quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I don't know anything of Jazz' medical condition other than him denying it had anything to do with his behavior when T/A mentioned it. I'm kind of new here so I don't have all the history I guess. I know some guys are piling on him, I can see that. But he engaged in the same us/them behavior by grouping me with others. I really was trying to point out his hypocrisy to him, tried to get him to discuss it in a civilized manner in a thread rather than nagging. It's starting to look like lines are being drawn and it's only going to get worse.

I've tried to do the same thing.

He ignores my posts

Personally, I think CliffW should stop before Jazzman. I'm tired of seeing that level of attack on him. But I want Jazzman to stop right away as well. I just don't want CliffW to think it's because he took it upon himself to troll Jazzman. Starting to sound like Trollster

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Not to jump around, but let me be Frank for a minute (rather than Todd). Let me just suggest that we end this Crusade. The level of stress on here, I'm sure, has increased for you, as it has for me to some extent as well. I come on here to have fun, get different perspectives on the daily events, and have fun while work is slow.

If kevin changes the category like he said he would, I wouldn't be able to reply since I have politics turned off and therefor would no longer be able to see the topic.

Funny how that works, eh?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If kevin changes the category like he said he would, I wouldn't be able to reply since I have politics turned off and therefor would no longer be able to see the topic. Funny how that works, eh?

Ya but you choose to reply. Do you believe in unilateral disarmament?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I'm out of this damn thread.. it was supposed to be a discussion about the merits and flaws of socialised health care versus private health care, a discussion that WAS getting honest and candid answers from a few here and not just the normal RepubliCon/DemoCrap argument .. instead it turns into Jazz complaining about it not being marked political and then pizzing all over CliffW because of his past he cant change. What does that have to do with health care, and how is that any more or less appropriate than not marking the thread political? Is bad behavior okay in light of other perceived bad behavior, or is it as my Mom always said that "Two wrongs won't make it right"? Can people start marking the topics correctly so we don't have to go through this BS every time and actually discuss something without the added crap? Geesh.

What discussion? It started out as a thread bashing UK's health care system and quickly devolved into attacks against so-called Obamacare (which doesn't and never has existed) and so-called liberalism and socialism. To wit, the 5th post in the thread: "Obamacare in action in Britain----socialism in action!!!!!!" That may be your idea of "discussion" (lol) but I suspect it's not most people's and definitely not mine. BTW, I wasn't the only, or even first, person to question why this obviously political post wasn't marked as such.

In a real discussion people analyze the issues, looking at finer points in differing contexts while weighing points and counterpoints. They do this without snide and derogatory comments, derision, name calling, insinuations, character assassination, etc. They do it from the point of view that everyone is part of a civil society with common goals, without rancor, without the My way or the highway Us or Them mentality that has come to pervade politics in the last decade and a half.

Honestly, I'm not against politics per se, but since 100% of political discussions on this board are basically shite-flinging contests (110% if you count all the non-political posts that get politicized by the political addicts) it's easy for me to reduce the smell, er, stress level by unchecking politics. It only takes me one click to not see politics; if 40 some-odd people could exercise the same tiny bit of control, and it's not hard really, just a different mouse click a few pixels over, then this whole issue would just go away. Maybe it'll go away today? Maybe it'll go away in a year. How much can y'all take? I can take a lot.

Actually, I thout me Scott Todd Nick Boon and Jaskispyder WERE discussing it. Just because you dont approve of the way the thread is titled or categorized doesn't really give you the right to enter the discussion just to be disruptive. Try to be part of the discussion at least or take it to pm. I don't like the implication of the thread title either, but you can either intelligently take issue with what you think is wrong with the post or keep disrupting those who would.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 04-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I can take a lot.

TEEHEE!

quote Originally posted by kevin: ray b, It is difficult to respond to a memo with so many misspellings, inordinately feeble syntax and lame sentence structure, but I will nevertheless. Socialism is socialism, either the British style or Obamaare (sic). Anywhere where you are FORCED to pay for a right or a government recompense. So far, Obama and his regime already gave over 1,000 deferments (I think it might be more, since my facts are over 10 days old), to companies who wanted OUT of his socialistic heath care. Why did they want out? Their CPA's and lawyers determined the cost to implement this monstrosity will put them out of business! Obama's solution? Tell these companies, like McDonald's s and other restaurants, they can opt out. Obama still wants socialism, but he is betting that these deferments would only last for a year. He is betting that the economic landscape would change by then, whereby he can alter his agenda to fit the new pieces into place at that time. Never mind this whole thing is unconstitutional, Obama only wants to "spread the wealth around". Liberals thinking is all the same......throw more money at the problem and at the same time demagogue those who disagree, and fool those who do not read and do not read and understand. Is that you ray b? Cordially, Kevin

NO socialism is government OWNERSHIP of the means of production
a law requiring purchase of insurance from a CORPORATION is far more capitalist not even a little socialism

I note you skipped over the BIG LIES in your opening post
I guess even you know they are untrue and indefensible


1 the woman in question did NOT suffer from rationed or the lack of care

2 our health care law is not the same as englands theirs is socialism ours is capitalist

your ignorance is clearly shown by declaring socialism is socialism
while you may not like obamba care calling it socialism is simply not true

btw the so call opt outs have nothing to do with socialism
they are pure capitalism in action
and a red herring to this discussion

but as you never care about truth I guess you will not admit your use of the BIG LIE here

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: 2 our health care law is not the same as englands theirs is socialism ours is capitalist

This is actually incorrect. Their system is a single payer national health insurance model. Single payer eliminates huge amounts of duplication of functions within the administration side of things, and is one of the reasons why they can deliver more bang for the buck spent as a nation than we can. Their health insurance premiums are mandatory and are scaled based on ability to pay rather than a fixed price per head. If they used price per head like we do then, like us, 10-20% of their citizens would have no access to health care at all for no other reason than they were not wealthy. Their system works well. It would be easy to counter each one of their individual-level failures with dozens here, at a ratio that far exceeds the population ratio.

In fact, this is pretty much true of all the nationalized health care systems around the world, not just Canada and Britain. Singapore, Japan, Norway, etc. Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Here's a report done that compares ten country's health care systems including ours:

http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc....241d33484&version=-1

From that report, we spend far more per capita for health care than any other country on the comparison list.The nine countries with NHS average 8.45% of GDP whereas we pay 13%, over 50% more. UK is tied for Japan for lowest at 7.3% of GDP.

