[Athens]

Do you have health Insruance, How much do you pay, and how many times have you used the emergancy room in the past 10 years. Simple poll, to start off a debate about American Health Care, Canadian Health Care and European Health Care.

[Shaddim]

Yes
$0 /mo
3 times in last 10 years
Screw Canada

[Weyland-Yutani]

This must be one of those "americans only" thread

perhaps that should have been a part of the title..

[bubblewrap]

Yes
$700/month
I've taken my wife to the ER 3 times.
Had major 3surgeries in 3 years.(no wait)

[Goldfinger]

Yes
€0/month
Never been to ER myself.
Had some surgery years ago, nothing major. Cost: zero.


Aah, social security that actually works.

[Millennium]

My wife and I use her benefits, rather than mine. My workplace offers excellent health benefits, but it's difficult to beat the public schools as far as that is concerned.

We've used the ER once or twice, but what the insurance company really hates us for (not that it isn't mutual) is prescriptions. My wife has quite a few of these, though not as many as in the past. I still believe that the key to reforming health care is in getting the drug companies under control; the corruption in that industry is nothing short of stunning.

[OldManMac]

No health insurance.
Went to the ER at the end of March, spent four days in hospital, for a bad case of cellulitis on my right leg. Bill; $9600.

Went to ER in May, 2001, for a gallbladder/gallstone attack. Had insurance, and had it removed.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

This must be one of those "americans only" thread

perhaps that should have been a part of the title..

Are you acusing Athens of all people of creating an American Only thread?
Wow....that's a first.

You don't know him very well, do you?

I pay 0/month as well, but I'm never sick, and I'll second that nomination about Canada, just because I'm feeling cantankerous today as usual.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you acusing Athens of all people of creating an American Only thread?
Wow....that's a first.

No accusations made

Originally Posted by budster101

You don't know him very well, do you?

I don't know him at all.

[nonhuman]

My job provides healthcare. My government doesn't, nor do I want it to.

[bstone]

As a medical student and an EMT, I pray and beg for the day that all Americans will be granted national health care. It's more than pathetic to see a majority of our patients barely "making it" and for some acute medical crisis to occur incurring thousands of dollars in bills they will never be able to pay back.

Thus is the American dream...???¿¿¿

[jbartone]

I think we just cancelled our health insurance. It's really just not worth it anymore. For the amount we pay it should atleast pay the costs that Medicare won't. Fscking crap.

Anyways, I pay something like $2.9 USD for most prescriptions, if they're listed on the PBS.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

My job provides healthcare. My government doesn't, nor do I want it to.

I have double coverage. My employer (GM) has O.K. health coverage, but my wife's coverage is AWESOME (public school teacher).

I pay about $5 per prescription.

I have been to the ER once in my life, but my wife has been there twice in the last 10 years.

Last couple procedures we had done: Our daughter born in 2003 and my wife had breast reduction surgery in 2000. Didn't cost a penny.

I do NOT want politicians deciding what my medical coverage will be.

[Cody Dawg]

United Healthcare Insurance.

$600 a month (cafeteria plan - before taxes) and matched by employer for total cost of $1200 a month for family of 5.

We have a PPO which is a better plan than most because we go see who we want to see when we went to see them. We do not need to stay in a network. Vision and dental are both covered. Dental is covered 60% and orthodontics covered 50% up to $1000 per year.

ER: Go on average about twice a year for sick babies/children. Last year I had to go every 3 days for 4 rabies shots (total of 24) because a neighbor's cat bit me and they didn't know if it had rabies or not.

ER co-pay: $100.

Prescriptions: $10 generic only (brand name drugs are not covered

Office visit: $20 co-pay.

Out patient procedure: $250

Overnight hospital stay: $500 per night up to $1500 at which point it becomes $0 co-pay (after $1500 has been reached)

We cannot afford to not have health insurance. Had to have an MRI done and it was almost $5000. Same for a colonoscopy: $3500.

It costs a lot but the thought of not being covered and having children is too stressful. Besides, it's the law that children need to have health insurance in Florida.

