# Insurance



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Let's hope unions/labor dump the democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100112/pl_bloomberg/au0qdbceurf4


----------



## htneighbors (Jan 23, 2009)

Let's hope EVERYONE dumps the democrats!


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

Can't have it both ways Brian.

You negotiate for a better healthcare plan by sacrificing some wages. All well and good. The Company then pays (on your behalf) and extra $5000 to Aetna rather than to the employee as wages. What just happened?


----------



## wwilson174 (Apr 25, 2008)

brian john said:


> Let's hope unions/labor dump the democrats.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100112/pl_bloomberg/au0qdbceurf4


 

Fat chance!


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Hopefully the union leadership will learn that you don't vote for someone just because they have a "D" after their name.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

brian john said:


> Let's hope unions/labor dump the democrats.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20100112/pl_bloomberg/au0qdbceurf4


 I am a staunch union man...I am a laborer...AND I am a lifelong Democrat. AND, I agree with you this time. If possible, send money to Scott Brown of Massachusetts...quickly.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> I am a staunch union man...I am a laborer...AND I am a lifelong Democrat. AND, I agree with you this time. If possible, send money to Scott Brown of Massachusetts...quickly.



http://www.brownforussenate.com/ :thumbup:

"Cadillac health plan" that alot of people have,not just unions.
People worked hard and negotiated them.

Do you realy want to be TAXED another 40% for having them?

This Senate race (in Massachusetts) Is MORE than local! It does affect the entire Country!


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

leland said:


> http://www.brownforussenate.com/ :thumbup:
> 
> "Cadillac health plan" that alot of people have,not just unions.
> People worked hard and negotiated them.
> ...


 Amen.


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

There would be a much higher membership if the union did not support democrats only. Politics is divisive, and that's not what the IBEW should be about.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

miller_elex said:


> There would be a much higher membership if the union did not support democrats only. Politics is divisive, and that's not what the IBEW should be about.


 I am IBEW and UAW and my thinking is not in alignment... but I am not afraid to stand up, and with my knee replacements, no reason not to.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

*Here's a link..*

got this to look forward to. 


http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/10/m...-obamas-national-reform-strains-state-budget/


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

miller_elex said:


> There would be a much higher membership if the union did not support democrats only. Politics is divisive, and that's not what the IBEW should be about.


One of the wisest statements made in a long while in this section!!!!!!!


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

drsparky said:


> Hopefully the union leadership will learn that you don't vote for someone just because they have a "D" after their name.


Same goes for an "R" after their name. That how it works in SC.



RIVETER said:


> I am a staunch union man...I am a laborer...AND I am a lifelong Democrat. AND, I agree with you this time. If possible, send money to Scott Brown of Massachusetts...quickly.


You got your wish and now health care reform is possibly lost. You need to watch out what you wish for.


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

Meet the new boss












Same as the old boss










Fooled again.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> Same goes for an "R" after their name. That how it works in SC.
> 
> 
> 
> You got your wish and now health care reform is possibly lost. You need to watch out what you wish for.


Health care reform isn't lost, but hopefully that disaster congress was wheeling and dealing and shoving down America's throat is dead!


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

The crux of the plan was to eliminate the billion-dollar for-profit HMOs. In no country with universal healthcare are the insurers allowed to profit at all. The HMO or "insurance company" is an unnecessary and wasteful part of the process between you sick + pay doctor.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> The crux of the plan was to eliminate the billion-dollar for-profit HMOs. In no country with universal healthcare are the insurers allowed to profit at all. The HMO or "insurance company" is an unnecessary and wasteful part of the process between you sick + pay doctor.


And the government will manage it cheaper? Government has never done anything efficient in its history. Do you want the Canadian health system? Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland) had hart surgery in the US this week.


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

drsparky said:


> Do you want the Canadian health system?


Not speaking for myself, but I suspect the 45 million Americans without _any_ health insurance would gladly accept a Canadian health care plan.

Isn't it nice to know everyone except many Americans can get treatment here in the good ol' USA.


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

drsparky said:


> And the government will manage it cheaper? Government has never done anything efficient in its history.


And the sooner this absurd sort of just plain wrong thinking ends is the sooner we'll face the other actual truths and maybe even get out of trouble.

You can whine all you like about whether the mandates imposed on the VA or medicare etc are appropriate or not... but the actual operation of those agencies (within the set of instructions they have) is about one notch below spectacular. 

You're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

drsparky said:


> And the government will manage it cheaper?


I didn't say that. I said FOR_PROFIT INSURERS need elimination. 



> Government has never done anything efficient in its history.


Sure it has. What did you drive on to your last job? 



> Do you want the Canadian health system? Danny Williams (the premier of Newfoundland) had hart surgery in the US this week.


Which proves what? That a specialized surgery and the team of doctors he needs isn't available in Newfoundland? Luckily, every other Newfoundlandian who needs a quadruple bypass, or extensive cancer treatment, or is diabetic, or needs a bone marrow transplant *isn't* going broke or losing their entire life savings or simply dying because they're simply not covered or their insurer dropped them because they never mentioned that case of the Chicken Pox back when they were 7.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

BryanMD said:


> And the sooner this absurd sort of just plain wrong thinking ends is the sooner we'll face the other actual truths and maybe even get out of trouble.
> 
> You can whine all you like about whether the mandates imposed on the VA or medicare etc are appropriate or not... but the actual operation of those agencies (within the set of instructions they have) is about one notch below spectacular.
> 
> You're barking up the wrong tree.


More likely parrotting Rush's rants and ravings, most of which is inaccurate...


