Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: FACTS about US Healthcare

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158

    FACTS about US Healthcare

    I have to say that this is one of the rare times when the LA Times gets something right by allowing someone to publish a thoughtful and factual piece on their opinion page regarding Health Care. After all, the LA Times makes no effort to hide the fact they are a leftist tool organization for Leftist Democrat policies and Obama.

    These are the excerpts; it is refreshing to see facts instead of the typical hyperbolic vitriol of left wing talking points:

    Healthcare wasn't broken
    The fierce battle over reform was based on the perception that Americans did not get good value for their money. That perception is wrong.

    The U.S. spends too much compared to other countries.

    This is a pervasive misconception encouraged by reformers who sought to argue that other countries, especially those with single-payer systems such as Canada or Britain, outperform the United States. Thus it was feasible to imagine that the U.S. could dramatically expand access to care without spending more money.

    But throughout the world, as income rises, so does willingness to pay for healthcare. In fact, differences in income per capita explain about 85% of the variation in health expenditures per capita across industrialized countries.


    ........................

    False Claim:
    Other countries are doing better at controlling health spending growth.

    Since 1960, the U.S. has been about in the middle of its economic peers in terms of the rate of growth in real (inflated-adjusted) health spending per person. But surely the single-payer countries have done best in controlling costs? Not so. Since 1990, growth in the rates of per capita spending in Canada and Britain have exceeded the U.S. rate.


    ..........................

    False Claim:
    The U.S. has abysmal infant mortality rates.

    This is a half-truth. The U.S. ranks 43rd internationally in infant mortality, according to United Nations figures for the years 2005 to 2010.

    Unfortunately, there is no consistent standard for reporting infant deaths across countries. The U.S. scores lower because doctors here count as failures extreme cases in which the odds of survival were so low that foreign doctors don't count them at all.


    .............................

    False Claim:
    The U.S. has abysmal average life expectancy.

    Life expectancy does not suffer from the same measurement problems that distort infant mortality comparisons. Even so, the U.S. ranking of 39th in life expectancy (according to U.N. figures) also is thoroughly misleading. When life expectancy figures are adjusted to account for deaths due to violence, the United States ranks No. 1 among nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. U.S. deaths due to violence include all gunshot-related deaths as well as deaths due to automobile accidents or other injuries. Such deaths, obviously, say nothing about the quality of U.S. medical care.


    ...............................

    False claim:
    The U.S. has worse health outcomes.

    Critics have argued that the U.S. has the worst healthcare in the developed world. Most who believe this use the infant mortality and life expectancy indicators debunked above. The U.S. does perform worse on so-called avoidable deaths amenable to medical treatment. This measure likewise has many flaws, not the least of which is that such deaths constitute only a fraction of overall deaths. A more relevant comparison might be cancer, which is the second-leading cause of death in the United States. Cancer patients live longer in the U.S. than in any other country.


    .................................

    Conclusion:

    There are many problems with the U.S. health system. But figuring out how to fix them requires a clear understanding of where we fall short. Too often, Americans appear to think that other countries, such as Canada, Britain or France, offer a "magic bullet" healthcare system that would cure our ills.

    A fairer comparison reveals that the performance of the U.S. health system is far superior to the statistical caricature critics have presented.


    Author:

    Christopher J. Conover is a research scholar at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a Mercatus affiliated senior scholar. He is the author of the just-published "American Health Economy Illustrated."


    The rest of the article:

    U.S. healthcare system wasn't broken - latimes.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    The problem with the healthcare system is government regulation and the common law precedents of vast culpability settlement.

    It's better to have 10 mildly competent doctors than 1 mildly competent doctor with a huge legal insurance plan who charges 10 times as much.

    What price would you expect when your patient needs the good and government mandated insurance guarantees ridiculous price levels?

    Cheap healthcare will happen when we have less people on health insurance. That would not last of course the health insurance industry would then be subject to proper supply and demand, and lower it's rates to stay in business. Drug companies would also reduce the cost of their drugs because measurable demand (but not consumption) just went way down.