What do we get for that extra 5.7% of GDP spent on healthcare in this country? 47 million people can't afford health care and more than half the bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. In other words, not much. Where is the money going if not toward the health of the population? That's a good question. What could we do with that extra 5.7% of GDP?

If you look at figure 4 in that report you see that our cost per head spending at the time of the report was more than double all but Japan's and Germany's, an astonishing concept that further bolsters the contention that bang for the buck our system fails miserably. Figure 5 shows that out of pocket costs are higher than any other country in the report. Figure 6 has a fairly thorough breakdown of financing systems for each of the countries in the report.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO socialism is government OWNERSHIP of the means of production a law requiring purchase of insurance from a CORPORATION is far more capitalist not even a little socialism I note you skipped over the BIG LIES in your opening post I guess even you know they are untrue and indefensible 1 the woman in question did NOT suffer from rationed or the lack of care 2 our health care law is not the same as englands theirs is socialism ours is capitalist your ignorance is clearly shown by declaring socialism is socialism while you may not like obamba care calling it socialism is simply not true btw the so call opt outs have nothing to do with socialism they are pure capitalism in action and a red herring to this discussion but as you never care about truth I guess you will not admit your use of the BIG LIE here

rab b,

So you can be taught, I will be the first, others here on the Forum will certainly soon help in educating you: Socialism is public ownership---NOT individual ownership. Obamacare (sic) wants to take away your right to own your own private health plan and dictate, by presidential fiat, that the "public" government in D.C. can tell you when your aching back or broken leg can be fixed. They will determine this by your age, gender and tax group--- even by zip code! Yes, our current health system is capitalistic. Thank God! All this current debate over the health care issue has to do with cost. If we can find a way to make it less expensive, say the cost of your cell bill per month, you would not even type in the memo "Big Lie" --whatever that is? There are thousand s of proposals given and discussed over the past 30+ years on how to keep the cost down. Obama's solution is to follow the British style of socialized one payer type solution. Obama problem: THe USA has a Constitution. Obamacare (sic) is unconstitutional. A federal judge said so, he read the whole mess.

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO socialism is government OWNERSHIP of the means of production a law requiring purchase of insurance from a CORPORATION is far more capitalist not even a little socialism

Sounds more like Fascism to me! From good ol' wikipedia:.
Fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

Damn. Lost a long lengthy diatribe due to a cut and past error. Oil well. I can repeat it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: From that report, we spend far more per capita for health care than any other country on the comparison list.The nine countries with NHS average 8.45% of GDP whereas we pay 13%, over 50% more. UK is tied for Japan for lowest at 7.3% of GDP. What do we get for that extra 5.7% of GDP spent on healthcare in this country? 47 million people can't afford health care and more than half the bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. In other words, not much. Where is the money going if not toward the health of the population? That's a good question. What could we do with that extra 5.7% of GDP? If you look at figure 4 in that report you see that our cost per head spending at the time of the report was more than double all but Japan's and Germany's, an astonishing concept that further bolsters the contention that bang for the buck our system fails miserably. Figure 5 shows that out of pocket costs are higher than any other country in the report. Figure 6 has a fairly thorough breakdown of financing systems for each of the countries in the report.

Couple of things. We're getting into my territory here since I was in the health care industry for almost a decade. I wrote medical billing software, hospital software, and pathology software.

I've seen the reports which compare our costs to others, and they always point to the inefficiencies of our health care as the cause. That is not the reason. The reason is two-fold:


1 - For the most part, we are one of THE most unhealthiest non-3rd-world countries in the world. 73% of our population is overweight, and we are at risk of more diseases and conditions than any other single country in the world. Because of our obesity, our poor diets, we end up with far more conditions and forms of cancer.

2 - The second issue tends to strike a chord with a lot of people, but anyone here in the medical industry would back me up. At first, it sounds racist, but you have to understand the concept. Here in America, we are basically the most diverse country in the world. It's what makes us great, quite honestly. But that also affects the overall costs of our insurance premiums. Different races, different cultures, are all affected by different illnesses and different "pre-dispositions" for various conditions. I'm not talking about illnesses like AIDS, Diabetes, etc... which are often caused by lifestyle / dietary reasons. I'm talking about illnesses that directly affect an individual culture specifically because their genetic make-up is different.

For example, people of Israeli culture (Ashkenazi in particular) descent are like 80% more likely to suffer from Chrones Disease. People of the black race persuation of African descent are far more prone to Sickle Cell Anemia. Likewise, Hispanics are significantly more likely to suffer from Cystic Fibrosis. They are also listed high in terms of Sickle Cell Anemia because being Hispanic is technically not a race, but a region / heritage and many blacks are also part hispanic (like Dominicans). I'm just barely scratching the surface, but when you look at specific kinds of cancers, it really goes into detail. I worked for Quest Diagnostics / AmeriPath for many years, and we actually had a chart in all the labs that some of the Pathologists got. This helped with diagnosis based on race / creed.

Why this is a problem, is because most other countries do not have anywhere near the diversity of the United States. You could look at the UK and perhaps say that yes, there are also black people there, and perhaps there's also a lot of middle easterners there, but there are far less asians, hispanics, and native indians as well. You look at any of these countries, like Japan, or Sweden, or Norway, or any of these other countries which have a universal health care system, and both situations are true:

1 - They are significantly more active, and eat far healthier than we do.
2 - Their racial and cultural make-up are far more condensed than what we have in the United States.


That's why universal health care in the United States is a significantly greater challenge than it has been, or will be to any other country.

quote Originally posted by ray b: NO socialism is government OWNERSHIP of the means of production a law requiring purchase of insurance from a CORPORATION is far more capitalist not even a little socialism

What are you smoking ?
I am gonna go get me a hit off the bong and read it again.
Wait, wait wait wait.
Are you calling me a socialist ? I govern my house and have ownership of the means of production.
A law requiring ? Like 'um, government ownership ?
That's not socialism ding bat. That's communism, .