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

I live near the border and we have a lot of Canadians getting health care over here. They also shop here to avoid high taxes like the GST. An MD friend of mine works part time across the border because they can not get Canadian doctors to stay the country because the pay is so low. And no I do not listen to talk radio or watch Fox News. And yes I worked for the Government for 20 years and saw money getting pissed away because of congressional mandates. 
Chuck


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> The crux of the plan was to eliminate the billion-dollar for-profit HMOs. In no country with universal healthcare are the insurers allowed to profit at all. The HMO or "insurance company" is an unnecessary and wasteful part of the process between you sick + pay doctor.


This statement is false. Several countries with universal, government provided health care have for-profit insurance companies selling supplemental insurance. They are not allowed to profit from the sale of the government mandated base policy. Canada is such a country as is France, Switzerland and Norway. Bare-bones, basic health care services are included in government plans and are spread pretty thin.
My best friend, who is the same age as me(50) was diagnosed in August '08 with lymphoma. Before he started chemo he was put on a network with 5 other patients who were of similar age and were diagnosed with the same type and stage of lymphoma. They were encouraged to chat on the internet as some sort of support network. 2 were in Canada. By January of '09 my friend achieved complete remission and had a clean PET scan. 2 of the 3 other US patients also were in remission while the third had not responded as well so far. The 2 Canadian patients were less fortunate. One, as of Jan '09, still hadn't began chemo and the other had experienced a quicker advance of his condition and had passed away. The type of chemo my friend had is not available in Canada because it is deemed too expensive for the basic plan. It is available to those who purchase supplemental insurance. 
If we are going to say health insurance companies must be non-profit where does that stop? Homeowners insurance companies? Auto insurance? How about the companies who build roads and bridges? Those who build public schools? Farms/companies who produce food? Aren't education, housing, food and transportation basic need too? What good is it to be healthy with no education, food, place to live or means to get there?


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> More likely parrotting Rush's rants and ravings, most of which is inaccurate...


like what? specifics please....name 3 government run entities that are a)efficient and b)not pissing away tax dollars...


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

amptech said:


> This statement is false. Several countries with universal, government provided health care have for-profit insurance companies selling supplemental insurance. They are not allowed to profit from the sale of the government mandated base policy. Canada is such a country as is France, Switzerland and Norway. Bare-bones, basic health care services are included in government plans and are spread pretty thin.
> My best friend, who is the same age as me(50) was diagnosed in August '08 with lymphoma. Before he started chemo he was put on a network with 5 other patients who were of similar age and were diagnosed with the same type and stage of lymphoma. They were encouraged to chat on the internet as some sort of support network. 2 were in Canada. By January of '09 my friend achieved complete remission and had a clean PET scan. 2 of the 3 other US patients also were in remission while the third had not responded as well so far. The 2 Canadian patients were less fortunate. One, as of Jan '09, still hadn't began chemo and the other had experienced a quicker advance of his condition and had passed away. The type of chemo my friend had is not available in Canada because it is deemed too expensive for the basic plan. It is available to those who purchase supplemental insurance.
> If we are going to say health insurance companies must be non-profit where does that stop? Homeowners insurance companies? Auto insurance? How about the companies who build roads and bridges? Those who build public schools? Farms/companies who produce food? Aren't education, housing, food and transportation basic need too? What good is it to be healthy with no education, food, place to live or means to get there?


you are arguing profit with a heavy duty socialist...the only thing that keeps LGLS from being a communist, is that he feels entitled to make a profit for what he does...just no one else should be able to make a profit for what they do...


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

All factual evidence, none of this "I have a friend" , or "I knew a guy", or "my mother's best friend across the border", spell out that our mortality rates in the U.S. are higher than Canada.

All the useless information by misinformed individuals on this forum does nothing to alleviate that fact.

Spend some time browsing the WHO's web site (and no not Pete Townsend's and Roger Daltrey's web site) and customize your own comparisons. Draw your own intelligent conclusions, if you dare, the site is extremely user friendly.

I suspect the majority who espouse no change in our defunct health care system will not be intellectually honest and do their own research.


----------



## Advanced37 (Jan 11, 2010)

oldman said:


> like what? specifics please....name 3 government run entities that are a)efficient and b)not pissing away tax dollars...



Naval Special Warfare Command. 
Army Special Operations Command. 
Air Force Special Operations Command. 

Efficient to the highest degree. 
Definitely not pissing away your tax dollars... spending them for sure, but not pissing them away.

Ok, well maybe pissing them away on Friday night...


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

oldman said:


> like what? specifics please....name 3 government run entities that are a)efficient and b)not pissing away tax dollars...


Oldman, if I find for "A" wouldn't that mean I also found for "B?"


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Lawn Guy.

As someone who has been to the VA many,many,many times, You can have the medical system.

You surely know nothing about government health care. Just try to get care there. Wait for 3 months for an appointment, just to get a letter in the mail 2 weeks before, confirming your cancellation. 

But you never cancelled. Wait another 3 months and the cycle begins again.

The only thing the VA is good for, is prescription drugs. They are cheaper.

Your idea of a health care plan is different than mine. 
My health care plan for the nation is one of personal responsibilty first.
Your's is one of government responsibility first, and always will be.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

jammerx37 said:


> Naval Special Warfare Command.
> Army Special Operations Command.
> Air Force Special Operations Command.
> 
> ...


Great at what they do but not fiscally efficient. Too many rules imposed by congress on purchasing anything. If the government takes over health care the pen to fill out the forms will cost twice its current price. It will have to be bought from a minority/handicapped/women owned company for diversity reasons. I spent 20 years in the Air Force and we could not do anything with out congressional interference.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I did not check all the links

http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli.../672008-coming-america-medical-treatment.html


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

I don't think government ran health care is the answer(they would for sure fu** it up).