    Regulation as the concept is commonly known should be abolished. That does not mean there cannot be set standards; only that no one should be forced to follow them. Government agencies should provide approval and leave it to individuals to decide whether they think adhering to the standard is worth it.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    The problem with the healthcare system is government regulation and the common law precedents of vast culpability settlement.

    It's better to have 10 mildly competent doctors than 1 mildly competent doctor with a huge legal insurance plan who charges 10 times as much.

    What price would you expect when your patient needs the good and government mandated insurance guarantees ridiculous price levels?

    Cheap healthcare will happen when we have less people on health insurance. That would not last of course the health insurance industry would then be subject to proper supply and demand, and lower it's rates to stay in business. Drug companies would also reduce the cost of their drugs because measurable demand (but not consumption) just went way down.

    Regulation as the concept is commonly known should be abolished. That does not mean there cannot be set standards; only that no one should be forced to follow them. Government agencies should provide approval and leave it to individuals to decide whether they think adhering to the standard is worth it.
    100% agreement with you here.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    The problem with the healthcare system is government regulation and the common law precedents of vast culpability settlement.
    Have any evidence of this? Because the health care systems with the most government involvement are cheaper, more efficient, and provide better quality of care.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    [I]Healthcare wasn't broken
    I dont see how 50million people not having access to care 50,000 deaths a year due to people not having insurance, having lower health outcomes with 2 times the cost is not consider broken.



    ........................

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    [I]Other countries are doing better at controlling health spending growth.
    The United states per capital spends more then 2 times more the other first world countries. Of which Americas health care spending has been increasing faster then other 1st world countries, once you adjust for age.






    .............................



    ...............................

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    [I]The U.S. has worse health outcomes.
    According to all the data yes the us has the worst health outcomes
    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_..._chartpack.pdf
    Core Health Indicators
    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
    OECD Health Data 2011 - Frequently Requested Data

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Have any evidence of this? Because the health care systems with the most government involvement are cheaper, more efficient, and provide better quality of care.
    That's a lie.

    Regulation is always either interference or pointless. It is regulation which has granted unnatural support to health insurance companies by considering it a basic necessity, this has abnormally affected the demand curve for medical care (shifted it way up). The up-shift in the demand curve has supported extremely high prices for medical care, a fact which is used to justify the idea that insurance is necessary for basic needs. The idea that medical care is a right has supported absurd and ongoing liability suites against doctors which have seriously increased their own costs.

    When efficiency is punished and provides no serious increase in profits it can be easily understood why it is low.

    It is quite possible for socialized medicine to be better than a mutilated and crippled private medicine merely by the fact that dictated prices may be much closer to real production costs. If the people think public option would be more efficient than there is no need to attack private medicine, if it was truly more efficient it could out-compete private medicine.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    -----------------------------------------------
    Have any evidence of this? Because the health care systems with the most government involvement are cheaper, more efficient, and provide better quality of care.--------------------
    That's a lie.
    Nope you're just incorrect.
    The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Health Care | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
    ==Government spending increases health outcomes more than private spending

    http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...ads/tables.pdf
    ==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
    ==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
    ===Medicare is accepted by more doctors, has higher ratings and more acres to care

    Veterans Pan McCain's 'Veterans Care Access Card' Plan | ThinkProgress
    In An Attempt To Criticize Health Reform, Coburn Smears Veteran Health Care As 'Untenable To Most Americans' | ThinkProgress
    ^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients.
    ^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
    ^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.