Interesting thread, Athens!

[sideus]

Here is mine.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

This must be one of those "americans only" thread

perhaps that should have been a part of the title..

Actually no its not

[Athens]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Yes
$700/month
I've taken my wife to the ER 3 times.
Had major 3surgeries in 3 years.(no wait)

Here is the problem with North American Medical

You pay 25000 in 3 years and your wife has used the ER 3 times. American System with no Waits.

If I was to pay the max amount which I dont because my income gets me a discount I would have paid a max of 2000.00 in 3 years. I've been to the ER about 4 times in the last 3 years and no surgeries. Canadian system means waits between 2 to 6 weeks but much more afforable.

In Europe you pay about as much as Canadians pay with the service Americans get with 0 waits, Canada and the US are 2 different extremes which nether works well.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Athens

Actually no its not

explain

[Millennium]

The thing about the American model is that lots of people pay money into an account, which is then used to pay for the members' healthcare expenses as needed. That person gets the actual expenses, and the others get the peace of mind that comes with knowing they're covered. This is all done without having to resort to monopolies or price-fixing schemes on the part of the buyers.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Athens

Here is the problem with North American Medical

You pay 25000 in 3 years and your wife has used the ER 3 times. American System with no Waits.

If I was to pay the max amount which I dont because my income gets me a discount I would have paid a max of 2000.00 in 3 years. I've been to the ER about 4 times in the last 3 years and no surgeries. Canadian system means waits between 2 to 6 weeks but much more afforable.

In Europe you pay about as much as Canadians pay with the service Americans get with 0 waits, Canada and the US are 2 different extremes which nether works well.

You forgot how much his surgeries would have cost him and the many doctors office visits his family had made. Also prescription costs.

His taxes are lower than in Canada and the health care was probably superior. And by not having to wait the medical treatment, it probably actually cost less because there were less additional symptoms that could have built up. In addition to possible lost work days.

For example:
My employer pays about $500 per month for my coverage..
My wife's employer pays about $600 per month.
$1,100 x 12 months = $13,200 a year

It's amazing what is covered if we get seriously sick let alone what they cover for everyday aches and pains. Full dental with orthodontics. Full optical covering just about everything but LASIK surgery. We don't have to use generic drugs. I never have to worry about a single medical bill EVER.

Here's some things we would have had to pay for recently:
We take our daughter every other month for "well baby" checkups and vaccinations.
I have sleep apnea and my treatment was well over $5,000 last year. If I would have had to wait for treatment I could have ended up with an enlarged heart and other serious lifelong disabilities. In addition to lost work days and reduced productivity also a reduced quality of life.
My wife's breast reduction was about $14,000 (highly qualified plastic surgeon. He did a GREAT job)
The birth of our daughter cost about $13,000. (Specialized treatment due to possible complications. It could have been astronomically higher, we were lucky and the complications were well reduced). I doubt a Canadian doctor would have even discovered the problems our specialist OB/GYN discovered. Let alone the Canadian health system covering the treatment due to the possibility that the risk was negligible.

A co-worker's wife had severe complications during delivery of one of their children and their total hospital bill was over $300,000. Can you imagine paying that? He doesn't have to worry about it. And because the hospital was vastly superior to probably anything you'd find in "USA North-Lite" his wife and child have no life long disabilities to worry about.

Why do Canadians want the US citizens to have a sucky health system like they do? Worry 'bout yourself.

[Kilbey]

Don't forget, insurance is a payment you make for something you hope to never take advantage of.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

A co-worker's wife had severe complications during delivery of one of their children and their total hospital bill was over $300,000. Can you imagine paying that? He doesn't have to worry about it. And because the hospital was vastly superior to probably anything you'd find in "USA North-Lite" his wife and child have no life long disabilities to worry about.

Why do Canadians want the US citizens to have a sucky health system like they do? Worry 'bout yourself.