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Couple of things. We're getting into my territory here since I was in the health care industry for almost a decade. I wrote medical billing software, hospital software, and pathology software. I've seen the reports which compare our costs to others, and they always point to the inefficiencies of our health care as the cause. That is not the reason. The reason is two-fold: 1 - For the most part, we are one of THE most unhealthiest non-3rd-world countries in the world. 73% of our population is overweight, and we are at risk of more diseases and conditions than any other single country in the world. Because of our obesity, our poor diets, we end up with far more conditions and forms of cancer. 2 - The second issue tends to strike a chord with a lot of people, but anyone here in the medical industry would back me up. At first, it sounds racist, but you have to understand the concept. Here in America, we are basically the most diverse country in the world. It's what makes us great, quite honestly. But that also affects the overall costs of our insurance premiums. Different races, different cultures, are all affected by different illnesses and different "pre-dispositions" for various conditions. I'm not talking about illnesses like AIDS, Diabetes, etc... which are often caused by lifestyle / dietary reasons. I'm talking about illnesses that directly affect an individual culture specifically because their genetic make-up is different. For example, people of Israeli culture (Ashkenazi in particular) descent are like 80% more likely to suffer from Chrones Disease. People of the black race persuation of African descent are far more prone to Sickle Cell Anemia. Likewise, Hispanics are significantly more likely to suffer from Cystic Fibrosis. They are also listed high in terms of Sickle Cell Anemia because being Hispanic is technically not a race, but a region / heritage and many blacks are also part hispanic (like Dominicans). I'm just barely scratching the surface, but when you look at specific kinds of cancers, it really goes into detail. I worked for Quest Diagnostics / AmeriPath for many years, and we actually had a chart in all the labs that some of the Pathologists got. This helped with diagnosis based on race / creed. Why this is a problem, is because most other countries do not have anywhere near the diversity of the United States. You could look at the UK and perhaps say that yes, there are also black people there, and perhaps there's also a lot of middle easterners there, but there are far less asians, hispanics, and native indians as well. You look at any of these countries, like Japan, or Sweden, or Norway, or any of these other countries which have a universal health care system, and both situations are true: 1 - They are significantly more active, and eat far healthier than we do. 2 - Their racial and cultural make-up are far more condensed than what we have in the United States. That's why universal health care in the United States is a significantly greater challenge than it has been, or will be to any other country.

I <3 this post.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Couple of things. We're getting into my territory here since I was in the health care industry for almost a decade. I wrote medical billing software, hospital software, and pathology software. I've seen the reports which compare our costs to others, and they always point to the inefficiencies of our health care as the cause. That is not the reason. The reason is two-fold: 1 - For the most part, we are one of THE most unhealthiest non-3rd-world countries in the world. 73% of our population is overweight, and we are at risk of more diseases and conditions than any other single country in the world. Because of our obesity, our poor diets, we end up with far more conditions and forms of cancer. 2 - The second issue tends to strike a chord with a lot of people, but anyone here in the medical industry would back me up. At first, it sounds racist, but you have to understand the concept. Here in America, we are basically the most diverse country in the world. It's what makes us great, quite honestly. But that also affects the overall costs of our insurance premiums. Different races, different cultures, are all affected by different illnesses and different "pre-dispositions" for various conditions. I'm not talking about illnesses like AIDS, Diabetes, etc... which are often caused by lifestyle / dietary reasons. I'm talking about illnesses that directly affect an individual culture specifically because their genetic make-up is different. For example, people of Israeli culture (Ashkenazi in particular) descent are like 80% more likely to suffer from Chrones Disease. People of the black race persuation of African descent are far more prone to Sickle Cell Anemia. Likewise, Hispanics are significantly more likely to suffer from Cystic Fibrosis. They are also listed high in terms of Sickle Cell Anemia because being Hispanic is technically not a race, but a region / heritage and many blacks are also part hispanic (like Dominicans). I'm just barely scratching the surface, but when you look at specific kinds of cancers, it really goes into detail. I worked for Quest Diagnostics / AmeriPath for many years, and we actually had a chart in all the labs that some of the Pathologists got. This helped with diagnosis based on race / creed. Why this is a problem, is because most other countries do not have anywhere near the diversity of the United States. You could look at the UK and perhaps say that yes, there are also black people there, and perhaps there's also a lot of middle easterners there, but there are far less asians, hispanics, and native indians as well. You look at any of these countries, like Japan, or Sweden, or Norway, or any of these other countries which have a universal health care system, and both situations are true: 1 - They are significantly more active, and eat far healthier than we do. 2 - Their racial and cultural make-up are far more condensed than what we have in the United States. That's why universal health care in the United States is a significantly greater challenge than it has been, or will be to any other country.

You seem to be forgetting the country that sits to the north of you again.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I <3 this post.

Hah, thanks... unfortunately, this kind of data isn't usually shared regularly simply because it tends to elicit a negative reaction to those who don't understand it. It's pretty commonly understood in the medical community, but outside of medical journals and medical think-tanks, it's never mentioned in the news or anything like that. Most people don't even realize it, but all parts of the medical field breaks down different things based on race / culture.

The issue of course is that the United States has to be much more well equipped across the board for every condition or malady, where as places like Japan almost never see Crohns disease. So things like intestinal blockage are very uncommon for them. We basically have to be prepared for everything, almost at every hospital. That's not to say that other hospitals around the world aren't also well equipped, they just don't see the same level of diversity in terms of medical conditions. Even Canada, which is also fairly diverse, is still over 70% white.

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem to be forgetting the country that sits to the north of you again.

Hah, I just mentioned it above. Almost 70% of Canada is white. Less than 6% makes up Arab, Asian, and other. About 25% is "mixed" background, which includes a little bit of everything.

You can look up these numbers at the World Fact Book. The US population is only 50% "euro-caucasian." The United States does not consider Hispanics to be a race, however... so they list people as coming from Mexico, Cuba, etc... as being white (79%). Like me for example, my mom is from Argentina, and I check the white box. But that's misleading when you're talking about origin.

Not like it's night or day difference between here and there, but certainly, you don't have anywhere near the number of hispanics or blacks that we do, so that does play a factor. I mean, Canada literally has less than 1% of their population as being from South or Central America.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-06-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hah, I just mentioned it above. Almost 70% of Canada is white. Less than 6% makes up Arab, Asian, and other. About 25% is "mixed" background, which includes a little bit of everything. You can look up these numbers at the World Fact Book. The US population is only 50% "euro-caucasian." The United States does not consider Hispanics to be a race, however... so they list people as coming from Mexico, Cuba, etc... as being white (79%). Like me for example, my mom is from Argentina, and I check the white box. But that's misleading when you're talking about origin. Not like it's night or day difference between here and there, but certainly, you don't have anywhere near the number of hispanics or blacks that we do, so that does play a factor. I mean, Canada literally has less than 1% of their population as being from South or Central America.