    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    Regulation is always either interference or pointless.
    So is this pointless?
    Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
    ^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

    04/14/2011: EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benef
    ^EPA settlement with the TVA will result in the TVA investing 5 billion to clean up their coal plants. Which will result in 2,000 less deaths a year, and save 20 billion yearly due to health benefits.

    http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/...PERI_Feb11.pdf
    ^2010 EPA air regulations are estimated to create 300,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
    ^Since 1970 for every dollar spent on clean air regulation compliances $4-$8 dollars are created in economic benefits.

    http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordpr...10-04-2010.pdf
    ^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%. The benefit cost ration is 4-1.
    ^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act reduced emissions of CFC's. And its benefit cost ratio is 20-1
    ^The original Clean air act from 1970 saves a net of 600 billion a year having a benift cost ratio of 42-1
    ^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 saved the economy a total of 150 billion dollars in ten years.
    ^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
    ^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million or 60-120% less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    It is regulation which has granted unnatural support to health insurance companies by considering it a basic necessity, this has abnormally affected the demand curve for medical care (shifted it way up). The up-shift in the demand curve has supported extremely high prices for medical care, a fact which is used to justify the idea that insurance is necessary for basic needs. The idea that medical care is a right has supported absurd and ongoing liability suites against doctors which have seriously increased their own costs.
    Plz source and cite the regulation that made health care a basic necessity.
    You seem to be suggesting that the problem with our health system is that people have to much access to health care of which your solution is that people fore go health care
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    When efficiency is punished it can be easily understood why it is low.
    Exactly that is why we need government involvement because it makes health care more efficient

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    It is quite possible for socialized medicine to be better than a mutilated and crippled private medicine merely by the fact that dictated prices may be much closer to real production costs.
    Lets see the US system which is the most private is less efficient,
    the government controlled programs in that US system are more efficient then all the private ones, and all the private market reforms made to try to improve that system failed horrible and made things less efficient.
    Its easy to draw a conclusion that the government is more efficient because that is the fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    If the people think public option would be more efficient than there is no need to attack private medicine, if it was truly more efficient it could out-compete private medicine.
    The same can be said of expensive voda, beer and wine, of which taste tests show people can't tell the differences. Meaning you're wrong.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Have any evidence of this? Because the health care systems with the most government involvement are cheaper, more efficient, and provide better quality of care.
    The claim that Government managed healthcare systems are cheaper is a vast lie. Those lies are exposed in the article above yet you ignore the fact and continue to parrot the lie; why is that?

    Our costs are higher due to the fact that we can AFFORD to spend more because we are more AFFLUENT. It has nothing to do with cost comparisons.

    Government systems are prohibitively expensive as evidenced in their high taxation rates and their limitations of services as evidenced by long waiting lists for critical care issues like hip replacements, heart transplants and bypass surgery.

    Many in Government managed systems pay additionally on top of their already high tax rates to bypass the "system" and still there are waits.

    The evidence of collapse of these systems apparently is not enough to convince the gullible that becoming wards of the "state" is a BAD idea.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Nope you're just incorrect.
    The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Health Care | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
    ==Government spending increases health outcomes more than private spending

    http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...ads/tables.pdf
    ==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
    ==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
    ===Medicare is accepted by more doctors, has higher ratings and more acres to care

    Veterans Pan McCain's 'Veterans Care Access Card' Plan | ThinkProgress
    In An Attempt To Criticize Health Reform, Coburn Smears Veteran Health Care As 'Untenable To Most Americans' | ThinkProgress
    ^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients.
    ^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
    ^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.



    So is this pointless?
    Power Companies: 'The Time Is Now' for Air Toxics Rule | ThinkProgress
    ^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years

    04/14/2011: EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments / State-of-the-art pollution controls and clean energy technology to provide up to $27 billion in annual health benef
    ^EPA settlement with the TVA will result in the TVA investing 5 billion to clean up their coal plants. Which will result in 2,000 less deaths a year, and save 20 billion yearly due to health benefits.

    http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/...PERI_Feb11.pdf
    ^2010 EPA air regulations are estimated to create 300,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
    ^Since 1970 for every dollar spent on clean air regulation compliances $4-$8 dollars are created in economic benefits.