But the cost is outrageous.They need to cap what the lawyers sue for In malpractice suits.They need to limit the price of certain procedures(when I had an MRI for my shoulder the whole thing took 45 minutes and they charged my insurance 6 grand!)Allow people to buy insurance any were they want,get people out of emergency rooms who don't have emergencies,give companies and small business owners TAX BRAKES for offering health care to there employees,There should be mandated Health insurance for the largest companies like walmart,mcdonalds,places like that.

And in the spirit of "American free trade"let people shop for there prescriptions any were they like,imagine being able to go online and find the best price for your script.

I know this may come to a surprise to some,I'm really not for government ran H.C.
There has to be a whole lot of things that can be done before we allow the government to destroy H.C. and make things worse then what they already are.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> I did not check all the links
> 
> http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli.../672008-coming-america-medical-treatment.html


I don't think the quality of our health care is in need of change but for sure the price is much to high and the insurance companies strangle hold on the factors that make the price so high,that's were the change is needed.


----------



## joebell (Sep 1, 2007)

JayH said:


> Meet the new boss
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How very true! There used to be a difference between the 2 major parties but not anymore. I believe the only way to truely come across "Change" in this country is to impose term limits on all these elected officials. I don't believe our forefathers intended the political process to ever be a career.


As for the insurance end of this post We or our employer pays for health *insurance*, Dr's pay malpractice* insurance*, Hospitals carry liability *insurance*, guess who's making all the money. I don't believe the government need s to get into the insurance business but the do need to reign in these private companies some how.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

joebell said:


> = guess who's making all the money.


Lawyers and their lobbyists. What did I win?


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> Your idea of a health care plan is different than mine.
> My health care plan for the nation is one of personal responsibilty first.


OK so I am personally responsible for contracting cancer? I brought it on myself... sure. My bad.


My idea is if at age 47 you get Lukemia your insurer for 20 years cannot back out of paying for your treatments. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, to you it is.




> Your's is one of government responsibility first, and always will be.


My idea is one where the government sets a minimum standard and EVERY HMO has to abide by it no matter what. There are many people paying for healthcare coverage who have no idea they will not be covered for a plethora of different expensive treatments.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I don't think government ran health care is the answer(they would for sure fu** it up).
> 
> But the cost is outrageous.They need to cap what the lawyers sue for In malpractice suits.


Torts cost the entire healthcare industry less than 1/10 of 1%. Tort reform or lack thereof is not the reason why policies cost what they do.



> They need to limit the price of certain procedures(when I had an MRI for my shoulder the whole thing took 45 minutes and they charged my insurance 6 grand!)Allow people to buy insurance any were they want,get people out of emergency rooms who don't have emergencies,give companies and small business owners TAX BRAKES for offering health care to there employees,There should be mandated Health insurance for the largest companies like walmart,mcdonalds,places like that.
> 
> And in the spirit of "American free trade"let people shop for there prescriptions any were they like,imagine being able to go online and find the best price for your script.
> 
> ...


There are - like a set of guidelines and a menu of healthcare coverage plans that all providers must offer and may price on their own. It is an industry the government needs to tightly regulate, like it did before Reagan when everyone had health insurance through their employer.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> OK so I am personally responsible for contracting cancer? I brought it on myself... sure. My bad.


Damn dude, no one even remotely said that, what a spin.:laughing:

I believe he saying as a responsible person we have to understand we may get cancer and should take steps to be prepared for that.




> My idea is if at age 47 you get Lukemia your insurer for 20 years cannot back out of paying for your treatments.


Here we agree. 



> Is that too much to ask? Apparently, to you it is.


Can you point out where anyone said that it was?


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> OK so I am personally responsible for contracting cancer? I brought it on myself... sure. My bad.


Yup, yu smoke for 30 yrs, the taxpayers of this nation do not owe you a new set of lungs, a new throat, or any thing else.
You drink for 40 yrs, the taxpayers do not owe you a new liver.

You eat cheeseburgers from McD's everday for lunch, don't exercise properly, the taxpayers should not pay for quadruple by-passes, stents or new arteries.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> My idea is if at age 47 you get Lukemia your insurer for 20 years cannot back out of paying for your treatments. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, to you it is.


Why not? What does your plan say?

If you think you are covered, but fail to read and understand the policy you purchased, why the hell is that my problem?

But if, and if, coverage is provided in your package, then no, they should pay for your coverage. To many times, people blame insurers, when the fact is they never read their plan, or understood what it covers and what it does not.
Again, not my problem, nor is it the taxpayers.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Torts cost the entire healthcare industry less than 1/10 of 1%. Tort reform or lack thereof is not the reason why policies cost what they do.


 
Prove this please.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

What gives the government the right to dictate my health care? I am a free man that can make my own decisions. I have health insurance that they have decided is a "Cadillac" plan and they need to further tax it. Maybe if the Wal-Mart workers and the burger flippers out there had some ambition, I would not have to have more of my income "redistributed” to those lazy assholes. I grew up poor and worked my way up to middle class but they are taxing me back to the poorhouse.
Nothing is free in life, the more layers of people involve the higher the costs.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

JayH said:


> All factual evidence, none of this "I have a friend" , or "I knew a guy", or "my mother's best friend across the border", spell out that our mortality rates in the U.S. are higher than Canada.
> 
> All the useless information by misinformed individuals on this forum does nothing to alleviate that fact.
> 
> ...


What's your definition of "factual evidence"? What I related concerning my friend's ordeal is factual. The info I shared on other nation's healthcare plans was straight from Google. I am not opposed to health care insurance reform. I just do not see how the proposed reform bill was going to help anyone except those who were getting greased to jump on-board. It is filled with pay-offs, bribes and perks. The unions scream about the "cadillac tax" co guess what? They are exempted, along with Federal, state and local government workers. What a bunch of crap. There are several steps we can take to make health insurance more accessable to our population and several steps we can make to hold insurance companies accountable to their policy holders. And I don't buy that tort reform would amount to microscopic savings. Hold on to your hat Jay cause here's another personal observation story from me: My Doctor, a family practice guy, pays $54,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance premiums and he's never been involved in a malpractice suit. You don't think that cutting that number by 2/3 or 1/2 would make a significat difference in his operating costs?