You can spin it anyway you like however we still have to deal with the same diseases and conditions that the U.S. healthcare does, that's the thing with the healthcare system here and an arguement that has been already submitted, if someone needs a treatment/diagnoses that is uncommon to a certain specific geographical area the system still has to ensure that person gets adequate care, if it's not available in the area then the person may be transfered at the systems expense to where it is.

Not sure what the percentage of different ethnic groups has to do with much really, as if you have a population of mixed background you are bound to have just as many or more diversity in conditions that need to be treated. Also the percentage variability doesn't mean the system can ignore certain common ethnic diseases but instead has to be able to treat all of them.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-06-2011).]

That wasn't spin that was an application of facts to the situation. It sounds very plausible in my opinion.
Healthcare costs more in the US, what is the biggest cost in health care? I don't know honestly but I often here prescription pharmaceuticals are a huge part of the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. How much does the UK, Canada and elsewhere pay for the same medicines in the US? Whatever they decide is fair to pay the producer. Maybe this doesn't cut UKs cost to half of the US', but I bet it makes a pretty big dent. The US subsidizes the world's healthcare.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: That wasn't spin that was an application of facts to the situation. It sounds very plausible in my opinion. Healthcare costs more in the US, what is the biggest cost in health care? I don't know honestly but I often here prescription pharmaceuticals are a huge part of the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. How much does the UK, Canada and elsewhere pay for the same medicines in the US? Whatever they decide is fair to pay the producer. Maybe this doesn't cut UKs cost to half of the US', but I bet it makes a pretty big dent. The US subsidizes the world's healthcare.

Spinning the facts to suit your arguement is still spin, plausible or not. Didn't mean to say it like he was doing something untoward as I think we all spin stuff to some extent.

So are you suggesting that the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't make a profit if it were not for inflated prices in the U.S.?

Wow that's quite the claim, the U.S. subsidizes the world's healthcare...can you back it up?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-06-2011).]

Here you go Newf. Notice I didn't say screw you find it yourself like that other guy!
From Wikipedia, citations are on their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...in_the_United_States

quote Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world. "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."[1] National expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for 12.9% of total health care costs, compared to an OECD average of 17.7% (2003 figures).[2] The high price of prescription drugs is one of the major areas of discussion in the U.S. health care reform debate. Although the cost of manufacturing a drug is relatively low, the cost of inventing a drug is relatively high, and the United States' high drug prices allow the U.S. pharmaceutical industry to invent a highly disproportionate share of all drugs.[3] Although the United States is only 5% of the world's population, it accounts for 36% of worldwide research and development of pharmaceutical drugs.[3] A study by Battelle Memorial Institute estimated that drug research will save more than $750 billion in treatment costs for just five illnesses (AIDS, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, and arthritis) over the next 25 years.[3] Schizophrenia drugs which cost $4,500 per patient per year save more than $70,000 per patient per year by rendering hospitalization unnecessary.[4]

I'm sure you can argue these assertion but I didn't just pull it out my rear-end.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Here you go Newf. Notice I didn't say screw you find it yourself like that other guy! From Wikipedia, citations are on their page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...in_the_United_States I'm sure you can argue these assertion but I didn't just pull it out my rear-end.

I don't need to argue them at all, just because the companies make a higher profit in the U.S. for whatever reason does not mean they are not profitable in other countries yet that's what you seem to have suggested. You said the U.S. "subsidizes" other countries healthcare.

(BTW I don't want to discuss anything you are pulling out of your rear end )

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-06-2011).]

Actually, the fact that they sell drugs higher here in the US and sell them for little to no profit in other countries means exactly that.
And even if I were to concede that argument. The huge profits made in the us are reinvested, partially, into research which explains the 35% of new drugs coming from the US.

quote Originally posted by newf: You can spin it anyway you like however we still have to deal with the same diseases and conditions that the U.S. healthcare does, that's the thing with the healthcare system here and an arguement that has been already submitted, if someone needs a treatment/diagnoses that is uncommon to a certain specific geographical area the system still has to ensure that person gets adequate care, if it's not available in the area then the person may be transfered at the systems expense to where it is. Not sure what the percentage of different ethnic groups has to do with much really, as if you have a population of mixed background you are bound to have just as many or more diversity in conditions that need to be treated. Also the percentage variability doesn't mean the system can ignore certain common ethnic diseases but instead has to be able to treat all of them.

The point being that hospitals in Canada see significantly more of the exact same conditions and diseases, the same types of cancers, etc. I certainly didn't suggest anywhere that your system would ignore them, but that dealing with different conditions not common to your average population is less common. The diversity plays a MAJOR role. As I explained in my first e-mail, different races, different cultures, have a much higher propencity to different medical conditions. Since over 70% of your population is basically white English / white Canadian / Other European, the medical conditions that Canada has are for the most part, routine. It also means that you are exceptionally better prepared to deal with those conditions for which you do have to deal with.

On the other hand, the United States has to deal with statistically much more conditions since our population break-down is considerably more diverse. Even our general white population is heavily mixed with other cultures. So diseases, cancers, etc, that we deal with, are far more diverse. That means that our hospitals have to be significantly more better prepared overall for these conditions, across the board, than other hospitals have to be because we see these issues much more frequently. This affects our costs in terms of having specialists, equipment, services, etc... all for these different issues. Like Canada, we also have special facilities as well, but because the "diverse" conditions are much more common, we have to be equipped more regularly at all hospitals for them.

So... I'm not suggesting that America's huge diversity somehow would prevent this from ever working, I'm simply saying it's an additional challenge that we face that other countries do not... at least not to our extent. Certainly (unfortunately), Canada shares much of the same obesity issues as the US does.


With respect to the drug costs, I take issue with the FDA as well... they are a huge deciding factor in what is allowed into the US, and what is not. Most other countries aren't as strict. For example, I know you can get Tylenol w/ Codine in Canada... here in the US, it's only by prescription. The biggest problem is that the bigger drug companies don't allow the generics. They lobby the FDA to not pass drugs that are competitors to their own... that way they can claim massive profits on the original drugs.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Actually, the fact that they sell drugs higher here in the US and sell them for little to no profit in other countries means exactly that. And even if I were to concede that argument. The huge profits made in the us are reinvested, partially, into research which explains the 35% of new drugs coming from the US.

That's an assumption as is 82's assumptions about the extra expenses due to diversity but you really have to be able to back that stuff up or at least show some good evidence.

Just because the US allows for higher drug costs does not in any way show that the U.S. subsidizes other countries nor does it prove anything about why 35% of new drugs may come from the U.S.