LOL Your Hospitals are not superior then ours, they are for the most part the same. And this thread was never about making the American system more like Canada. Perhaps you should read more of what I said. I said the best model is in Europe with Canada and the US systems being to extremes that dont work. And if I lived in the US I would be out of luck for any coverage because I wouldnt be able to afford what your paying. What would you do for your medical is you didnt make enough to have your great rare coverage?

[Athens]

on a different topic, when exactly did it become the norm to have television and print ads for prescription medications? Does nobody else see how sickeningly wrong that is? Especially when you notice that the vast majority of the drugs being advertised are psychiatric medications - encouraging people to self-diagnose & demand prescriptions, imo. That's the LAST area where one would want anyone other than a trained medical professional making decisions on what meds are needed....not a consumer being seduced by good ad copy hoping for a "magic bullet" to solve all their problems. Non-prescription meds, sure I can see the point, it's a consumer product like many others. Additionally, I can see the sense in advertising prescription meds in medical publications intended to be read by doctors. But advertising Prozac and similar meds - as if it were an item of no more consequence than which brand of paper towels or detergent to buy - is just another example of consumerism gone mad.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

My job provides healthcare. My government doesn't, nor do I want it to.

Athens: I can say for certain, that if any patient tried to diagnose himself and demand a perscription, any doctor who goes along with it is one to fear. A doctor I know once had a patient who tried to order his own labs. (now thats taking self-diagnosis to the next level!) He was, of course, denied.

The point: good doctors are more informed about perscription drugs as well as whats in them than anything you could fit into an ad, TV, magazine, or otherwise. Ever see ads in magazines where the main advertisement is followed by 2 or three pages of 9-point font? yeah, doctors know most of that stuff. So the "normal" implements of advertising, to them, would be useless. Also, good doctors dont grant every little thing patients ask for. If they do, they are far and few between, and like I said, to be feared, and by no means to be trusted.

So while your point is valid in every stretch of the word, it is also moot.

The medical ads you ought to be afraid of are the the ones that arent required to list side effects or other vital information because they are technically "supplements." ie cortislim. They only tell you that cortisol is a hormone related to stress that can cause some fat. They fail to mention that cortisol is a vital hormone, and defficiency of it is actually a disease. Addison's Disease can be fatal if untreated, and something like their product could be just the push someone needs to die. (I can just hear it now... "Side affects are generally mild and may include headache, nausea, and in some cases death.") Ironically, the doctor treating the Addisons Disease would probably get sued, even if he did warn. But dont get me started on the frivolous medical malpractice suits though.......(= )

[OldManMac]

The days of the "Big Three" having such great coverage, while having to pay so little out of pocket, are coming to an end. It's a matter of economics, not union strength, that is going to determine that. GM can no longer afford to build in $1500/car to cover every cold, fever, and other malady that it's employees have (and don't get me started on the abuse of the system); that's a simple economic fact, and no amount of union braggadocio is going to change that. The world is changing; it is all about global competition now, and the American auto unions are stubbornly clinging to the ideal that they deserve the best health care possible, for little cost, while the rest of the world is willing to work for far less, both monetarily and in respect to benefits.

Also, the U. S. is no longer that standard bearer in providing health care for its citizens. Canada provides equivalent care for approximately half the cost per person, and France is not far behind Canada. U. S. citizens also no longer have the longest life expectancy, a sure measure of how our health care system is falling apart.

And don't get me started on the 100,000 people who die from medical malpractice, and the many more who are injured/disabled annually, because of it. There are frivolous malpractice suits, to be sure, but the idea that they are out of control is one that has been planted for decades by the insurance industry in order to increase its profits and its ability to exert inordinate influence in government, and it is obviously absorbed by people who can't see the forest for the trees.

[Millennium]

Also, the U. S. is no longer that standard bearer in providing health care for its citizens. Canada provides equivalent care for approximately half the cost per person, and France is not far behind Canada.