    http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordpr...10-04-2010.pdf
    ^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%. The benefit cost ration is 4-1.
    ^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act reduced emissions of CFC's. And its benefit cost ratio is 20-1
    ^The original Clean air act from 1970 saves a net of 600 billion a year having a benift cost ratio of 42-1
    ^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 saved the economy a total of 150 billion dollars in ten years.
    ^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
    ^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million or 60-120% less.
    Pile of links mean nothing to me, you waste your time.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Plz source and cite the regulation that made health care a basic necessity.
    You seem to be suggesting that the problem with our health system is that people have to much access to health care of which your solution is that people fore go health care
    The Effect of State Regulations on Health Insurance Premiums: A Preliminary Analysis

    The problem with health care is that you think of it as 'our system'. It's not yours, it's a service offered by drug companies, doctors, and nurses.

    Price without regulation is purely a function of what they demand and what people will pay. People don't consider medical costs as the same category as their other expenses, it's gotten to the point where it's almost unheard of to pay for medical care out of pocket.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Exactly that is why we need government involvement because it makes health care more efficient
    It makes nothing more efficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Lets see the US system which is the most private is less efficient,
    the government controlled programs in that US system are more efficient then all the private ones, and all the private market reforms made to try to improve that system failed horrible and made things less efficient.
    Its easy to draw a conclusion that the government is more efficient because that is the fact
    It is not the most private, mixed economies are the worst of both worlds.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    The same can be said of expensive voda, beer and wine, of which taste tests show people can't tell the differences. Meaning you're wrong.
    You are insane if you think those three taste the same, and if they did it would still be wrong to mandate one over the others.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    I dont see how 50million people not having access to care 50,000 deaths a year due to people not having insurance, having lower health outcomes with 2 times the cost is not consider broken.
    I see that you have not just swallowed the leftist kool-aid, but bathe in it.

    The claim that 50 million do not have access is a massive lie that only the most ignorant and gullible among us can swallow. Yet again, you are a willing parrot of DNC propaganda and the idiot notion that Government can “manage” anything better than the private market.

    I have yet to see anyone making this massive false claim provide anything remotely credible to support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    The United states per capital spends more then 2 times more the other first world countries. Of which Americas health care spending has been increasing faster then other 1st world countries, once you adjust for age.
    Once again this is illustrative of your desperate desire to avoid the facts provided in the article of this thread. Why don’t you READ it first before you merely parrot the idiot talking points of the left.

    We spend MORE because we MAKE more and are MORE affluent. When you have ACCESS and the ABILITY to pay more, you naturally spend MORE.

    Government managed healthcare systems are an abomination and merely turn the citizens of those nations into dependent wards of the state and mediocre services.



    Once again; this LIE was exposed in the article I posted. Why is it you refuse to read the article and continue to parrot the lie that these organizations desperately attempt to fool gullible lemmings into believing?

    Is it because you hate liberty and desperately wish to be a dependent ward of the state? Why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence desire this?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The claim that Government managed healthcare systems are cheaper is a vast lie. Those lies are exposed in the article above yet you ignore the fact and continue to parrot the lie; why is that?
    You're article doesn't even attempt to compare the two. However I did post m bunch of comparisons of which the most government controlled health care performed the best with the lowest costs
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Our costs are higher due to the fact that we can AFFORD to spend more because we are more AFFLUENT. It has nothing to do with cost comparisons.
    Odd because Europeans have more 71% more doters visits and use more health care servicing then Americans
    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
    When you actually look at the data you find that Americans use health care less. America spends more but that isn't because Americans use more health services its because Americans health system is so assbackwards

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Government systems are prohibitively expensive as evidenced in their high taxation rates and their limitations of services as evidenced by long waiting lists for critical care issues like hip replacements, heart transplants and bypass surgery.
    Tax rates have nothing to do with health care costs. As I already posted countries with socialized health care have health care that costs less, while simultaneously proving more health services of better quality. However one does not need to go to other countries to find that government health care is better, considering the VA end Medicare are far more efficient then private health care
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Many in Government managed systems pay additionally on top of their already high tax rates to bypass the "system" and still there are waits.
    Odd because America has longer waiting times then socialized health care systems in other country.
    A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array