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

amptech said:


> What's your definition of "factual evidence"? What I related concerning my friend's ordeal is factual. The info I shared on other nation's healthcare plans was straight from Google. I am not opposed to health care insurance reform. I just do not see how the proposed reform bill was going to help anyone except those who were getting greased to jump on-board. It is filled with pay-offs, bribes and perks. The unions scream about the "cadillac tax" co guess what? They are exempted, along with Federal, state and local government workers. What a bunch of crap. There are several steps we can take to make health insurance more accessable to our population and several steps we can make to hold insurance companies accountable to their policy holders. And I don't buy that tort reform would amount to microscopic savings. Hold on to your hat Jay cause here's another personal observation story from me: My Doctor, a family practice guy, pays $54,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance premiums and he's never been involved in a malpractice suit. You don't think that cutting that number by 2/3 or 1/2 would make a significat difference in his operating costs?


I think your's and my opinions on this matter may be closer to each other than you may think.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Torts cost the entire healthcare industry less than 1/10 of 1%. Tort reform or lack thereof is not the reason why policies cost what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> There are - like a set of guidelines and a menu of healthcare coverage plans that all providers must offer and may price on their own. It is an industry the government needs to tightly regulate, like it did before Reagan when everyone had health insurance through their employer.



Guess I was bit off with the tort reform.But the regulations are desperately needed.I don't understand how people can sit here look you right in the face and say everything is fine no need to change or regulate anything.
I guess these are the same people who think that if you can't afford coverage then all well that's to bad you deserve what you get..


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Torts cost the entire healthcare industry less than 1/10 of 1%. Tort reform or lack thereof is not the reason why policies cost what they do.





slickvic277 said:


> Guess I was bit off with the tort reform.


Not really. 
In the interest of full disclosure LGLS *is* correct in the objective and demonstrable facts; which is as far as he took his statement.

The part that the others prefer to focus on is the ANECDOTAL "reports" about doctors ordering tests and such in a CYA measure.

Certainly some of that will happen (we do it too in EC work too)...
but it also isn't nearly as substantial as is claimed for either of us.



> I don't understand how people can sit here look you right in the face and say everything is fine no need to change or regulate anything.


I'd suspect the primary cause is that they have theirs.
Or really don't understand how much money is spent on their behalf that they will NEVER see in actual care or services


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

It is very hard to quantify the cost of lawsuits on medical care. We spent a huge sum of money practicing defensive medicine. The cost of documentation and tests and preventive measures just to prove that you are meeting the standard of care is tremendous.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

drsparky said:


> It is very hard to quantify the cost of lawsuits on medical care. We spent a huge sum of money practicing defensive medicine. The cost of documentation and tests and preventive measures just to prove that you are meeting the standard of care is tremendous.


And the high insurance cost for doctors, I am on some medicine for high blood pressure. I do not have high blood pressure but I was put on the medicine as it is general practice. I was told if I had a heart attack and my wife wanted to sue the 1st question a lawyer would ask is after the heart attack did you put him on blood pressure medicine answer NO, pay up sucka.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

We need healthcare reform. We don't need a $1trillion porkfest.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> Yup, yu smoke for 30 yrs, the taxpayers of this nation do not owe you a new set of lungs, a new throat, or any thing else.


Why not? Smokers pay over 2.00 a pack, here in NY a oack is almost $10.00, in excise taxes passed "due to their burdeon on the healthcare system." If it's not illegal to engage in smoking, why isn't your insurer and the taxpayers obligated to get your new lungs, just as it's not illegal to drive and have an accident, or, if you have an accident and it IS your fault your insurer still has to pay for your damages and medical care.

Unless of course, you're willing to forgoe all excise taxes on tobacco...



> You drink for 40 yrs, the taxpayers do not owe you a new liver.


Why not? Drinkers paid additional excise taxes and so did the bars and every store which sells alcohol, why shouldn't those few who fall victim to the ill effects be entitled to something?

Unless of course you're willing to forgoe excise taxes and fees on all alcohol...



> You eat cheeseburgers from McD's everday for lunch, don't exercise properly, the taxpayers should not pay for quadruple by-passes, stents or new arteries.


So, in a nutshell... everyone should (responsibly) have medical insurance but only those who are perfectly healthy should ever get any benefit from it.

Geez, you're just brilliant.



> Why not? What does your plan say?
> 
> If you think you are covered, but fail to read and understand the policy you purchased, why the hell is that my problem?
> 
> ...


It isn't your problem until it becomes your problem, and that is the problem. The fact is insurers have figured out ways to collect premiums until the *&it hits the fan and then figure out a way to drop the coverage. Often, the patient is too sick and the family too distraught to fight.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> Lawn Guy.
> 
> As someone who has been to the VA many,many,many times, You can have the medical system.
> 
> ...


Dorf,

My "plan" is not one of government responsibility first. My "plan" is that everybody, bar none, or I should say NOBODY should have to die or lose everything they've ever worked for because of a debilitating or long-term illness. I just think it's inhuman, and as a nation possessing the greatest wealth, where other nations of lesser wealth have accomplished it is a crying shame.

It just shows how collectively our priorities are skewwed from where I happen to believe they should be. My opinion, you needn't agree. I just can't comprehend how someone goes broke getting Chemotherapy while other piss away $18,000 on a handbag. 