Calling Canada's healthcare equivalent to that of the US is absurd. France does better than Canada -another thing you get wrong- but I still wouldn't call it equivalent.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The days of the "Big Three" having such great coverage, while having to pay so little out of pocket, are coming to an end. It's a matter of economics, not union strength, that is going to determine that. GM can no longer afford to build in $1500/car to cover every cold, fever, and other malady that it's employees have (and don't get me started on the abuse of the system); that's a simple economic fact, and no amount of union braggadocio is going to change that. The world is changing; it is all about global competition now, and the American auto unions are stubbornly clinging to the ideal that they deserve the best health care possible, for little cost, while the rest of the world is willing to work for far less, both monetarily and in respect to benefits.

You truly are clueless.

Originally Posted by KarlG

Also, the U. S. is no longer that standard bearer in providing health care for its citizens. Canada provides equivalent care for approximately half the cost per person, and France is not far behind Canada. U. S. citizens also no longer have the longest life expectancy, a sure measure of how our health care system is falling apart.

And who is? Canada?!?! HA HA HA HA HA!!! No thanks, I don't want to wait for my treatment.

Originally Posted by KarlG

And don't get me started on the 100,000 people who die from medical malpractice, and the many more who are injured/disabled annually, because of it.

I call B.S.

Originally Posted by KarlG

There are frivolous malpractice suits, to be sure, but the idea that they are out of control is one that has been planted for decades by the insurance industry in order to increase its profits and its ability to exert inordinate influence in government, and it is obviously absorbed by people who can't see the forest for the trees.

The only part of your post that makes any sense. Prescription drugs are price too high for political reasons.

[OldManMac]

We'll find out soon enough who the clueless one is, pal.

Edit;

Here's some more cluelessness; you can bet your sweet bippy that the corporations are still going to make record profits, while the average worker will wonder whether to use his dwindling pay check for medicine or food.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Corporate America Pulling Back Pension Safety Net

By Peter G. Gosselin
Times Staff Writer

May 15, 2005

WASHINGTON — Last week's court decision permitting United Airlines' parent to dump its pensions on the federal government is part of a sweeping trend that could make the nation's employers more competitive, but at the cost of leaving workers and their families bearing big new risks.

In a nutshell, a broadening swath of corporate America is retreating from the safety-net business and is shifting responsibility to employees.

The decision by a Chicago bankruptcy court focused on the problems of a company strapped with $6.6 billion in pension costs. But the court's solution is one that even healthy firms are seeking to copy in one fashion or another, shifting benefit costs away from themselves and making fewer promises to their employees.

"People like to think of employers as social welfare organizations, but they're not," said Sylvester Scheiber, a partner with the financial consulting firm of Watson-Wyatt and a member of President Bush's 2001 Social Security Commission. "In an increasingly competitive world, they don't have room to do much else but focus on the competition."

Most U.S. companies have accomplished by other means much of what United Airlines did by defaulting on its pension obligations.

Employers of almost 30% of the nation's private sector workforce no longer offer the kind of pension where responsibility for managing retirement money and delivering benefits rests with the company. Instead, these firms make contributions to employees' retirement savings, perhaps through tax-deferred 401(k) accounts, but it's up to individuals to manage the money and suffer the shortfalls if any occur.

Employers of half of the workforce offer no retirement help whatsoever. The remaining 20% of workers are enrolled in traditional pensions, a percentage that has fallen by half in the last 25 years, according to Labor Department statistics and estimates by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research.

Many firms have begun to beat a similar retreat from employer-provided healthcare insurance.

The number of big company employees (those with 200 or more workers) in line for retiree health benefits has plunged from 66% in 1988 to 36% last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health research group in Menlo Park, Calif. With health insurance rates for current employees posting double-digit jumps, employers have shaved an estimated 5 million workers from their insured rolls since 2001. And they have passed along many of the recent cost increases by nearly doubling the amount — to $222 a month — that employees must kick in for a typical family plan, according to Kaiser.

In addition, some companies have turned to health savings accounts. These were proposed by the president and approved by Congress in late 2003 and became available last summer. They have some of the same characteristics as 401(k) accounts in limiting firms' responsibilities and leaving it up to individuals to manage the money in them.