    Notice how in every one of your posts i have to end up correcting your misinformation

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    You're article doesn't even attempt to compare the two. However I did post m bunch of comparisons of which the most government controlled health care performed the best with the lowest costs
    If you had READ the article, you would see how the claims made by WHO are a pile of bile and why the US healthcare system costs are higher, which I also explained but apparently are beyond your reading comprehension level.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Odd because Europeans have more 71% more doters visits and use more health care servicing then Americans
    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
    When you actually look at the data you find that Americans use health care less. America spends more but that isn't because Americans use more health services its because Americans health system is so assbackwards
    The only thing assbackwards is your ridiculously absurd claim that MORE visits to the doctor somehow equates to better care; how does one come to such laughably inapt conclusions; is it because one swallows the swill from liberal dogma?

    Europeans spend vast sums in taxes, and in those cases where the wealthy enjoy the advantage of paying additional to opt out of Government care, do so at great cost.

    In addition ever notice how ugly Europeans teeth appear; apparently that is also the result of their fantastic systems.

    Again, please show with a modicum of credibility how any Government managed system is superior to our own when many come to our country for the care they cannot BUY in their own and perhaps you will have something less than laughably inept arguments supporting the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Tax rates have nothing to do with health care costs. As I already posted countries with socialized health care have health care that costs less, while simultaneously proving more health services of better quality. However one does not need to go to other countries to find that government health care is better, considering the VA end Medicare are far more efficient then private health care

    Tax rates have EVERYTHING to do with the costs of Eurocare. To ignore them is to ignore common sense and reality. Why do you feel compelled to ignore common sense and reality; because they don't support your emotional hysterics and the fact that you have bathed in the leftist kool-aid?

    The claim that Europeans get better care is a vast lie. They get less care because specialists are limited in order for Government to CONTROL costs and they typically have to wait months if not years for specialized operations due to a forced lack of specialization, lack of doctors who go elsewhere to make MORE money in systems that do not force them to work for less and due to the limits placed on how much doctors can charge.

    I am amazed that individuals armed with the facts still think that waiting a year for a hip replacement makes sense. I have plenty of friends living in Canada that have such issues and they have been so brain washed when I ask them why that is acceptable they counter with "well, someone else may have needed it more than I did." This is coming from a woman wheel chair bound as a result. She finally got her operation a year later. In the US she would have waited maybe a week?

    Spare me the empty hyperbole and rhetoric; Government managed care is an abomination, costs more, provides less and the only ones who can take advantage of alternates are the wealthy. Nice system of injustice if you ask me.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Odd because America has longer waiting times then socialized health care systems in other country.
    A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array
    This is a lie, your link is a lie and the notion that outcomes in Canada are better is a lie. I have factual evidence of these lies and personal friends who can refute such lies with personal experience. One friend complained he had to wait a month to see a doctor about his acid reflux problem; here it is a day. Another friend needed a hip replacement so bad she was basically wheel chair bound and finally got that operation a year later. Another friend whose father was British lost her dad thanks to the British system while waiting for heart bypass surgery even though they paid extra to opt around the managed care system. In the US he would have never left the hospital system.

    Again, it is fascinating to see individuals who are so brain washed that they think being dependent wards of faceless bureaucrats is a good idea. I find it rather retarded and would never want such a system here.

    Quote Originally Posted by starcraftzzz View Post
    Notice how in every one of your posts i have to end up correcting your misinformation
    Ever notice that your attempts are based on false data and lies?

    Again, it is fascinating to see individuals who are so brain washed that they think being dependent wards of faceless bureaucrats is a good idea. I find it rather retarded and would never want such a system here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •