Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Be Afraid...Be VERY Afraid: Hillary Clinton's "Penalties" For Uninsured

Be Afraid...Be VERY Afraid: Hillary Clinton's "Penalties" For Uninsured
Thread Tools
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 01:10 PM
 
Be VERY afraid of this woman: Now her TRUE motives are coming to the surface:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton inched closer Sunday to explaining how she would enforce her proposal that everyone have health insurance, but declined to specify — as she has throughout the campaign — how she would penalize those who refuse.

Mrs. Clinton, who did not answer Senator Barack Obama’s question on the topic in a debate last Thursday, was pressed repeatedly to do so Sunday by George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “This Week.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos asked a third time whether she would garnish people’s wages, Mrs. Clinton responded, “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.”
Since Hillary is the person who privatized health insurance and created the HMO system that now abuses all of us with the least possible health care in exchange for the most profit, her true motives are surfacing: Using taxation to further enrich the HMO system - even at the expense and further abuse of private citizens.

Folks, be VERY afraid of this person...she is a menace to all.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 01:33 PM
 
I think there are some factual errors in your post... Namely: Hillary Clinton is not the person who privatized health insurance, nor did she create the HMO system. As for the first point, health insurance was never privatized, that would require that it had been public before. As for the second, HMOs have been around for longer than Hillary has been alive; the first HMO dating to either 1929 or 1910 depending on how you want to define it (Health maintenance organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 01:34 PM
 
The problem for people that make the "choice" not to get health insurance is that they'll get the health care anyway, they just won't have paid any insurance premiums like the rest of us. As long as there are options for everyone regardless of income, everyone should be required to have insurance, just like with auto insurance. Though IMO, there shouldn't be any way to opt out - everyone should be automatically enrolled just by virtue of being a human being, and taxes should cover the "premiums."

But this - she created HMOs? Is that kinda like how Al Gore created the internet?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The problem for people that make the "choice" not to get health insurance is that they'll get the health care anyway, they just won't have paid any insurance premiums like the rest of us. As long as there are options for everyone regardless of income, everyone should be required to have insurance, just like with auto insurance. Though IMO, there shouldn't be any way to opt out - everyone should be automatically enrolled just by virtue of being a human being, and taxes should cover the "premiums."

But this - she created HMOs? Is that kinda like how Al Gore created the internet?
You're making the assumption that everyone who chooses not to have health insurance is going to be given free care. This isn't the case. People without health insurance (such as myself) still have to pay when we go to the doctor or the hospital.. You still get a bill when you do that, and you still have to pay it or face the normal consequences when you don't pay a large bill.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
You're making the assumption that everyone who chooses not to have health insurance is going to be given free care. This isn't the case. People without health insurance (such as myself) still have to pay when we go to the doctor or the hospital.. You still get a bill when you do that, and you still have to pay it or face the normal consequences when you don't pay a large bill.
Sure, but if you have a need for something that will cost mega-bucks to pay for, you'll still get it, whether you pay for it in the end or not. People declare bankruptcy all the time because they can't pay medical bills.

It's very stupid to not have health insurance. You could get yourself in a real mess - you probably won't, but you could, and that's what insurance is for.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:01 PM
 
I'll bet it's like this program, enacted in one of those liberal states:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/us/05mass.html

Individuals who can afford private insurance will be penalized on their state income taxes if they do not purchase it. Government subsidies to private insurance plans will allow more of the working poor to buy insurance and will expand the number of children who are eligible for free coverage. Businesses with more than 10 workers that do not provide insurance will be assessed up to $295 per employee per year.
If you ask me, the liberal idiot Governor who came up with this socialist plan is a bigger menace to us all than Hillary....

[/sarcasm]
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
If you ask me, the liberal idiot Governor who came up with this socialist plan is a bigger menace to us all than Hillary....
Now lets just hope our choices for president in November aren't that self-same liberal idiot Governor or Hillary!
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
It's very stupid to not have health insurance. You could get yourself in a real mess - you probably won't, but you could, and that's what insurance is for.
I will have health insurance, I just don't right now. I've been without for about two years, and will continue to be without for another 3-4 months until I get married and can get on my fiancées insurance from work. In the mean time, it's cheaper for me to pay the fines that Massachusetts will be levying against me for not having insurance than it would be to get insurance I almost definitely won't need in that time frame.

It's a gamble, but that's what insurance is.
     
aepple
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: nyc area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:18 PM
 
say what you will about hillary... under no circumstances would i vote for obama.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by aepple View Post
say what you will about hillary... under no circumstances would i vote for obama.
Really? Why is that? (I'm genuinely curious, I've heard people say that about Hillary, but never about Obama.)
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:27 PM
 
We have several option where I work. You can go HMO or the with the BYO Company plan (Build your Own). They are self insuring, and use Humana as the payment mechanism. You can pay $34 a month (Bullet Proof plan) or pay $160 a month for the max coverage.

Some of the "uninsured" are in their 20's and think they are "bullet proof" and don't need health insurance, so opt out to save the copay.
45/47
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
It's very stupid to not have health insurance. You could get yourself in a real mess - you probably won't, but you could, and that's what insurance is for.
It's very stupid to go outside. You could get yourself in a real mess — you probably won't, but you could, and that's what locking yourself in the basement is for. Right? Risk avoidance is the primary purpose of life?

I'll do what I please with my money, thank you. If you want to force me to have insurance, very well, but you can pay for it.

To look at it another way: If you invested the hundreds of dollars a month insurance costs without subsidies, you could retire with $3 million.

Not saying you shouldn't have insurance, but forcing people to pay money just rubs me wrong.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by aepple View Post
say what you will about hillary... under no circumstances would i vote for obama.
According to Alex Jones it doesn't matter who gets elected anyway, they are all puppets of the Bilderbergers.
45/47
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Now lets just hope our choices for president in November aren't that self-same liberal idiot Governor or Hillary!
Seriously, if it turns out that way, expect Mike Bloomberg to try and mount an independant bid....
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
It's very stupid to go outside. You could get yourself in a real mess — you probably won't, but you could, and that's what locking yourself in the basement is for. Right? Risk avoidance is the primary purpose of life?
No, it's very smart to go outside. Virtually all of the rewards in life come from going outside. Not so with not having health insurance.

I strongly believe people over-insure. I had an argument with some people here on MacNN a while back about insurance for electronics, which are always stupid, from a personal finance perspective. But health insurance, because it is about your health and about insuring against catastrophic loss, is one of the smart types of insurance (as is home insurance and some others).

I'll do what I please with my money, thank you. If you want to force me to have insurance, very well, but you can pay for it.
There are two issues here. First, is the "stupidity" of not having insurance. You are arguing with your analogy above that health insurance is stupid, and I have argued that to not have health insurance is stupid. I think the logic and the math is clear, and any personal finance source would agree with me, but if you want to actually make an argument that it's smart not to get health insurance, knock yourself out.

The second is whether people should be required to have insurance. My argument is that, because we live in fundamentally humane societies, we will pay for your health care even if you can't pay for it, and so it is the definition of freeloading to not pay the premiums. Only if people could truly separate themselves from the system should you be allowed to not pay into it, and that's simply impossible, because we won't deny you care if you need it.

Not saying you shouldn't have insurance,
Yes, that's exactly what you have argued above.
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 03:06 PM
 
If this non-American had a vote, he'd vote for Obama.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
No, it's very smart to go outside. Virtually all of the rewards in life come from going outside. Not so with not having health insurance.
Virtually all of the rewards in life involve not being poor, which is hampered by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix an illness you don't even have.

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
But health insurance, because it is about your health and about insuring against catastrophic loss, is one of the smart types of insurance (as is home insurance and some others).
As I pointed out earlier, if you took the cost of insurance and invested it, you could retire a millionaire several times over. Is millions of dollars not a big loss to you? And let's not forget that the scam artists who run insurance companies don't actually protect you from little things like, say, dying.

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
My argument is that, because we live in fundamentally humane societies, we will pay for your health care even if you can't pay for it, and so it is the definition of freeloading to not pay the premiums.
Next are you going to run up and clean my windshield with a dirty rag and then demand money for it?

You're telling me, "I'd help you out if you got in a bind, so you should spend your whole life paying for these purely hypothetical services." That's like the government forcing you to give me thousands of dollars because I'd be willing to give you life-saving CPR if you ever needed it.

Seriously, why not just require people to pay if they turn out to need the healthcare? The only reason to force everyone to pay all the time is because you want to make me pay for other people's care, which is the definition of freeloading, right?

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
Yes, that's exactly what you have argued above.
No, it's not. My argument is that insurance has a downside. Everything has costs and benefits. As an adult, you must evaluate those costs and benefits and decide for yourself whether it's worth it to you. Guess what — I have insurance. I've had to personally foot the medical bills for people who don't. I still don't feel like this is worth compromising a person's individual rights.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 04:10 PM
 
If your employer doesn't provide insurance (mine does), take the money you'd normally pay into health insurance and invest it in low-risk mutual funds via a Health Savings Account.

Why throw your money away with traditional insurance? You'd likely be better off buying $100 /wk in lottery tickets.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 04:12 PM
 
Can I safely assume that the people in here who find the idea of mandatory health insurance offensive aren't fans of mandatory car insurance either?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 04:15 PM
 
Liability car insurance is pretty damned cheap, I think I pay $37 every 6 months on my Bronco.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Can I safely assume that the people in here who find the idea of mandatory health insurance offensive aren't fans of mandatory car insurance either?
Completely different issue.

First of all, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Requiring minimum liability insurance for property damage and injury is just simply a matter of financial responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility, you certainly have the option to not drive, as many Americans have chosen to do.