The number of people covered by health savings accounts has more than doubled from 438,000 last September to more than 1 million, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based trade organization.

In a little-noticed report last year, the American Benefits Council, chief lobbyist for large corporations on benefit issues in Washington, offered a 10-year vision of employees replacing employers as the chief providers of retirement plans and health insurance.

"Individuals … should assume primary responsibility … for their own financial security," the report said. "Employers should be primarily responsible for sponsoring programs that help workers … in their efforts to achieve and maintain personal financial security."

Such an approach appears to be cut from the same cloth as the president's "ownership society" agenda. A key element of that is his proposal to let most Americans divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts in exchange for a reduction in traditional benefits. In both the corporate and administration plans, individuals would bear bigger responsibilities and could reap bigger rewards for making good financial decisions.

"We're moving from a benefit system that's employer-controlled and -provided to one that is employee-controlled," said benefits council president James A. Klein.

"That's frightening in some respects," he said, but quickly added, "It's encouraging too, because we're going to help individuals be prudent health and retirement consumers."

Some analysts find that prospect dubious.

"We're moving back to a world that existed in the early 20th century when only an elite group of companies provided pensions and some degree of career employment," said Sanford Jacoby, a UCLA economist and author of "Modern Manors," a study of employer-provided safety nets. The only reason firms can drop pensions, Jacoby said, is that "they have the fig leaf of 401(k)s."

Kaiser foundation executive vice president Diane Rowland said the theory behind cutbacks in employer-provided health insurance "is that putting consumers on the front line of healthcare consumption will constrain costs." But, she added, "what works when you're purchasing a car or buying a toaster may not work when you're making choices about life and death."

In part, companies are constrained from completely getting out of the safety-net business by the billions of dollars in tax breaks built into the system.

Washington will spend more than $200 billion this year on breaks for pension plans, 401(k)s and employer-provided health insurance. And taxpayers could be on the hook for more if efforts to shore up the strained Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. don't work.

The federal agency, which insures private-employer pensions and will take over four of United Airlines' under-funded plans, suffered from a $23.3-billion mismatch of assets and long-term obligations last year, more than double the previous year's gap.

The other constraint is political. As the president's difficulties in selling his Social Security plan demonstrate, Americans have grown increasingly insecure as greater economic risk has been shifted to them over the last 20 years or so. They show little appetite for taking on more.

The dimensions of that shift can be seen in the widening swings of working families' income.

An analysis by The Times last year of a long-term, government-financed database of 5,000 families found that most families experienced income swings of no more than 16% in the early 1970s. But those swings had nearly doubled by the start of this decade. The greater the swings, the greater are the chances that a family will be in the midst of a downdraft when a crisis such as a layoff or illness hits. Then it can be very difficult to bounce back.

For some families, the first hint of the new risks they'd taken on came with the discovery that their two-earner incomes put them no further ahead than when they lived on the wages of one. For others, it was the recessions of the early 1990s and early 2000s when college-educated, white-collar workers who thought themselves immune to layoffs were suddenly in the economic bull's-eye.

But for millions, the tip-off was what happened to their 401(k)s in the aftermath of the 2000 stock market bust. The reversals left many skeptical of employer calls that they shoulder more financial responsibility for their retirement and doubtful about Bush's proposal for worker-controlled accounts in Social Security.

"I haven't been persuaded there's a crisis in Social Security, and I don't know that more accounts are the answer," said Virgil Young of Knoxville, Tenn., a retired FBI agent who describes himself as a staunch conservative. "It just doesn't seem to have clicked with people."

Although overshadowed by the Social Security debate, the shifting responsibility for bearing health costs is also a brewing political issue because it hits people of all income levels.

At the low end, health costs have risen so much that they now take a major bite out of minimum-wage workers' paychecks. Some workers must choose between a living wage and no insurance, or coverage and poverty.