OK so why does the US produce a disproportionate amount of new drugs? Are you ready to admit it's because we are just so awesome?

I just read every post in this thread.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I just read every post in this thread.

In every thread that I comment on, I first read every comment.

Is that not commonplace?

quote Originally posted by theBDub: In every thread that I comment on, I first read every comment. Is that not commonplace?

No, not for many.
Alot of people have said they just 'skim'.
I always read it all, though.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: No, not for many. Alot of people have said they just 'skim'. I always read it all, though.

Granted, I don't open every thread. And some threads I do open I don't bother continuing reading. But if I post in something, I have read every comment before mine, and then at the very least, skim to make sure if someone quotes me I can respond in kind.

At least I'm not TOO weird, because you do it too. Good to know

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: OK so why does the US produce a disproportionate amount of new drugs? Are you ready to admit it's because we are just so awesome?

When I was about 12 years old, I convinced my dad to drive me someplace in the suburbs where firecrackers were allowed to be sold prior to Halloween. (Firecrackers were/are illegal here in Vancouver.) I bought about $20 worth. That was a lot of firecrackers, as this was back in about 1967. A package of 100 firecrackers cost perhaps around 10 cents. I sold most of the firecrackers for a penny a piece to all the neighborhood kids. Do the math, I made a small fortune (for a 12 year old kid back in '67.) And now the kicker...

The neighborhood kids thought I was awesome.

If you squint a bit, you'll see the connection.

quote Originally posted by newf: You seem to be arguing another point all together now as you showed how "mixed" Canada's population is as well. I'd like to see some stats on what different diseases, cancers, etc are far more diverse in the U.S. than anywhere else due to race mixing. You can easily see both expenses and savings for specialized treatment depending on the amount of cases. If someone has a "rare" condition and they have to bring in a certain specific equipment/treatment or machinary for isn't it actually more costly if only a low number can benefit from it? Whereas if you have a larger amount of people with this "rare" condition and have to bring in a large amount of expendable medication/treatment it would cost more depending on how many have it.

The US population is not 66% white. It's closer to 50%, but here in the United States, we consider Hispanics to be white (like myself). For all intents and purposes, I look white. My mother was born in Argentina, and her parents came from Argentina, but at some point down the line, one of them originated from Spain, which means that I have some middle eastern in me, since during 1000AD, Spain was heavily populated by Muslims from the middle east.


Let me lay out the different issues here, just so we can organize the facts from assumptions:


FACT - Different races / cultures / ehtnicities, have a propencity to different conditions, different illnesses, and different diseases.

ASSUMPTION - That this plays a role in increasing health care costs.


Just want to make sure we both agree that in fact, different races DO suffer from different conditions. If that's what's being argued here, then I'll find some links for you, and then I'll tackle the assumption of health care costs part.


Speaking of Canada, I'm not cool with them trying to phase out Dr. Tom on Being Erica...

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The US population is not 66% white. It's closer to 50%, but here in the United States, we consider Hispanics to be white (like myself). For all intents and purposes, I look white. My mother was born in Argentina, and her parents came from Argentina, but at some point down the line, one of them originated from Spain, which means that I have some middle eastern in me, since during 1000AD, Spain was heavily populated by Muslims from the middle east. Let me lay out the different issues here, just so we can organize the facts from assumptions: FACT - Different races / cultures / ehtnicities, have a propencity to different conditions, different illnesses, and different diseases. ASSUMPTION - That this plays a role in increasing health care costs. Just want to make sure we both agree that in fact, different races DO suffer from different conditions. If that's what's being argued here, then I'll find some links for you, and then I'll tackle the assumption of health care costs part. Speaking of Canada, I'm not cool with them trying to phase out Dr. Tom on Being Erica...

Just going by the same world fact book stats as you did which seems to indicate 66% White and 80% if you include hispanic. Trying to evaluate "mixed" is nearly impossible if you want to start going back to origins IMO.

As for your fact, what are the statistics for these different diseases/conditions, I honestly only know of a few that are highly race related. Sickle cell, Cystic Fybrosis, and Tay Sachs. I'm sure there are others but am not sure how prevelant they are.

When it comes to other diseases/conditions that are seen in various ethnic type communities I think there is a lot of question about what is a more important factor genetics or socio economic status and/or environmental reasons.

quote Originally posted by newf: Just going by the same world fact book stats as you did which seems to indicate 66% White and 80% if you include hispanic. Trying to evaluate "mixed" is nearly impossible if you want to start going back to origins IMO. As for your fact, what are the statistics for these different diseases/conditions, I honestly only know of a few that are highly race related. Sickle cell, Cystic Fybrosis, and Tay Sachs. I'm sure there are others but am not sure how prevelant they are. When it comes to other diseases/conditions that are seen in various ethnic type communities I think there is a lot of question about what is a more important factor genetics or socio economic status and/or environmental reasons.

Well, that's the thing, I specifically kept out conditions which are socio-economic or societal, which as I said, include things like AIDS, or Diabetes... but would probably also include heart disease, etc.
It really gets broken down into a lot of different conditions, not just diseases, but even things like types of cancers, either cytological, histological, or dermatopatholocial, etc...

Trust me when I say this though, that there is a distinct link between different cultures and different maladies. Truth be told, there's even different thresholds, like for example, Italians have (over the generations) created a higher resistance (if you will) to cholesterol. They can safely have a higher level of cholesterol, and that's been one of the many arguments in the community about cholesterol drugs. Many groups and ethnicities have a better constitution when it comes to certain things like this, which is why many argue that it's silly to have a specific number / range, and base everyone on it.

I only searched briefly, but if you look in Wikipedia, it shows that Canada has less than 1% of their population as having a Hispanic Ethnicity. In the United States, that makes up close to 17%.


Anyway, all I'm suggesting is that it's yet another hurdle that America has to conquer, that most other countries do not, if they want a successful universal health care program.

Another issue is of course, the costs associated with illegals getting health care at hospitals in the ER, also contribute to increased costs. Since hospitals have to cover the costs somewhere (since they are required by law to), they have to raise the rates of their services, which in turn eventually requires health insurance companies to raise their rates (if they want to stay competitive in terms of how much coverage they offer), which in turn increases the cost for everyone. Some countries have this issue, Canada really does not as they don't border any major impoverished countries. Many European countries do have this, on the other hand, with massive immigration from Morocco, Iraq, Iran, etc...