As far as the VA - my parents encouraged my brother to join the service. He didn't but one of the "enticements" I remember they said was "free healthcare for life!" (As in you'll never land a job with benefits no way no how...) The seed they planted was disingenuinious, that if you serve you'll get free medical was of course a lie as you now well know. But they depended on as many people believing that lie to achieve their end - higher enlistments... Bush the 1st said he'd fix it he didn't, Clinton said he'd fix it he didn't, Bush the 2nd said he'd fix it he didn't... you get the picture.

There is a VA hospital in my backyard, Northport - they call it the Golf Course, it gets high marks for the care they do give but of course, nobody hears about the care they don't give. 

Now is this failing really one of personal responsibility? Should all those screwed by the VA and it's policies only blame themselves?

I don't think so. 

And the VA suffers not from inability to render care, but the financial constraints of not being able to fulfill the promises made to the servicemen and women who need to utilize it. This is not the VA's fault - this is the fault of our Congressmen and Senators who seem to rather see a bridge built in Alaska to nowhere.


----------



## Shado (Jan 1, 2009)

oldman said:


> We need healthcare reform. We don't need a $1trillion porkfest.


:notworthy::clap::thumbup:....yes sir I agree 100%!!!!!!

My family has been without insurance for about 8 years....can't afford it since my daughter has a pre existing birth defect. And with this economy.....it will be many more years probably....


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> I don't think government ran health care is the answer(they would for sure fu** it up).
> 
> But the cost is outrageous.They need to cap what the lawyers sue for In malpractice suits.They need to limit the price of certain procedures(when I had an MRI for my shoulder the whole thing took 45 minutes and they charged my insurance 6 grand!)Allow people to buy insurance any were they want,get people out of emergency rooms who don't have emergencies,give companies and small business owners TAX BRAKES for offering health care to there employees,There should be mandated Health insurance for the largest companies like walmart,mcdonalds,places like that.
> 
> ...



I won't deny that some well off Canadians are going to the U.S for private treatment but lumping "our socialist system" as crap is overdone and is simply balony... AND Canadians still live longer than Americans - 1 year longer for males and 3 years longer for females - Actually *Canada is ranked 8th highest in the world for life expectancy the U.S is ranked 50 ...* you can keep your system lol. No doubt there are good elements, bad elements and outstanding elements in both... 

I mean seriously - how many selective horror story posts can one post about facets of the U.S health care system lol - baloney.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> Damn dude, no one even remotely said that, what a spin.:laughing:
> 
> I believe he saying as a responsible person we have to understand we may get cancer and should take steps to be prepared for that.


There are people all over the country that cannot earn enough to afford even the most basic plan, yet do not qualify for any social program. Are all these people destined to die, is it their fault?


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> Prove this please.


http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

oldman said:


> We need healthcare reform. We don't need a $1trillion porkfest.


Great...

So, let's hear your ideas!


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> . This is not the VA's fault - this is the fault of our Congressmen and Senators .


 
And these are the same people you want to be in charge of managing all of the US Healthcare?

At least you learned something today.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs


 
The Washington Independent?

Are you serious?

The Washington Independent?


Give me two or 3 credible articles. I can find at least a couple to prove this paper wrong.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> And these are the same people you want to be in charge of managing all of the US Healthcare?
> 
> At least you learned something today.


I don't want them in charge of it, I want them to set standards and regulating it. I want them to do to healthcare what they did to the airlines in the 50's, 60's and 70's when no planes crashed and very few were ever late or delayed. 

Look what happened when they turned airport security over to private competition, we got $6.00 an hour "security guards" and lost the Twin Towers.

Yea, isn't pure unregulated unchecked capatilism just wonderful???


----------



## EDC (Feb 8, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> There are people all over the country that cannot earn enough to afford even the most basic plan, yet do not qualify for any social program. Are all these people destined to die, is it their fault?


Yes, the fact is that it is their responsibility.


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Great...
> So, let's hear your ideas!



There IS a role for private health insurance companies.
There IS a role for a national backstop coverage system.
Mostly though there is a NEED to shift responsibility back to individuals.

Less of Government and Less of Private Insurance.
Two sides of the same nannyism coin.

What does that leave us with? 
With the three basic categories of care:

1) The first category is the 80% that constitutes everyone’s day to day use of medical services which should be paid for out of pocket (by most of us) on a fee for service basis to the provider we choose. 

And yes, people with a specific condition can expect to pay more for that 
basic care than people who don't have that specific condition.

This largish number can be broken down by age and gender and medical specialty but however many subcategories might result what they all have in common is still too similar to warrant detailing those distinctions at this juncture.

There are very few of us who don’t have the same basic recurring sequence of annual professional visits. Some of these are twice a year and others perhaps only once every three years (eg: Dentist vs Optometrist). But whatever our particular pattern, it is indeed a pattern and therefore it can be planned and budgeted for. 

This practical reality is the best argument against having insurance company involvement in these common transactions and private relationships with our doctors at all.

For those without that pattern we may need to foster creating facilities and staff that will serve them. And for the rest some protocols for transparent fee structures by these providers will need to be established and some regulation of standards of care along with specific expectations for examinations and clinical tests.

Whether our tastes or resources would send us to the health clinic at the University Medical School or allow us to be pampered by the posh Park Avenue private practice we remain the best arbiters of how much we should spend to get the care we need. 



This self-direction and sense of personal responsibility warrants cultivation and should extend to those things we are willing to do (or not) to mitigate what degree of care and services we will have to pay for. Diet, exercise, and smoking are examples of the choices we make. Hopefully when we bear the direct cost of those choices we will do better with them than we have in the past.


2) The second category is the 10% that will occasionally crop up beyond those routine year to year expenses that we can mitigate the budget impact of by having some backstop insurance (or a HSA) which we also pay for on our own. Most of us will use this similarly to how we use high deductible homeowner or auto insurance and for much the same reasons. 

No one can anticipate every possible eventuality. Periodic changes in our basic physical condition may present at any time either as diagnostic work related to some previously undetected chronic condition or as a single injury incident.

Everyone knows that such events happen without warning and that we need to be prepared to meet the financial responsibility of that medical challenge. The healthcare savings account (HSA) or backstop medical insurance plan does this until we are able to absorb that expense otherwise and adjust our budget to include this.

These HSA’s tied into an insurance policy also function as a security measure for institutional providers (Hospitals etc) that incurred charges will be paid.

This shift of nearly total financial responsibility to the individual (or family) is balanced by the shift of nearly all tax deductions related to that same individual; as well as ordering all funds previously paid by their employer as benefits being changed to straight wages instead.

Those who had decent coverage before under an employers plan will continue to be able to afford decent coverage into the future and probably for less in direct costs.

The total of these tax-deductible out of pocket expenses for most individuals and families should be less, in many cases considerably less than what is currently paid by or on behalf of them for a comparable quality of service. 

Reasons for the savings will vary but the obvious common business practices of lowering the operating overhead of every provider and initiating actual competition between them for your business will be the primary factors. These medical services can be sourced very frugally or very expensively. Kia or Cadillac is your choice.

Your costs should be what YOU choose to spend for the quality that YOU value. 




3) The third category is the 10% that NO ONE can reasonably expect to afford 
or in most instances to even insure against privately. These catastrophic and 
traumatic bankrupting expenses are the perfect category for and reasonable 
limit to a government plan with a tax supported 100% actuarial base.

Despite all the rhetoric in the news there are very few working Americans who will be affected by medical treatment that would personally bankrupt them. Some other insurance like workman’s comp or auto liability is far more likely to be responsible. 

That said, the collective risk of illness or injury is still quite real and as medical science marches on ever more conditions will have ever more expensive medications and procedures available to treat them and diagnostics used to rule out or define the less serious. This very well documented expense risk is the largest problem with private insurance carriers as they know can’t afford to actually pay for the level of risk their subscribers represent.

When an incident or a diagnosis presents itself it is quite clear to the medical professionals involved and one more document they manage will be to initiate the expansion of coverage to the affected individual. 

Expand the existing and generally well functioning Medicare to cover these catastrophic, traumatic and similar bankruptingly expensive disease treatments that worry everyone so deeply. The intention being to take this entire category of medical practice and their costs off the table as a concern to individuals.

Achieve the 100% actuarial base needed to spread this universal risk to universal funding through the same tax supported means we already have in place.

When the employer paid private insurance was shifted to straight wages (as described above) those funds then get assessed with both the employer and the employee paying a modest percentage of that amount in additional FICA withholding. You’ll never even miss it. 

The people who never had employer provided insurance and their employers will see the additional deduction. But, as this group are those who represent the largest of unpaid mandates in the current model… it’s hard to feel great sympathy for them now having to pay a modest contribution toward the social compact.

Accommodating the needs of people with known and expensive to treat conditions remain the problem they are today as they directly represent the largest year to year expense and the largest risk of that growing beyond the merely expensive and into the realm of the bankruptingly expensive. Hiding these costs under multiple layers of administrators and deep inside actuarial pools doesn’t help anyone.


As a society we expect these people to do all they can reasonably do for themselves before they ask society for assistance; but once that threshold is crossed that social compact will be there to give that assistance.

In successive years it is entirely reasonable to expect that this category of expense will require greater funding. Balanced against the overhead and operating efficiency savings in described above it may seem modest enough to just accept. 

The alternative will be to review and amend standards of care for savings.

4) If we are truly honest we can add a fourth category: Terminal care. 
Stop pretending that anyone gets out alive by refusing to flog and abuse 
our elderly and other terminal loved ones and still call it medicine. 

Most terminal care expenses are covered under Medicare (the elderly) but it still warrants it’s own category because of how it distorts every other cost statistic. It especially distorts when pointless treatments are used because the misguided emotionality and guilt of survivors mistakenly insist on them.


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Great...
> 
> So, let's hear your ideas!


simple...bring sanity back


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

EDC said:


> Yes, the fact is that it IS their fault, and their responsibility.
> 
> It most certainly isn't MY fault, yet socialists like you expect me to pay for them.
> 
> ...


While driving, do you consider those earning less than you socialists unfairly using your hard-earned roads? 

I feel there are hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country that do not pay enough for anyone to afford healthcare, so, step one is to mandate employer coverage or an employer healthcare compensation bill. ALL jobs should pay enough to afford anyone a healthcare policy.

#2 would be to not allow insurers to cherrypick customers - all must offer the same policies that cover the same base plan under the same rules so they can all compete on the same level playing field. Medical histories should be as irrelevant as "assigned risk" is to car insurers.

#3 would be wether large or small, all companies pay the same per employee / family plan and group discounts are illegal - no reason an employer with 2,000 employees should pay less for coverage per employee than an employer with 20 employees.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I don't want them in charge of it, I want them to set standards and regulating it.


 
They need to fix what they got going on first, before expanding the idea.

We're talking about them not taking care of 10% of it's population now, and this minority group, just happen to be the finest people to ever wear fatigues. 

How is slamming a larger plan, for everyone, somehow a good thing that HAS to be done right now or the world will end?


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Any ORIGINAL thoughts?





BryanMD said:


> There IS a role for private health insurance companies.
> There IS a role for a national backstop coverage system.
> Mostly though there is a NEED to shift responsibility back to individuals.
> 
> ...


http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2009-11-8


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> I feel there are hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country that do not pay enough for anyone to afford healthcare, so, step one is to mandate employer coverage or an employer healthcare compensation bill. ALL jobs should pay enough to afford anyone a healthcare policy.