For legal citizens, living is not a privilege, it is a right. Americans enjoy certain freedoms and civil liberties, and the way I see it, I have the freedom to choose not to pay for a service I don't use.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Virtually all of the rewards in life involve not being poor, which is hampered by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix an illness you don't even have.


As I pointed out earlier, if you took the cost of insurance and invested it, you could retire a millionaire several times over. Is millions of dollars not a big loss to you? And let's not forget that the scam artists who run insurance companies don't actually protect you from little things like, say, dying.


Next are you going to run up and clean my windshield with a dirty rag and then demand money for it?

You're telling me, "I'd help you out if you got in a bind, so you should spend your whole life paying for these purely hypothetical services." That's like the government forcing you to give me thousands of dollars because I'd be willing to give you life-saving CPR if you ever needed it.

Seriously, why not just require people to pay if they turn out to need the healthcare? The only reason to force everyone to pay all the time is because you want to make me pay for other people's care, which is the definition of freeloading, right?

No, it's not. My argument is that insurance has a downside. Everything has costs and benefits. As an adult, you must evaluate those costs and benefits and decide for yourself whether it's worth it to you. Guess what — I have insurance. I've had to personally foot the medical bills for people who don't. I still don't feel like this is worth compromising a person's individual rights.
This is illogical unless you're willing to change our society into one that denies people health care when they need it. If you are, then you're consistent; an ogre, IMO, but at least consistent. If you aren't willing to deny people health care when they need it, then requiring people to pay premiums is a logical consequence.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 05:23 PM
 
Disclaimer: I have no real strong feelings on the subject, though I honestly doubt the viability or quality of any plan of Hillary's. That said, I feel a little bit of devil's advocate could help the subject.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
Completely different issue.
I think there's a basic relationship here worth exploring.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
First of all, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Requiring minimum liability insurance for property damage and injury is just simply a matter of financial responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility, you certainly have the option to not drive, as many Americans have chosen to do.
You could argue your body being prone to sickness and injury is a financial liability within itself. If you can't pay hospital bills, then that burden gets passed on to paying patients.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
For legal citizens, living is not a privilege, it is a right.
That's interesting thought. Is education a right as well? Because, as far as I understand it, that is mandatory as well, albeit for a limited period of time.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Can I safely assume that the people in here who find the idea of mandatory health insurance offensive aren't fans of mandatory car insurance either?
I'm not a fan of it, but I don't oppose the idea as strongly as being forced to pay somebody money just because I'm alive. Making people pay corporations just because they exist is a disgusting proposition.

Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
This is illogical unless you're willing to change our society into one that denies people health care when they need it. If you are, then you're consistent; an ogre, IMO, but at least consistent. If you aren't willing to deny people health care when they need it, then requiring people to pay premiums is a logical consequence.
Tell me what's ogrish about this:

Johnny is a strapping, healthy lad. He has no need of doctors and saves up his money. Then one day, he gets really sick and has to spend a week in the hospital and undergo surgery. Johnny now starts paying for his healthcare. If he can't afford to pay now (with lots of savings and interest), he certainly couldn't have afforded to pay his whole life, so it makes no difference — except in this scenario, none of his healthy neighbors were forced by the government to give up the fruits of their labor to money-grubbing scammers with no benefit to themselves.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 (op)
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 06:06 PM
 
Chuckit

Not saying you shouldn't have insurance, but forcing people to pay money just rubs me wrong.
Well said.

That's the democrat for you: Sticking their noses in other persons' matters and bank accounts and telling them what to do with their money.

     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Johnny is a strapping, healthy lad. He has no need of doctors and saves up his money. Then one day, he gets really sick and has to spend a week in the hospital and undergo surgery. Johnny now starts paying for his healthcare. If he can't afford to pay now (with lots of savings and interest), he certainly couldn't have afforded to pay his whole life, so it makes no difference — except in this scenario, none of his healthy neighbors were forced by the government to give up the fruits of their labor to money-grubbing scammers with no benefit to themselves.
Exactly. And certainly there are things the government could do to help people pay for healthcare that aren't actually insurance. For examples, medical expenditures should be tax deductible (maybe even 100% tax deductible which would go a very long way towards covering costs). Another possibility would be low/no interest loans to cover medical costs based on need. Yes, in many ways this is still using other people's money, but I think most people who are opposed to universal healthcare would find that much more palatable. Additionally, it could be funded through health care bonds or something.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Tell me what's ogrish about this:

Johnny is a strapping, healthy lad. He has no need of doctors and saves up his money. Then one day, he gets really sick and has to spend a week in the hospital and undergo surgery. Johnny now starts paying for his healthcare. If he can't afford to pay now (with lots of savings and interest), he certainly couldn't have afforded to pay his whole life, so it makes no difference — except in this scenario, none of his healthy neighbors were forced by the government to give up the fruits of their labor to money-grubbing scammers with no benefit to themselves.
That's a fascinating story, but it doesn't address what I asked you to address: If you'd be willing to deny people expensive health care that they couldn't afford because they had chosen not to get health insurance. It doesn't surprise me that you won't answer it, because no moral human would say 'yes,' but saying 'no' is the logical corollary of your position.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 07:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
That's a fascinating story, but it doesn't address what I asked you to address: If you'd be willing to deny people expensive health care that they couldn't afford because they had chosen not to get health insurance. It doesn't surprise me that you won't answer it, because no moral human would say 'yes,' but saying 'no' is the logical corollary of your position.
I'm not the one who's talking about forcing people to pay whether they need the healthcare or not, so I'd say you're the one who needs to explain what to do if they can't afford it. My solution presents no problems yours doesn't — it just doesn't require people to pay insurance companies if they don't want to.

And yes, if somebody asked not to be admitted because he didn't want to incur the debt, I suppose that's his decision to make. I'd hope somebody would have better sense than that, though.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Feb 4, 2008 at 07:10 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
That's a fascinating story, but it doesn't address what I asked you to address: If you'd be willing to deny people expensive health care that they couldn't afford because they had chosen not to get health insurance. It doesn't surprise me that you won't answer it, because no moral human would say 'yes,' but saying 'no' is the logical corollary of your position.
There's a difference between the idea that 'no moral human would refuse care to someone in need' and 'we should force people to pay for the care of others whether they like it or not'. There's also a difference between the idea that 'everyone should have access to health care when they need it', and 'the government should provide free health care to everyone'.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I'm not the one who's talking about forcing people to pay whether they need the healthcare or not, so I'd say you're the one who needs to explain what to do if they can't afford it. My solution presents no problems yours doesn't — it just doesn't require people to pay insurance companies if they don't want to.
All universal health care proposals, including the Clinton one being discussed, have provisions for people who can't afford the premiums. We're talking about not being able to afford the health care in the case of a catastrophic need, i.e., something perhaps only a fraction of 1% of people could afford.

And yes, if somebody asked not to be admitted because he didn't want to incur the debt, I suppose that's his decision to make. I'd hope somebody would have better sense than that, though.
Ha! Nice dodge. People are allowed today to refuse treatment. That's not different. The question is whether you'd want a system in which people who have the need and desire for expensive health care are denied that care because they haven't paid their insurance premiums. Your position only makes sense in that kind of system, and it's not the system that we have today.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
There's a difference between the idea that 'no moral human would refuse care to someone in need' and 'we should force people to pay for the care of others whether they like it or not'. There's also a difference between the idea that 'everyone should have access to health care when they need it', and 'the government should provide free health care to everyone'.
OK, there's a difference. But what's the answer to the question? If someone had a health care need that they couldn't afford, should they be denied it?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
OK, there's a difference. But what's the answer to the question? If someone had a health care need that they couldn't afford, should they be denied it?
No, they shouldn't. And if I was presented the choice between allowing someone to die and giving up a little money so that they will live, I would choose to give money to allow them to live. And I'm sure that the majority of other people would make that same choice.

However it's also important to me that there be a choice. I would not want to force someone else to pay for my needs.

Also, the purpose of health insurance is to spread the cost of expensive medical procedures out amongst a larger population. The reason that insurance companies are able to pay for multi-million dollar procedures for a single patient is that they have thousands to millions of other people paying in without requiring such treatment. If we want to go to some sort of universal health care system it doesn't make sense to stick with this insurance paradigm. Under a universal system we should not be insuring people. Instead, we should simply be paying for the actual costs. Since the cost is already going to be spread out amongst the entire population of the country, and since there's no profit motivation behind such a system, there's also no reason for it to operate in the traditional way.
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
I think there's a basic relationship here worth exploring.
The only relationship I see is that they are both forms of insurance. One form guarantees that you will be financially responsible if you cause damage to someone else's property or person.

The other form requires you pay money based on the idea that you may or may not get yourself sick or hurt and need expensive healthcare.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
You could argue your body being prone to sickness and injury is a financial liability within itself. If you can't pay hospital bills, then that burden gets passed on to paying patients.
Excellent point. This is precisely why communism never works out. One person who works hard every day gets no better benefit than the person who puts in the minimum amount of participation at work. At some point the hard working person becomes resentful, and rightfully so.

I do everything I can to live a healthy lifestyle. The last time I was in a hospital was when I came out of mom. I would be resentful to say the least if I had to pay for someone else's healthcare. What if they didn't live a healthy lifestyle? What if they smoked, drank to much, didn't eat right, didn't exercise, exposed themselves to chemicals, or did anything else that they have the right as Americans to do?