At the high-wage end, studies show the lion's share of companies' benefits are paid to a small group of usually older, less productive workers. But as competition heats up, firms want to train their spending on those who contribute the most — which sets the stage for requiring older workers to bear greater costs.

In the end, said Stanford economist John B. Shoven, "risk is a sort of irreducible thing. It stays in an economy and has to be borne by somebody. So it keeps getting tossed around like a hot potato.''

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Calling Canada's healthcare equivalent to that of the US is absurd. France does better than Canada -another thing you get wrong- but I still wouldn't call it equivalent.

Thats crap, our healthcare system is equivalent to the US system. The only part he got wrong was France. France, Germany, Netherlands are all ahead of Canada and the United States.

[Athens]

Here is a unbias realistic comparison of the differences between the Canadian Medical System and the American System.

The example uses Knee Surgery for the example, say from a sporting accedent and a heart attack victum.

Rich Canadian hurts his knee and needs surgery. He has to wait between 6 to 8 weeks but gets it.

Poor Canadian hurts his knee and needs surgery. He has to wait between 6 to 8 weeks but gets it.

Rich American hurts his knee and needs surgery. He pays a lot for his insurance but gets the surgery with in 24 - 48 hours.

Poor American hurts his knee and needs surgery. To tough luck, he cant get it.

Next example heart attack victum

Rich Canadian has a heart attack and needs emergancy surgery or will die. He gets it within hours.

Poor Canadian has a heart attack and needs emergancy surgery or will die. He gets it within hours.

Rich American has a heart attack and needs emergancy surgery or will die. He gets it within hours. He pays a lot for medical.

Poor American has a heart attack and needs emergancy surgery or will die. He gets it and walks out finacially distroyed and in debt.

How does this all relate to Europe? Rich or poor you get your surgery with in days for knee and same kind of emergancy surgery for heart attacks, and you dont end up in a big debt. Europe has North America Beat.

Canada and the US has similar systems, but differences. The quality of care is the same for most people. Those that can afford it in the US will get faster and different care, those that cant get screwed. There is absolutly NO DIFFERENCE for emergancy care in both Canada and the United states except for how much we pay and how much you pay. And for rich Canadians, like Rich Americans they can purchase special medical in the US. To bad for poor americans they are left out in the cold while poor Canadians just end up waiting for treatment they will get.

[Zimphire]

I pay out $100 a month for Medical, Dental, And Vision.

My scripts a lone a month add up to $140, of which I only pay $5 of.

So yeah.

That doesn't account for Doctor visits I don't pay for, Dentist visits I pay $10 tops on, And vision care I get for free. ( I wear contacts and glasses)

[loki74]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Also, the U. S. is no longer that standard bearer in providing health care for its citizens. Canada provides equivalent care for approximately half the cost per person, and France is not far behind Canada. U. S. citizens also no longer have the longest life expectancy, a sure measure of how our health care system is falling apart.

Yes, it is falling apart thanks to stupid liberal policy--squeeze the doctors for all the money they got. And they go ahead and try to socialize everything.

You know, youre right. It IS an economic thing. And tell me... what drives markets? Self interest. The intrinisic reward for healing people can only go so far. Kepp pushing it, and you wont have doctors anymore just because its too hard to be a doctor. You go through all the training and sh!t just to get walked on.

Another economic point: following a socialist mindset is economically one of the most foolish things one could do. We need to privatize. Privatize medicare, privatize Social Security. Because when the quality of work actually affects how much someone gets paid, they do a better job. You can whine about that being not charitable or immoral or whatever, but that doesnt change its truth. So just live with it. The private sector is the key, and thats why I'm glad we have someone who realizes that in the White House. Thank the Lord.

[OldManMac]

If privatization were that effective, I might agree with you. The problem is that to George W. Bush, privatization means making sure that his wealthy friends get wealthier, with little or no oversight as to how they scam people. This has nothing to do with benefitting the average working person, and everything to do with benefitting those who are wealthy already.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The problem is that to George W. Bush, privatization means making sure that his wealthy friends get wealthier,

I was planning on reading your post, and taking you seriously. But after reading that, I am finding it hard to.

Sorry.

[OldManMac]

Gee, that breaks my heart, that you don't take me seriously. After all these years, you think you know someone.

[Zimphire]

Hey, at least I can say I tried.

[loki74]

Karl... I think its odd that you have such precise knowledge of the inside of our President's mind considering you seem to have such dislike for him. Privatization scam people? Ha. Excuse me, privatization is what keeps things fair. For EVERYONE. You see, insted of spending money providing care, the gov't should send everything to the private sector, and give the money they save to those who cant normally afford care from the private sector, so that they now can afford care from the private sector. That way, the government still provides for the poor, but the consumer (be them rich or poor) still has the choice. This way you are in abayence of both economic logic and moral ethics (y'know, helping out the poor, etc). If anything, thats helping the poor, not the rich. Because if we socialize, the rich have a choice because theyre rich, but the poor are stuck with whatever the govt provides, in most cases not nearly as good as what a private citezen could provide.

If all you want to do is mindless Bush-bashing, dont bother posting--we've all heard it a million times before. Its just like Zimph said... why should anyone take you seriously if thats all you like to do?

[OldManMac]

Thanks for your concern, that concise and well thought out reply, and your determination that I shouldn't post here, but I think I'll get along just fine nonetheless. Somehow or other, I've made it quite well through 58 years on this planet, without your eloquent assistance. I'll also try, in the future, to remember that your views are the only ones that count.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I'll also try, in the future, to remember that your views are the only ones that count.

Not sure where you got that from his post...

I think he was basically saying that you are the procrustean bed of political conspiracies.

[loki74]

Youre quite welcome. Oh and thank you. Although I never said that my views were the only ones that count, and somehow you managed overlooked the "if all you want to do is Bush-bash" attached to my statment about posting, I appreciate that you finally see it my way. Or is it simply that my inadvertantly personally offending you (which I do apologize for) has caused you to fail to argue against my point, opting instead for a reparation of your undamaged ego. Seriously, all I was saying is that if you Bush-bash, youre preaching to the chior, and spending youre time posting it is a waste for you. It doesnt affect me either way, just trying to elicit some real arguments from you. But seeing as how you've already expressed gratitude for my concern, I suppose I needn't say more... for now.

[RAILhead]

Someone show Athens how to use the spell checker, please. "Emergancy" (and "victum") is making my head asplode!!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Someone show Athens how to use the spell checker, please. "Emergancy" (and "victum") is making my head asplode!!

I dont see a spell checker, perhaps you can tell me or take a screen shoot and point it out. Specially in the quick reply sectoin.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Athens

I dont see a spell checker, perhaps you can tell me or take a screen shoot and point it out. Specially in the quick reply sectoin.

shift-command-; or command-;

Maury

[loki74]

hoo yoozis spel chekkor aneewae? (jk )

[Athens]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

shift-command-; or command-;

Maury

and what would that be on Windows?

[loki74]

does windows even have it? i thought it was just part of word, not the entire os. ...?

[Zimphire]

That wouldn't be on windows at all.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Athens

and what would that be on Windows?

Why do you hang out on a Macintosh based forum if you don't own a Mac? Wannabe?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Why do you hang out on a Macintosh based forum if you don't own a Mac? Wannabe?

I own a 800Mhz Flat Panel iMac SuperDrive

I do most of my posting at work which is all PC's. If you where smart you would know this since that info is there on that poll in the lounge which askes who has Mac's and PC's and iPods and such.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I do NOT want politicians deciding what my medical coverage will be.

I don't get this. They don't "decide what your coverage will be". You get *everything*, for free, with a decent medical care system. Except for non-health related stuff like liposuctions, breast enlargments etc: most plastic surgery (reconstructive surgery is free in most cases). If you really want an "insurance" in case you want to have an "emergency breast elargement" you can get some kind of extra insurance with some private insurance company. But all real medical are covered. I can't grasp why someone would be against this.

Or am I misunderstanding you ?