If this happens, Insurance rates will sky-rocket. End user costs will go up. Those costs have to be passed on to your customer. Every business you buy anything from, will have to be more expensive. In the end, you'll pay more for everything, and so will businesses. Health insurance are the winners, you and me are losers.



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> #2 would be to not allow insurers to cherrypick customers - all must offer the same policies that cover the same base plan under the same rules so they can all compete on the same level playing field.


I actually agree



LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Medical histories should be as irrelevant as "assigned risk" is to car insurers.


Explain this in detail.




LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> #3 would be wether large or small, all companies pay the same per employee / family plan and group discounts are illegal - no reason an employer with 2,000 employees should pay less for coverage per employee than an employer with 20 employees.


Which means the 2000 employee businesses insurance will go up, alot.
Why wouldn't it?


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Any ORIGINAL thoughts?
> 
> http://www.bigbrassblog.com/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2009-11-8


hey how about that! 
That guy is from Baltimore too.

hmmm


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> They need to fix what they got going on first, before expanding the idea.
> 
> We're talking about them not taking care of 10% of it's population now, and this minority group, just happen to be the finest people to ever wear fatigues.
> 
> How is slamming a larger plan, for everyone, somehow a good thing that HAS to be done right now or the world will end?


Because universal healthcare (if done right) is a long time coming. We are the ONLY 1st world nation without it. Why? Do you think the world will come to an end if we do it? For Chrissakes Canada has it, Bermuda has it. Britian and France Have it, weren't they devestated after WW2??? Were we? Why don't we have it? ISRAEL HAS IT and we subsidize THEM!!!


----------



## oldman (Mar 30, 2007)

BryanMD said:


> hey how about that!
> That guy is from Baltimore too.
> 
> hmmm


:laughing:

don't confuse Lawnguy with reality...

can you plagarize yourself?


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Because universal healthcare (if done right) is a long time coming. We are the ONLY 1st world nation without it. Why?


because of the forces arrayed against it that all gain from the current model.



> Do you think the world will come to an end if we do it?


Close to that.
At least from really trying to make that jump all in one step will.

We need to do it phases. 
Categories of care and services by sectors of the economy or perhaps regions of the country.

The first thing is to remove the BIG worry from everyone:
Allow Medicare to treat ALL catastrophic and traumatic illness or injury regardless of any other consideration. And LOWER the Medicare age threshold in a series of steps. Go to age 60 immediately then 55 then 50 as conditions allow.

These measures alone will accomplish 70% of the goal, do it almost immediately (and with some IRS voodoo) not kil us with increased costs per working person.

After that first phase (but not too long after):
1) Eliminate employment status relationships fro health insurance.

(This is how we got into the mess to begin with during Truman's era as a measure to deal with wage freezes)

2) Cut out the profit aspect nearly to the bone by reducing "HI" to what home or auto insurance is now. 

These and the detail I laid out for the rest of us might just do all we ever need done but we could continue to lower the Medicare threshold age by 5 years every five years or so too.

But no, doing it all in one step is hard to see working out well.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dnkldorf said:


> If this happens, Insurance rates will sky-rocket. End user costs will go up. Those costs have to be passed on to your customer. Every business you buy anything from, will have to be more expensive. In the end, you'll pay more for everything, and so will businesses. Health insurance are the winners, you and me are losers.


I think Americans will be healthier overall when they see doctors regularily. And no need to go to an ER for something minor simply because ER visits are covered but doctor visits are not.



> I actually agree


In principle maybe, but if left to free market forces w/o regulation this will never happen.


> Explain this in detail.


The principle of insurance is socialistic - IE many people pay into the same pool in order to spread out the RISK that a few of them will require extensive expensive care. That IS the whole point to "insurance" in the first place - it's the basic premis that an entire pool will take care of the few who really end up needing it - what you are buying is peace of mind that you do not have to go through life gambling that you or your family will not get sick, but, if it happens you are covered. The more people who participate in this risk pool the cheaper it becomes for everyone.

When someone buys insurance and is known to have an already pre-existing condition, often an insurer will not cover any treatment or complications that arise in the future due to this condition, if they allow coverage at all. 

All this does is alleviate the insurer from it's obligations and allow it to profit by not accepting the "losers" in the health coverage game while you and I still have to pay for the SAME statistical risk of having something similar happen to you or to me, bacause the insurers do not eliminate those already known to need treatment from their statistical risk pool.

Look at it this way - when a pothole needs filled we all pay. But if a kid gets Lukemia we all want to cut and run??? Sorry your problem not mine? Could you look at a 9 year old and tell her that?



> Which means the 2000 employee businesses insurance will go up, alot.
> Why wouldn't it?


You're an insurer. Here you have one company with 2000 employees. There you have 1000 employers with 2 employees each. HOW, statistically, is it costing the insurer more to cover the 2000 employees from one company than the 2000 employees of 1000 companies???


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

BryanMD said:


> hey how about that!
> That guy is from Baltimore too.
> 
> hmmm


But you're only from "near" Baltimore... Hmmmm


----------



## Shado (Jan 1, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> The more people who participate in this risk pool the cheaper it becomes for everyone.
> 
> *I agree....*
> 
> ...


We may not agree on alot of things....but you hit this one on the head!!!
I have said this for many years....a group is a group is a group. Just throw a bunch of independant policies or folks into a group randomly and it would still be the same as a larger business policy....:thumbsup:


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

Shado said:


> ...a group is a group is a group.
> 
> Just throw a bunch of independant policies or folks into a group randomly and it would still be the same as a larger business policy...


Now you're talking.

ELIMINATE entirely ALL employers involvement in medical insurance.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You're an insurer. Here you have one company with 2000 employees. There you have 1000 employers with 2 employees each. HOW, statistically, is it costing the insurer more to cover the 2000 employees from one company than the 2000 employees of 1000 companies???


This is a common misconception held by folks who do not understand statistics, demographics and ratios.

Insurance companies look at a group policy from a risk-management/assessment perspective. If you have 2 companies each with 1000 workers in their groups that does not mean their risk assessments will be identical. One c ompany may be relatively new and have a workforce with a mean age of 26-34. Their risk assessment would be lower than an older, well established company whose workforce mean age is 46-54. In other words, the younger group will likely pay more premiums before benefits paid become significant. The "larger the group, the cheaper the rate" theory goes to crap in real life when the numbers reach a certain point. Take an extended family for example. We'll say this family, including inlaws, siblings, children and parents numbers 25 people. Of these 25 family members, statistically one will contract some form of cancer. That is 4% of the "group" who requires treatment. Now expand the group to include the total population of the community of 25,000 people. Statistically, 2250 people out of 25,000 will contract some form of cancer. Now you are talking about 9% of the "group". Ratios, where people are concerned, do not remain constant as the numbers increase. There are too many factors that change. It works the same with production. If 100 workers produce 1000 tons of product in 8 hours do you thing 110 workers will produce 1100 tons? Not likely. Depending on the product, facility, and equipment the output may be 1500 tons or 1050 tons. It may be less than the 1000 tons if the original situation doesn't accomodate a 10% increase in the workforce.
There is a reason people who have had multiple auto accidents or DWI arrests pay more for auto insurance just like there is a reason that a 26 year old non-smoker, non-drinker who works in sales can buy life insurance cheaper than a 26 year old non-smoker, non-drinker who works in a coal mine. The risks are not close to being equal.


----------



## Shado (Jan 1, 2009)

amptech said:


> This is a common misconception held by folks who do not understand statistics, demographics and ratios.
> 
> Insurance companies look at a group policy from a risk-management/assessment perspective. If you have 2 companies each with 1000 workers in their groups that does not mean their risk assessments will be identical. One c ompany may be relatively new and have a workforce with a mean age of 26-34. Their risk assessment would be lower than an older, well established company whose workforce mean age is 46-54. In other words, the younger group will likely pay more premiums before benefits paid become significant. The "larger the group, the cheaper the rate" theory goes to crap in real life when the numbers reach a certain point. Take an extended family for example. We'll say this family, including inlaws, siblings, children and parents numbers 25 people. Of these 25 family members, statistically one will contract some form of cancer. That is 4% of the "group" who requires treatment. Now expand the group to include the total population of the community of 25,000 people. Statistically, 2250 people out of 25,000 will contract some form of cancer. Now you are talking about 9% of the "group". Ratios, where people are concerned, do not remain constant as the numbers increase. There are too many factors that change. It works the same with production. If 100 workers produce 1000 tons of product in 8 hours do you thing 110 workers will produce 1100 tons? Not likely. Depending on the product, facility, and equipment the output may be 1500 tons or 1050 tons. It may be less than the 1000 tons if the original situation doesn't accomodate a 10% increase in the workforce.
> There is a reason people who have had multiple auto accidents or DWI arrests pay more for auto insurance just like there is a reason that a 26 year old non-smoker, non-drinker who works in sales can buy life insurance cheaper than a 26 year old non-smoker, non-drinker who works in a coal mine. The risks are not close to being equal.


Boy...you sure know how to put a damper on a dream for many folks needing HI.......:001_huh:


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

Shado said:


> Boy...you sure know how to put a damper on a dream for many folks needing HI.......:001_huh:


Not at all. I just don't believe the answer is in going to the extreme, either government take-over or the complicated corrupt hodge-podge that they were working on. LGLS keeps comparing the US situation to France, Bermuda, etc. That's apple to oranges comparison. Canada's system lets many fall through the cracks even after they have been taxed for the benefits. Canada is a country with a population of 33 million. Imagine if it had 10x more people(like the US). Their current system is barely sustainable with a little more than 10% of our population.
Comparing public roads, public schools and the concept of group insurance to socialism just illustrates that LGLS doesn't understand socialism beyond what someone with an agenda told him it was. Socialism does away with a multi-tiered social class system where mobility between classes is a static possibility and replaces it with a set 3 tiered system: Ruling class, host class and parasitic class. It all looks good on paper until you add the human element. Then it circles the drain. If you think nobody gets the shaft in a socialist society, you need to read your history.


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

amptech said:


> Not at all. I just don't believe the answer is in going to the extreme, either government take-over or the complicated corrupt hodge-podge that they were working on...


or maintaining the sanctity of the present system accomplish anything positive or ccost effective for most people.

Agreed.


----------



## JayH (Nov 13, 2009)

amptech said:


> Their current system is barely sustainable with a little more than 10% of our population.


I don't understand this statement. Are you saying Canada cannot pay for its' system?

If so, you have to support that statement with facts, otherwise it is just parroting misinformation.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

JayH said:


> I don't understand this statement. Are you saying Canada cannot pay for its' system?
> 
> If so, you have to support that statement with facts, otherwise it is just parroting misinformation.


Anything I say here is considered hearsay so do what I do: Google it. Why else do you think Canada is pushing people towards buying supplemental insurance and rationing the care the government plan provides? Why have the number of students entering the health care field declined in Canada the past 20 years? Forget Canada for a minute and look at Mass. That is the health care blueprint we seem to be going by in the US. It couldn't sustain itself for 3 years before it started dumping people off. How would you like that nationally? Tax an individual for a health care plan for 3 years then cut them off completely. How is that different from what some of the private insurers do? I'll tell you how, there isn't a law forcing you to buy a crappy plan, yet.
Finally, stop taking the word of pundits, politicians or talk radio hosts on the subject and do your own research. No other generation in history has had the kind of access to info that we have but still people listen to the talking heads like they are prophets.


----------