And again, another issue the raises the costs are law-suits. Frivilous, or otherwise... malpractice claims also contribute greatly to the increased cost of health care here in the US. For every law-suit, the malpractice insurance has to go up. This requires doctors, and hospitals to raise their rates to pay for the additional cost of insurance. This then gets passed down through the insurance carrier as well. I know that a lot of primary care physicians and other specialists now no longer carry malpractice insurance. I don't see how this is even allowed, but I've been to several offices where a notice such as this has been posted. To be honest, I haven't seen one in a LONG time, but I used to see them all the time just a few years ago. I don't know if it's now illegal, or if perhaps something was done to reduce the cost? Not sure how other countries are affected by this?


I don't remember if someone posted it, but I'd be very interested to see the cost of health care in a government run program, compared with the country's GDP.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: When I was about 12 years old, I convinced my dad to drive me someplace in the suburbs where firecrackers were allowed to be sold prior to Halloween. (Firecrackers were/are illegal here in Vancouver.) I bought about $20 worth. That was a lot of firecrackers, as this was back in about 1967. A package of 100 firecrackers cost perhaps around 10 cents. I sold most of the firecrackers for a penny a piece to all the neighborhood kids. Do the math, I made a small fortune (for a 12 year old kid back in '67.) And now the kicker... The neighborhood kids thought I was awesome. If you squint a bit, you'll see the connection.

I don't get it. I'm not too proud to ask for some help here.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: This is actually incorrect. Their system is a single payer national health insurance model. Single payer eliminates huge amounts of duplication of functions within the administration side of things, and is one of the reasons why they can deliver more bang for the buck spent as a nation than we can. Their health insurance premiums are mandatory and are scaled based on ability to pay rather than a fixed price per head. If they used price per head like we do then, like us, 10-20% of their citizens would have no access to health care at all for no other reason than they were not wealthy. Their system works well. It would be easy to counter each one of their individual-level failures with dozens here, at a ratio that far exceeds the population ratio. In fact, this is pretty much true of all the nationalized health care systems around the world, not just Canada and Britain. Singapore, Japan, Norway, etc. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care Here's a report done that compares ten country's health care systems including ours: http://www.nao.org.uk/idoc....241d33484&version=-1 From that report, we spend far more per capita for health care than any other country on the comparison list.The nine countries with NHS average 8.45% of GDP whereas we pay 13%, over 50% more. UK is tied for Japan for lowest at 7.3% of GDP. What do we get for that extra 5.7% of GDP spent on healthcare in this country? 47 million people can't afford health care and more than half the bankruptcies in this country are due to medical costs. In other words, not much. Where is the money going if not toward the health of the population? That's a good question. What could we do with that extra 5.7% of GDP? If you look at figure 4 in that report you see that our cost per head spending at the time of the report was more than double all but Japan's and Germany's, an astonishing concept that further bolsters the contention that bang for the buck our system fails miserably. Figure 5 shows that out of pocket costs are higher than any other country in the report. Figure 6 has a fairly thorough breakdown of financing systems for each of the countries in the report.

Thank you. This is the first time anyone has made a truly reasoned (and without checking, I assume fairly accurate) comment about the NHS.

It makes me sick though that this thread has run to several pages, included you posting information that I'm sure Cliffw would rather didn't surface unless he brought it up (wow, great civility and decorum there, way to go) and all in all most of it has been largely irrelevant.

You behave like the guy who just CAN'T LET IT GO. The thread was clearly political from the title. This is a 'self moderated' forum - therefore your best action would be to give the OP a neg for not marking it appropriately, and SHUTTING THE **** UP. You've shown you can make constructive, relevant contributions to the thread, why don't you keep your contributions as such.

You go on saying that Cliff spends his time (his time IS money) on providing you with the ability to filter threads you don't want to look at, well the other thing that costs Cliff is server resource, which your relentless, frustrating posts erode on every thread like this.

The reason a good number of people mock you for this behaviour, is because you don't seem to get the message. The majority of people here couldn't care less what the thread is tagged as. That's why *most* people ignore you. But you are a constant presence that makes it difficult for the rest of us who aren't as anally retentive as you to enjoy constructive debate.

I remind you of a famous quote by Albert Einstein : Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Are you insane, JazzMan, or do you just have nothing better to do?


EDIT: To say sorry for bringing this up again, I got so wound up when I saw JM's comment after reading through 3 pages of crap first. Back to your regularly scheduled program...

[This message has been edited by Gandalf (edited 04-07-2011).]

quote Originally posted by kevin: rab b, So you can be taught, I will be the first, others here on the Forum will certainly soon help in educating you: Socialism is public ownership---NOT individual ownership. Obamacare (sic) wants to take away your right to own your own private health plan and dictate, by presidential fiat, that the "public" government in D.C. can tell you when your aching back or broken leg can be fixed. They will determine this by your age, gender and tax group--- even by zip code! Yes, our current health system is capitalistic. Thank God! All this current debate over the health care issue has to do with cost. If we can find a way to make it less expensive, say the cost of your cell bill per month, you would not even type in the memo "Big Lie" --whatever that is? There are thousand s of proposals given and discussed over the past 30+ years on how to keep the cost down. Obama's solution is to follow the British style of socialized one payer type solution. Obama problem: THe USA has a Constitution. Obamacare (sic) is unconstitutional. A federal judge said so, he read the whole mess. Cordially, Kevin

you repeatedly claim the english health system is exactly the same as obamba's health care law
it is not even close the major differences are the english system is paid for by taxes without insurance CORPrats skimming
the doctors contract with the government not with a large number of insurance CORPrats
hospitals are government owned and operated not our mix of private and local [not feds] county owned and run hospitals

obamba's health care has no government ownership of the insurance in fact the single payer plan was killed
our only fed owned hospitals are VA that only treats vets and not a part of obamba health plans

the two country's have totally different plans that are not even similar let alone the same system

and most important the woman in your opening post DIDNOT DIE due to lack of care

so the first BIG LIE was she died because the system is screwed up is not true

the second BIG LIE was your false claim the english system is the same as obamba care

the third BIG LIE was insurance CORPrats are our buddys
''insurance industry is not this big 'boogie man' that is focused on killing people then pocketing a profit ''

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Cliff, were you not born under the auspices of the dreadful care of the British National Health Service? Did your parents go private for the delivery of their child? If not, then wouldn't you be in a position to say ' they did a great job' , or were you born in a US Medical unit? Did any of you people denigrating MY country of birth ever experience our National health system ?

Nick, I don't know. Most likely born in a US military hospital, perhaps not. I'll find out from my Dad. "They did a great job" ? Birthing is hardly rocket science. Many have been born at home. You never have to wait for an appointment to be born. Did England have socialist health care in 1959 ? When was it socialized ?

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Can anybody grasp the reality that Insurance companies are Destroying our society? The waste of Doctoring skills the world over is caused by Insurance Companies. Private medicine means the skills these Doctors and surgeons, who are educated, and CONTINUE to be educated ecourtesy of the Tax payer are seeing less than Ten Per cent of patients that a National Health doctor does. This means that IFC private healthcare were abolished, there would very few waiting lists for treatment for anybody. And the equipment they use could treat many thousands MORE patients as well, which would also reduce treatment waiting times too. And THEN, if the drug addicts and alcoholics were refused treatment on the NHS , guess what? There would be NO waiting lists at ALL.

A few things here. I have no love for insurance companies but I would not say that they are destroying society. They are necessary to society. From theft to fire to accident damage protection to personal liability. The list is longer. I am not reading that you are singling out medical insurance yet you wail (spoken in a friendly sense) that medical insurance is to blame for the waste of doctor skills. You go on to insinuate that private medicine ?means? private practitioners see less than ten percent of patients that a National Health Care doctor does. Source please. You also would have us believe that the doctors in private medicine are educated and continue to be educated courtesy of the tax payer, . That's far fetched and I do not believe it. Not true here in America.
We have a value we hold dearly here in America. It's called freedom. One should be able to be in private practice if they so choose. Would you want your vocation socialized and answer to government officials in every aspect of your job ? Including what you charge and what hours you will work ? Would you like to be told that the tools that you own were to be shared with everybody ?
And what is it with drug addicts and alcoholics should be denied treatment ? They pay taxes too, . Is that the only destructive behavior you want to penalize ? What about the individual who gets on a motorcycle or wants to parachute from a plane. Perhaps a stuntman ? How 'bout the obese and irresponsible baby factories ? Also, what makes someone an alcoholic or drug addict ? What is the finite definition ? With national health care do we have to give up our privacy and let government investigate our lives to receive it or will it be mandatory that we do ?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: How about mental health? Where is the line drawn in that regard? Not many will pay to see a psychologist today, but if it were free people might line up to have someone to ***** to about how horrible their childhoods were.

Your whole post was good Scott. I wanted to add that the above creates waiting lists.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Sure Scott. And greed for more and more money has taken away humanity from human conscience. The 'Honorable and worthy position of Doctoring ' has all but disappeared in the scramble for more and more financial gain. I always thought the prime desire to become a doctor or nurse was on a higher plane than fortune hunting. but lamentably in MY eyes, that is no longer the case, or so it seems.

Nick, I can not agree that humanity has been taken away from human conscience. There are many instances of humanity right here on PFF. You are painting with a very broad brush.
Many times I have been uninsured. Private practitioners would see me and even cut me some slack on costs. Much of the cost to see a doctor is buried in expenses a doctor incurs. You mentioned greed. This is a sue happy world. Malpractice insurance (heh, you just railing about insurance) from what I understand has astronomical costs. The best equipment (tools) are not cheap. Medicine, pharmaceuticals (another important aspect of health insurance coverage, are expensive. Also subject to law suits. Research costs are high to boot.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: no - I do not want to pay for overweight diabetic allergic folk. and, since I carry Health Insurance, like everyone else, I DO pay for them. Health Insurance is not really much of a choice. that is like saying driving is choice. you know how much of choice that really is. many people get their health coverage thru their jobs. and them places do not like if you "opt out". it decreases their pool. you get the best rates with the largest pool. and you can get no larger pool than everyone. for me - all or nothing. this inbetween horse crap is just so certain people can get their fingers in the pie. I preffer the nothing - people pay their own way. then full socialized. and lastly, the current health insurance system.

Good post but, health insurance is very much a choice. A young healthy individual doesn't need it. Also, I have declined many times health care coverage through my employer. I only selected to take it the last time it was available to give the wife peace of mind. Never have I thought that me decision was disliked by an employer. In fact, it is not their pool nor do they exist to make another's pool larger.
Your preferences ? People can pay their own way even with the current health insurance system. Distasteful to me that you would advocate socialism and take away my preferences, . Yeah crazy mad would I be.
Let me try this again. All work and no fun, that's not what I am about, .

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Damn. Lost a long lengthy diatribe due to a cut and past error. Oil well. I can repeat it.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: C'mon, Clit. Its so obvious. You really have a huge 'man crush' on Jazzman, don't you. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Maybe you should man up and ask him for his phone number.

Ineptune, you spelled my name wrong. It's clitw. Though clit does go better with twit. "Clit twit". Hmm, I like that. "Clit the twit". I like that better. Maybe I should open a TWITter account ?
Man crush on Jizzman ? Is he a man ? Man up and ask his phone number ? I have an anti social condition which keeps me from doing so. I am sensitive. I fear rejection. It would hurt my wittle feelings if he blocked me.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I will slap you silly.

Todd, that was said in jest. I thought that you might know/recognize it for being so.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I honestly don't think Cliff gives a shite about the subject, truth be told. In fact, I've gotten PMs from him in the past which make me think he'd be happy if I was gone off this forum.

Just add him to your blocked list doofus, .

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Wow... this is a new low for you JazzMan. This post is seriously lacking in class, tact, and reeks of vendetta.

No, it's not a new low for Jizzman. Nothing can compete with him removing every post he has ever made. That was funny. He is a horrible person. He knows he is. He don't care. He seeks any kind of attention. He is loving this. Seriously he is. Any sane minded individual would have come to the understanding that we don't care how he feels about his crusade. We don't care that his justification is in trying to make the forum better, by making it worse till he get's his way.
All bow down to the Jizzman.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Here's some fresh fodder for you to twist: My cat's name is Tabby, she's an attention whore.

She pales in comparison to you. Or does she crave public beatings too ?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Wow, I'm a "...horrible person" "seriously lacking in class, tact, and ethics" because I don't want to be CliffW's friend? Because I don't want to associate with a self-admitted habitual drunk driver ...

I never admitted to no such thing. Gosh, I forget. I think my last drunk driving conviction was in 1994. Seventeen years ago ? Likely only got it because I did not know how to play the revenue game most of the DWI laws are. C'mon Jizzman, show me where I myself admitted to being a habitual drunk driver. Yes, you do lack in class, tact, and ethics. But, you don't care. You can't defend your position because it is indefensible so you resort to ad hominen untrue character assassination.

quote Dictionary.com as·sas·si·nate    /əˈsæsəˌneɪt/ Show Spelled[uh-sas-uh-neyt] Show IPA –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously. 2. to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.

Emboldened and underlined portion done by me to antagonize Jizzy, .

quote Originally posted by newf: Maybe, I'm just getting tired of everyone piling on the guy I guess. It's an internet forum and he has the right to complain about stuff just as much as anyone else does IMO. I personally agree with the fact that people should mark their threads correctly even though I don't care too much if they do or don't but it is a rule of the forum and since you guys seem to "know" that Jazz has a medical issue that may be causing some of his annoyance at people not marking their threads correctly, I would think you might cut him some slack. I think many are right when they say if you don't like where a discussion is going to ignore it or press the back button, just as many can when Jazz comments on their politicizing of things. If it's expected for him to do it why not hold yourselves to the same standard?

newf (tell me about that user name by the way), with due respect for your presence here on the forum, I have to disagree. Everyone piling on Jizzy ? He is asking us to, . I mark my threads correctly. I can't tell though if anyone else did. Because I don't care. I know where the back button is. A simple click of the mouse as Jizzy says, yet he can't do it. He wants to go through more trouble and get his way. We are tired of that, we are not piling on. He, I believe, has to want the attention. It's not expected of him to hit the back button. Why should we ? It is expected of him however to quit the incessant whining.
Jizzy has a mental medical sanity issue ? Should I dig his dirty laundry out from archives and air it ? He does have issues. I believe my grandson suffers from asperger's syndrome (a form of autism) which causes depression. He also suffers from pervasive developmental disorder. He also suffers from ADD (attention deficit disorder). Symptoms include impairments in social interactions and communication, restricted interests, and repetitive behavior. Tunnel visioned they are. They fixiate on issues and can't let them go. Jizzman to a tee. My grandson needs help with his issues. Corrective behavior is one. We have to be relentless with it. Nothing different going on here.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Since his quit his most recent job, hopefully he'll finally get his day in court and receive the justice he is due. I'm not trying to hurt CliffW;

C'man Jizzy, be believable. What does quitting my job have to do with getting the justice that I am due ? The justice that I am due ? I am glad you will not be on my jury. I will get my justice.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: But, it's his choice how he behaves, not mine. I have no more control over his than I do yours or anyone else's actions, here or anywhere except perhaps on my physical property.

Hello doofus, that's exactly what we are trying to tell you, . Get over your failed crusade and yourself.
I am gonna have to quote that again.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: But, it's his choice how he behaves, not mine. I have no more control over his than I do yours or anyone else's actions, here or anywhere except perhaps on my physical property.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Not to jump around, but let me be Frank for a minute (rather than Todd). Let me just suggest that we end this Crusade. The level of stress on here, I'm sure, has increased for you, as it has for me to some extent as well. I come on here to have fun, get different perspectives on the daily events, and have fun while work is slow.

I have a confession to make, . This is more fun than the soap operas "Days Of Our Lives", "As the World Turns", "General Hospital", and others. One must recognize their own limitations. I honestly do hope that Jazzman is keeping his best interests at heart.
If this thread was not marked political, I doubt it was marked religious. I would offer Jazzman my prayers but he is not religious. He has them anyways. I do not enjoy railing on Jazzman. He mentioned having bullying issues as he grew up. I learned how to handle them. By standing up to them and hitting harder than they can. Don't take it personal Jizzy. It's just politics (pun definitely intended).
I actually respect him. Even though as he said, he withdrew his respect for me. No matter, I never asked for it. Don't need it. Can't even say I want it.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Can people start marking the topics correctly so we don't have to go through this BS every time and actually discuss something without the added crap? Geesh.

Not necessary. Political correctness has gone too far. Appeasement has gone too far. A jest here but, the next thing people will ask for is thought control legislation.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Personally, I think CliffW should stop before Jazzman. I'm tired of seeing that level of attack on him. But I want Jazzman to stop right away as well. I just don't want CliffW to think it's because he took it upon himself to troll Jazzman. Starting to sound like Trollster

I don't care why or if Jizzy stops. The level of attack is on him. He repeatedly asks for it. I have only stepped up to the plate to deliver what he wants.
BDub, much respect for your presence here also. Just can't agree with you.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If kevin changes the category like he said he would, I wouldn't be able to reply since I have politics turned off and therefor would no longer be able to see the topic. Funny how that works, eh?

Funny ? Erie is more like it.
Arrgghhh, let me read your post one more time.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If kevin changes the category like he said he would, I wouldn't be able to reply since I have politics turned off and therefor would no longer be able to see the topic. Funny how that works, eh?

You wouldn't be able to reply ? Is kevin holding a gun to your head ? Are you trying to tell us that if he doesn't, you will look at what you say you don't want to ? Even though you know it is what you say you don't want to see ?
Jizzy, you ain't making any friends.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Maybe it'll go away today? Maybe it'll go away in a year. How much can y'all take? I can take a lot.

Really ? I mean "really" ? You are my new best friend. We are gonna have a lot of fun together.
Do you really mean that you can take a lot ? Why the blocked list ? I can hand you your azz in PM's if you would like. I imagine your in box is kinda lonely.
Funny that I just said you ain't making any friends, .

quote Originally posted by kevin: Socialism is public ownership---NOT individual ownership. Obamacare (sic) wants to take away your right to own your own private health plan and dictate, by presidential fiat, that the "public" government in D.C. can tell you ...

kevin, how dare you ?

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I just read every post in this thread.

Not yet you haven't, .

quote Originally posted by Gandalf: It makes me sick though that this thread has run to several pages, included you posting information that I'm sure Cliffw would rather didn't surface unless he brought it up (wow, great civility and decorum there, way to go) and all in all most of it has been largely irrelevant.

Thank you sir. Truthfully though, I am who I am. I know who I am and who I was. I don't mind any of Jiizzy's information on me surfacing. It is information I not only brought up, but I also posted it. Fact is, I open my closet of skeletons for anybody. Anything I should be ashamed of, I am. I am not much of a bragger though.
Hell, I don't even mind that his assertations make me look bad. I am who I am even though his beliefs are wrong. I will allow any to judge me. What pisses me off more than his mischaracterization of my being is the fact that not only will he not hit the back button or ignore a post, it's that he want's us to hear him whine about it.