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
That's interesting thought. Is education a right as well? Because, as far as I understand it, that is mandatory as well, albeit for a limited period of time.
Interesting indeed. I think that is complicated considering it's widely thought that education entirely necessary to not be a complete leech on society.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
No, they shouldn't. And if I was presented the choice between allowing someone to die and giving up a little money so that they will live, I would choose to give money to allow them to live. And I'm sure that the majority of other people would make that same choice.

However it's also important to me that there be a choice. I would not want to force someone else to pay for my needs.
But you are willing to let someone die if not enough people chose to help them? Because there's a helluva lot of people out there not making that choice right now, i.e., there's a lot of people out there who are not covered by charities and kind neighbors, who hospitals just pay for and spread the cost amongst everyone else.

Also, the purpose of health insurance is to spread the cost of expensive medical procedures out amongst a larger population. The reason that insurance companies are able to pay for multi-million dollar procedures for a single patient is that they have thousands to millions of other people paying in without requiring such treatment. If we want to go to some sort of universal health care system it doesn't make sense to stick with this insurance paradigm. Under a universal system we should not be insuring people. Instead, we should simply be paying for the actual costs. Since the cost is already going to be spread out amongst the entire population of the country, and since there's no profit motivation behind such a system, there's also no reason for it to operate in the traditional way.
I completely agree. Health care ought to just be something that we pay for as a society, like education and roads and the military.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
The only relationship I see is that they are both forms of insurance. One form guarantees that you will be financially responsible if you cause damage to someone else's property or person.

The other form requires you pay money based on the idea that you may or may not get yourself sick or hurt and need expensive healthcare.
Um, that's not really a distinction. Auto insurance protects you from the costs of being in an auto accident. Health insurance protects you from the costs of being sick or injured. Those costs exist whether you have insurance or not, and in both cases you are liable to financially damage others (whether through destruction of their property in a car crash, or through use of their medical facilities in treatment of a health problem).
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
But you are willing to let someone die if not enough people chose to help them? Because there's a helluva lot of people out there not making that choice right now, i.e., there's a lot of people out there who are not covered by charities and kind neighbors, who hospitals just pay for and spread the cost amongst everyone else.
I'm neither willing, nor rightfully empowered to make that decision for other people. The only resources I am empowered to disburse as I see fit are my own.

I completely agree. Health care ought to just be something that we pay for as a society, like education and roads and the military.
That's not actually what I was saying. I was just pointing out that if we're going to pay for health care as a society that we should do it in a more logical way. The insurance paradigm no longer makes sense in such a context: we're no longer guarding against the possibility of health care expenditures, we're paying for health care services. But I don't think we should do that either. I've presented several alternative ideas of mine that I think would be good compromises that could accomplish the goals of ensuring that everyone is able to afford the health care they need without forcing others to pay for it.

I absolutely do not think that it's a good idea to essentially nationalize the health care industry. I don't want the people who run the DMV to be running the hospitals as well (especially not while I'm living in Massachusetts...).
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Um, that's not really a distinction. Auto insurance protects you from the costs of being in an auto accident.
That's not why liability insurance is mandatory. It's not mandatory because it protects the person at fault, it's mandatory because it protects the victim. Full coverage isn't mandatory, in California, legally you only need five thousand dollars property/ fifteen thousand bodily injury/ thirty thousand bodily injury total.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 10:08 PM
 
I didn't read the other 36 posts.

So here's the problem I have with "mandated health insurance".

Insurance is a lot like gambling. If you're 35 years old, your odds of needing intensive hospital care are maybe 1000:1. Why in the hell should you be required to pay for insurance you will never need? Oh, I see. You need to pay for the old folks who spend $84 out of every $100 healthcare dollars. In the last 6 months of life you will require probably 75% of all the money in healthcare you spent during the first 70 years of life. Well, damn. maybe your 70 year old ass needed to save up for it. To *require* young people to fund old people's heathcare is nothing short of socialism. Yeah, Hillary wants to mandate that every person buys health insurance. So they can fund the sick and elderly. Well, she can kiss my ass. I'll fund the likelihood of a person my age being sick. Just like I fund the likelihood of a person my age wrecking the sort of car I drive. I will not fund bad risks.

Insurance, as a rule, means you pay monthly for expenses you will likely incur - PLUS overhead and profit. Insurance does not mean you are funding the the folks who are certainly going to need paid. Hillary and Obama can kiss my ass. I am self-insured. I'll pay my own way. I am not paying for you.

Old people will just need to accept the fact that they will need to pay for their medical care. And they will need 3 or 4 times as much money as they spent in their lifetime to pay for their last year of life. So if you're 70, then your monthly premium should reflect your risk. So pay the $7,500/month and fund your last bit of life. Isn't that fair? I don't fund a 16 yr old kid driving a 650HP C-5 Calloway Corvette when I pay my car insurance. The kid does. That's fair.

