place for this money to go. When the govt. offers a tax credit to rational purchasers to GO PURCHASE THEIR OWN, PRIVATE health care, it's not the same as when the government is actually directing the payment.
Can you please expand / clarify this?
The way I'm reading it, this sounds a bit like semantics. In both scenarios the Govt is using the tax code as social engineering, right? The only difference is if you want to call something a "tax" or "punishment" (directing payment) as opposed to a "reward" or "credit" (rational purchase).
And you do realize that the Healthcare Exchanges will contain PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE companies, right?

Obama Care is nothing more than a back-door attempt at getting EVERYONE on the government program, period. "The Public Option" is going to end up being the "only option," not so slowly, but surely, and everyone that reads between the lines of the Bill knows it.
Can I borrow your crystal ball please? I'd really like to know what the PowerBall & MegaMillions numbers will be this week, kthxbye

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 3:31 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
How about you borrow the "crystal ball" of the thousands of experts that have read the bill? Or, better yet, how about you look at what is actually in the legislation and read the public option part. Employers are going to choose to pay the penalty because it is cheaper, that's going to force people onto the public option, creating a single payer system. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but that's what is going to happen, period.

Again, no discussion of issues, problems, or solutions out of you, just more of the same.


May 14th, 2012, 4:00 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3824
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
I now need to ask assistance from other forum members here. Can anyone, please point out where I have been partisan in any manner? I do strive to stay middle of the road. I do want to keep an open mind and if I have someone misrepresented that, I would like to know so that I may work on rectifying it.

Thanks,
Wags


Im guessing here...but i think that perception has a bit to do with stereotyping. You got a lil hippy in ya....that can lead people to think your a lil more left leaning than you actually are.

IMO you do a better job of finding out all sides of a story before making judgments....thats a good thing....and very hippy like! hat36.gif laughing7.gif

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


May 14th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
How about you borrow the "crystal ball" of the thousands of experts that have read the bill? Or, better yet, how about you look at what is actually in the legislation and read the public option part. Employers are going to choose to pay the penalty because it is cheaper, that's going to force people onto the public option, creating a single payer system. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but that's what is going to happen, period.
Care to point me in the direction of one or two of those experts? Thx

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Again, no discussion of issues, problems, or solutions out of you, just more of the same.
Feeling is mutual; its seems as though we are at an impasse.

Peace to you and yours.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 4:03 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12139
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
regularjoe12 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
I now need to ask assistance from other forum members here. Can anyone, please point out where I have been partisan in any manner? I do strive to stay middle of the road. I do want to keep an open mind and if I have someone misrepresented that, I would like to know so that I may work on rectifying it.

Thanks,
Wags


Im guessing here...but i think that perception has a bit to do with stereotyping. You got a lil hippy in ya....that can lead people to think your a lil more left leaning than you actually are.
Good point; You're probably on to something there.

regularjoe12 wrote:
IMO you do a better job of finding out all sides of a story before making judgments....thats a good thing....and very hippy like! hat36.gif laughing7.gif
Thx, I do try to get as much information as I can before forming an opinion I'm willing to share and discuss.
The following is one of my favorite quotes:
Quote:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
I think it was Twain, but am not certain.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


May 14th, 2012, 4:09 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
How about you borrow the "crystal ball" of the thousands of experts that have read the bill? Or, better yet, how about you look at what is actually in the legislation and read the public option part. Employers are going to choose to pay the penalty because it is cheaper, that's going to force people onto the public option, creating a single payer system. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but that's what is going to happen, period.
Care to point me in the direction of one or two of those experts? Thx

wjb21ndtown wrote:
Again, no discussion of issues, problems, or solutions out of you, just more of the same.
Feeling is mutual; its seems as though we are at an impasse.

Peace to you and yours.



I love how we're at an impasse when you've NEVER ONCE offered a solution, discussed a problem, or brought up any issue. ALL you have done is say that the Rep idea is bad, and Obama Care is good. Nice "free thinking" you have going on there.

Articles and experts:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/1 ... er-system/

http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/200 ... e-systems/

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc

Championed: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/conyers ... yer-system

Already discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14411&hilit=single+payer

And here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12492&hilit=single+payer

And here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13629&hilit=single+payer


May 14th, 2012, 4:11 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.