The way insurance works, you could save your premiums in a bank account and come out ahead - while paying your own medical bills. and forego insurance altogether. Democrats are stupid if they think I'm paying for other people's shortcomings. I already do. I pay cash for my medical care.
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; Feb 4, 2008 at 10:32 PM. )
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
That's not why liability insurance is mandatory. It's not mandatory because it protects the person at fault, it's mandatory because it protects the victim. Full coverage isn't mandatory, in California, legally you only need five thousand dollars property/ fifteen thousand bodily injury/ thirty thousand bodily injury total.
Which is exactly why people want to make health insurance mandatory: to protect other people from the costs of medical care for the uninsured... Currently people without insurance who can't pay for their medical care just don't. The result is that medical care is more expensive for everyone else because hospitals and doctors need to make up for that loss, which means that insurance is also more expensive because the average payout is higher. The fact that there are people out there who can't afford the medical care they're getting means that you are spending more on both medical care and insurance.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Which is exactly why people want to make health insurance mandatory: to protect other people from the costs of medical care for the uninsured... Currently people without insurance who can't pay for their medical care just don't. The result is that medical care is more expensive for everyone else because hospitals and doctors need to make up for that loss, which means that insurance is also more expensive because the average payout is higher. The fact that there are people out there who can't afford the medical care they're getting means that you are spending more on both medical care and insurance.
I'll accept that. But then you need to tell me how we won't be paying the expenses of those who can't pay. We will always pay for it. The folks who can pay are already paying. How would a "universal" plan reduce the burden on those who already pay?

It wouldn't. healthcare costs what it costs - and the people who can pay will continue to pay. Those that cannot pay will not pay. There is no magic formula. There is no cure. it is what it is.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy View Post
I'll accept that. But then you need to tell me how we won't be paying the expenses of those who can't pay. We will always pay for it. The folks who can pay are already paying. How would a "universal" plan reduce the burden on those who already pay?

It wouldn't. healthcare costs what it costs - and the people who can pay will continue to pay. Those that cannot pay will not pay. There is no magic formula. There is no cure. it is what it is.
Exactly. I'm strongly against any universal health care plan for that reason as well as others. Granted, the idea of universal health care is great. Who doesn't like the idea of everyone having access to top-notch health care for free? The problem is that it will never work in a way that makes it worthwhile; providing everyone with equal access to care means that everyone gets, at best, average care and no one gets exceptional care.
     
iMOTOR
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Which is exactly why people want to make health insurance mandatory: to protect other people from the costs of medical care for the uninsured... Currently people without insurance who can't pay for their medical care just don't.
But I never said that I thought mandatory auto liability was perfect. If someone with minimum liability totals my forty-thousand dollar Volvo, I'll still be f*cked.

Universal healthcare wont magically make the poor wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare, it'll just legitimize the act of reaching into your wallet to pay for it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2008, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
But I never said that I thought mandatory auto liability was perfect. If someone with minimum liability totals my forty-thousand dollar Volvo, I'll still be f*cked.
If someone totals your car (and are found to be at fault) they are fully liable for the damages to your car. If their insurance doesn't cover the full amount then they should have to cover the difference. Their fault, their problem.

Universal healthcare wont magically make the poor wealthy enough to pay for their healthcare, it'll just legitimize the act of reaching into your wallet to pay for it.
Which is why the ideas that I've proposed tackle it from the other angle and try to make it easier for the poor to afford it rather than the forcing others to pay for them.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Um, that's not really a distinction. Auto insurance protects you from the costs of being in an auto accident.
Not true. Auto insurance absolutely makes a distinction about who is at fault for the accident, and therefore it doesn't protect you from the costs of being in an auto accident if you just have basic liability (the required by law part) and you're at fault.

Health insurance shouldn't be about being held liable for the actions, bad lifestyle choices, etc. of others, which is exactly the problem with a mandatory system.

The whole focus being on insurance is silly anyway. We need a focus on making healthcare itself cheaper, by bringing the prices in line with reality as much as possible.

For anyone who's been paying attention, many procedures not covered by health insurance, and based on competitive pricing have gotten cheaper and cheaper, while everything else covered by health insurance (where patients have no idea what the costs are) have skyrocketed.

Classic example: I remember when laser eye surgery was astronomically expensive. Now you can have it done for less than a thousand dollars an eye. It's virtually never covered by insurance, and is therefore sold as a cost-competitive service. People are aware of exactly what it costs, and shop around, like they do for anything else. As many medical procedures as possible (of course not everything, but certainly many more non-emergency services) would benefit from the same thing.

THAT process is what drives prices down and makes things more available and affordable, not another stupid massively over-complicated insurance boondoggle which does the exact opposite.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Not true. Auto insurance absolutely makes a distinction about who is at fault for the accident, and therefore it doesn't protect you from the costs of being in an auto accident if you just have basic liability (the required by law part) and you're at fault.
Of course it protects you from the costs. The whole idea is that because you've been paying your insurance company every month you don't have to pay the potentially huge amount to repair the damages out of pocket. Being in a car accident can be very expensive. Having insurance helps make it less so. The reason that insurance is required is because uninsured drivers might not be able to cover the cost themselves and so if your person or property are damaged by an uninsured driver you might be left out in the cold and forced to pay for everything yourself despite not being at fault. So the insurance is there to protect the driver, but the requirement is there to protect the victim.

Health insurance shouldn't be about being held liable for the actions, bad lifestyle choices, etc. of others, which is exactly the problem with a mandatory system.

The whole focus being on insurance is silly anyway. We need a focus on making healthcare itself cheaper, by bringing the prices in line with reality as much as possible.
Agreed.

For anyone who's been paying attention, many procedures not covered by health insurance, and based on competitive pricing have gotten cheaper and cheaper, while everything else covered by health insurance (where patients have no idea what the costs are) have skyrocketed.

Classic example: I remember when laser eye surgery was astronomically expensive. Now you can have it done for less than a thousand dollars an eye. It's virtually never covered by insurance, and is therefore sold as a cost-competitive service. People are aware of exactly what it costs, and shop around, like they do for anything else. As many medical procedures as possible (of course not everything, but certainly many more non-emergency services) would benefit from the same thing.

THAT process is what drives prices down and makes things more available and affordable, not another stupid massively over-complicated insurance boondoggle which does the exact opposite.
Is that why LASIK prices have gone down? I just assumed it was because a) the technology is improving, b) it's becoming more widespread so we've go economies of scale going on, and c) it's becoming more widespread so we've got more competition in the market.

The other thing is that it's an elective surgery. There's no one who's going to die because they don't get LASIK, so if it's too expensive they simply won't get it. With something like an appendectomy or chemotherapy the patient will die without it, so they're going to do everything they can to get the treatment whether it's expensive or not. The demand for LASIK is elastic, while the demand for many other procedures aren't, therefore the price for LASIK is elastic while the price for many other procedures aren't.

This isn't to say that your wrong, just that the issue is a complex one. I do agree that increasing consumer choice is always a good thing when it comes to driving down prices and driving up quality and that both our current approach to health care and the proposed 'fixes' are entirely counter-productive.
( Last edited by nonhuman; Feb 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM. )
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
The only relationship I see is that they are both forms of insurance.
And they both allow you to pay for emergency expenditures you might not otherwise be able to cover.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
Excellent point. This is precisely why communism never works out. One person who works hard every day gets no better benefit than the person who puts in the minimum amount of participation at work. At some point the hard working person becomes resentful, and rightfully so.
All I'm getting out of this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't argument.

Originally Posted by iMOTOR View Post
Interesting indeed. I think that is complicated considering it's widely thought that education entirely necessary to not be a complete leech on society.
Wouldn't someone who can't pay their medical bills, in turn causing hospitals to raise what they charge to cover the loss, be a leech on society?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Of course it protects you from the costs. The whole idea is that because you've been paying your insurance company every month you don't have to pay the potentially huge amount to repair the damages out of pocket.
If you have only basic liability (what's required by law- hence, this entire subject) you'd be in for a rude awakening if you hit someone else and totaled your own car, and expected your insurance to pay for your own damages. The insurance DOESN'T protect you from your own reckless driving or mistakes, it only protects (up to a certain limit) the victim. You'd have to pay for full coverage to cover your own vehicle as well.

It's not a good analogy to health insurance, because if they were the same thing, you'd have people being forced to pay only for other people's health. In a very real sense, that is what would be created -as others have pointed out- with the healthy and responsible being forced to pay for those who aren't- a complete reversal of responsibility.

So the insurance is there to protect the driver, but the requirement is there to protect the victim.
The problem with this analogy is that it's 100% bassackwards. It makes sense to require drivers to protect other people from the consequences of their own potential mistakes and bad behavior on the road. You drive badly and damage someone else's property- your insurance pays for it.

It DOESN'T make sense to make people pay for the "privilege" of protecting other people from the consequences of not taking better care of their health. Other people live irresponsibly and damage their own health- someone else pays for it.

Is that why LASIK prices have gone down?
Absolutely.

I just assumed it was because a) the technology is improving, b) it's becoming more widespread so we've go economies of scale going on, and c) it's becoming more widespread so we've got more competition in the market.
Sure, just like any market. You seem to be putting effect before cause in the above though- these things have happened exactly because you, I, and everyone else is aware of the procedure, and have a gauge on what it costs, therefore market forces apply. You can apply the above to everything from toaster ovens, to TVs, to personal computers, to Lasik surgery.

Notice you see ads for things like Lasik- doctors compete for customers in the marketplace like every other product. The skill of the doctor, and the cost are MAJOR selling points always, not "Forget the price! Just bring in your charge card and who cares what the bill is!?! You're covered!!"

The entire "just chaaarrrrge it!" insurance boondoggle is kept exactly the opposite. As anyone who's ever taken a closer look at an insurance bill can tell you, prices that would be laughed out of the competitive marketplace, are commonplace with insurance. If you think all of it is for procedures that couldn't be handled in a competitive market every bit as much as allowing a surgeon to take a laser to YOUR EYES, then I have a bridge to sell you.


The other thing is that it's an elective surgery. There's no one who's going to die because they don't get LASIK, so if it's too expensive they simply won't get it.
So? What real world difference does that make, other than you've bought into an idea that medical care isn't a product like any other, and must have this entire insurance boondoggle wrapped around it always.

People may not die if they don't get a hip replaced, a wound stitched up, a stomach ailment treated, or any number of things that aren't emergencies, but are day to day health costs. There are already clinics all over the country that have a price list on display, and charge walk in customers cash for their services, like virtually any other business. Don't like the price? Go elsewhere.

CLEARLY you're not going in for emergency open heart surgery from such a place, but there are any number of procedures currently part of the health insurance boondoggle, that need not be. Take those procedures out of the insurance mess, and there would be less to concern ourselves with when it does come to health insurance.


The demand for LASIK is elastic, while the demand for many other procedures aren't, therefore the price for LASIK is elastic while the price for many other procedures aren't.
So you really think that because the demand for something is higher, the laws of supply and demand that dictate prices for virtually everything else in the world, can't apply to medicine as well? Well, if you've bought into the whole health insurance industry scam maybe. But supply and demand, is supply and demand. You could have doctors every bit as capable as Lasik surgeons, performing appendectomies, administering chemotherapy, or anything else, on a competitive cost basis. Hell, imagine actually having doctors ADVERTISE their skill and expertise at such things, while telling you exactly what it will cost, and why you should choose their clinic over 1,000,000 other choices.

I do agree that increasing consumer choice is always a good thing when it comes to driving down prices and driving up quality and that both our current approach to health care and the proposed 'fixes' are entirely counter-productive.
We're in agreement on this. Of course I'm not in favor of every medical procedure possible being part of the open market, but why not those non-life threatening procedures that can be? Focus 100% on price and competition where possible, and then simplify what's left for insurance- while also working to bring the cost of those procedures down as well. Ultimately, price and competition is what will make all of this more affordable for more people, not just pretending that "everybody's covered so just charrrrrage it" and focusing only on that.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Feb 5, 2008 at 02:33 PM. )
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
If you have only basic liability (what's required by law- hence, this entire subject) you'd be in for a rude awakening if you hit someone else and totaled your own car, and expected your insurance to pay for your own damages. The insurance DOESN'T protect you from your own reckless driving or mistakes, it only protects (up to a certain limit) the victim. You'd have to pay for full coverage to cover your own vehicle as well.
You're missing the point I'm making. Yes, liability insurance won't cover the costs for repairs to your own care if you cause an accident. But it is still designed to protect the holder of the insurance. It's not exactly the same thing as health insurance, nor did I ever claim it was, but both are insurance and therefore both are designed to protect the insurance holder from large expenses by spreading out the cost amongst a large number of people over a large period of time.

It's not a good analogy to health insurance, because if they were the same thing, you'd have people being forced to pay only for other people's health. In a very real sense, that is what would be created -as others have pointed out- with the healthy and responsible being forced to pay for those who aren't- a complete reversal of responsibility.


The problem with this analogy is that it's 100% bassackwards. It makes sense to require drivers to protect other people from the consequences of their own potential mistakes and bad behavior on the road. You drive badly and damage someone else's property- your insurance pays for it.

It DOESN'T make sense to make people pay for the "privilege" of protecting other people from the consequences of not taking better care of their health. Other people live irresponsibly and damage their own health- someone else pays for it.
This is pretty much what I'm saying...

On the price of health care issue, I'm pretty much in total agreement with you. I'm just saying that some procedures are going to be more sensitive to the pull of supply and demand than others, and that it will likely always be the case that elective surgery will be a little more responsive to market forces. I'm not saying that we can't do better in terms of pricing for other things, definitely I think we can and definitely I think that the market is a more appropriate mechanism for handling this than the government.
     
chris v
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
According to Alex Jones it doesn't matter who gets elected anyway, they are all puppets of the Bilderbergers.
According to Alex Jones, you should buy his latest DVD, and maybe pick up a T-shirt and bumper-sticker, while you're at it. He's commecially exploiting the gullible. As to that particular variety of gullible, I'm okay with that.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2008, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by chris v View Post
According to Alex Jones, you should buy his latest DVD, and maybe pick up a T-shirt and bumper-sticker, while you're at it. He's commecially exploiting the gullible. As to that particular variety of gullible, I'm okay with that.
I find him entertaining at best, believable, no. He's a rabid Ron Paul supporter.

edit:
Oh, he also said that "they" have anointed Hilary as the next President and another attack has been arranged so she can declare martial law and confiscate all our guns. See you in the interment camp!
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 5, 2008 at 03:53 PM. )
45/47
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,