posted October 29, 2013 02:23 PM            

Nor are home girls

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 29, 2013 04:19 PM            

Jwhop! I love it when you come in here, and try to act like you know something! That was a hilarious read.

Yes, a "leftist" did tell you all of those things when you complained about them.

quote:

---

Never, ever have I said insurance premiums should be lower...when more hazards are being insured against. I've commented here repeatedly that O'Bomber was and still is lying when he says O'BomberCare will lower insurance premiums by $2500 per year per family.

---

Complaining that insurance is going to cost more implicitly implies that you think insurance premiums should be lower. Denying it doesn't change that simple fact.

quote:

---

You're trying to conflate cost with medical outcomes acoustic. Can't do that in the real world..which is rational.

---

You can. Once again, you're trying to make the rules for something that you don't determine the rules for. We could look at lots of data with regard to costs and medical outcomes, and such studies are the basis for the U.S. determining that our health care system is severely out of whack.

quote:

---

AND I never said ALL foreign nationals who can afford to come to the US for treatment do so.

---

So what if you never said "all." That's not what you're accused of, is it?

quote:

---

AND, I never said Americans NEVER go elsewhere for treatment.

---

I'm thrilled you took the opportunity NOT to LIE. It's a great day in America.

quote:

---

Let's see how America stacks up against Europe and Canada in outcomes for serious illness and disease.

---

Interesting that you didn't provide a link. Why is that? What are we to make of your unwillingness to provide a link? What am I going to find when I plug this text into Google?

Answer: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/15/facts-about-americas-healt h-care-quality-that-world-doesnt-know/

You hate to make everyone right about you.

I see you selectively posted from that article. You left out the parts about the general health of our population being worse than other OECD nations:

First, the prevalence of obesity is far higher in the United States than in all other OECD nations. More than one-third of Americans are obese, compared to 15.4 percent in Canada, 10.2 percent in Sweden, and 9.0 percent in Norway. Thorpe separately compared the US to ten Western European nations (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) and found that Americans were nearly twice as likely as Western Europeans to be obese (33.1 percent versus 17.1 percent). It’s not a fluke that Japan, where only 3.4 percent of people are obese, has the greatest longevity.

Japan has the greatest longevity. Not the U.S.

Second, the United States harbors a far higher burden of cigarette smoking than other nations. Almost 70 percent of U.S. men born between 1910 and 1930 were regular smokers by age thirty-five. The US had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita compared to all other developed nations over a five decade period ending in the mid-1980s. Americans are still significantly more likely than Western Europeans to be current or former smokers (53 versus 43 percent). Although some emphasize that smoking cessation rates are higher in the US than in Europe, the WHO was correct when it stated that “current prevalence of tobacco smoking is an inadequate predictor of the accumulated risk from smoking” because “the diseases caused by smoking, particularly cancers including lung cancer, occur after long delays...with an average time lag of twenty- five to thirty years.” Clearly, the high historical burden of cigarette consumption in the US continues to have impact.

I personally find this hard to believe, but regardless it means little except that America has to deal with more smoking-related illness.

quote:

---

For some specifics, per Verdecchia, the breast cancer mortality rate is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer mortality rates are strikingly worse in the UK, Norway, and elsewhere than in the US; mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the US."

---

There was no linking to Verdecchia's work in the article. Is the author referring to the 2000-2002 study? Is there any more recent information?

This fact check article suggests that such data is insufficient to draw conclusions:

Dr. Marie Diener-West, a professor of biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, told us that it would be a stretch to draw too many conclusions from comparing survival rates. "Part of the problem with the comparison is that it might not actually be comparable populations," she said. "It could be [one is] an older population, it could be they have more comorbidities [other conditions] that are affecting their survival in addition to cancer, there could be occupational differences. There are many different factors that could be playing a role." Diener-West pointed out that the uninsured, for instance, are generally poorer and may have different diets, different lifestyles and different exposure to tobacco and other drugs than the privately insured. And when you compare across countries, of course, you’re also looking at two different gene pools.

So the survival statistics, while they might be useful for some kinds of comparisons, don’t really present any obvious conclusions when used to compare different populations. They can be interpreted to argue for leaving the U.S. system alone, or for extending coverage to the millions who don’t have it. Our advice: Use with caution. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

So, the question is: Is that really enough data to sink my stinky horseshiit? Of course it isn't. A single, mildly-sourced article on Fox will not provide you an easy out.

quote:

---

First, a comparison of the US to ten Western European nations (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) showed that 60.7 percent of Americans diagnosed with heart disease were actually receiving medication for it, while only 54.5 percent of Western Europeans were treated (a statistically significant difference).

---

An unreferenced comparison? Why is the author now concealing his source? We have the shady quoting the shady now. Still, I don't know if the author is being deliberate.

Heart disease and stroke:

Mortality from heart disease and stroke:

Both viewable here: http://bit.ly/HqYeTU

As you can see, the prevalence of heart disease and stroke is pretty high, and while mortality states are good for the United States, even France does better. This, of course, doesn't speak to treatment as your article selectively did.

posted October 29, 2013 04:31 PM            

In 2008, in a study between the U.S., U.K., and Germany the following conclusion was drawn:

Results

Results show only small differences in decision making between British and American physicians in essential aspects of care. About 90% of the UK and US doctors identified CHD as one of the possible diagnoses. Further similarities were found in test ordering and lifestyle advice. Some differences between the US and UK were found in the certainty of the diagnoses, prescribed medications and referral behaviour. There are numerous significant differences between Germany and the other two countries. German physicians would ask fewer questions, they would order fewer tests, prescribe fewer medications and give less lifestyle advice.

quote:

---

A separate study showed that Americans had a significantly longer five-year survival after acute heart attack than Canadians. The authors concluded that "our findings are strongly suggestive of a survival advantage for the US cohort based on more aggressive revascularization."

---

"The five-year death rate was 19.6% among U.S. patients and 21.4 percent among Canadian patients," says researcher Padma Kaul, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, in a news release. "After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, we found that Canadian patients' risk for dying was 17% higher compared to U.S. patients." http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20040920/us-tops-canada-in-post-heart-attack-care

quote:

---

Another comparison study showed that fewer Americans than UK residents die (per capita) from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events.

---

I'm growing a little tired of this subject. I'm not sure I'm willing to go down that rabbit hole deep enough to find the specific studies this author is supposed to be referencing.

It's funny when I went to look at this on Google, this article showed up:
US health outcomes far worse than other comparable nations, report finds (Fox News)

Interestingly, that article is specifically sourced:

In one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) found that in nearly every major cause of premature death – from heart disease to interpersonal violence – the U.S. fares worse than its economic peers.

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the report analyzed all data and scientific literature – both in the United States and 34 countries across the globe – available for 291 diseases, conditions and injuries that cause death and disability.

I'll have to check that out. Maybe this is it: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1710486

Conclusions and Relevance
From 1990 to 2010, the United States made substantial progress in improving health. Life expectancy at birth and HALE (Healthy Life expectancy) increased, all-cause death rates at all ages decreased, and age-specific rates of years lived with disability remained stable. However, morbidity and chronic disability now account for nearly half of the US health burden, and improvements in population health in the United States have not kept pace with advances in population health in other wealthy nations.

While the United States has made strides in some major areas – such as preventing premature deaths from stroke and breast cancer – the country has fallen behind most nations in regards to deaths from many other conditions. Ischemic heart disease still remains the leading cause of premature death, measured in years of life lost. It accounted for 15.9 percent of premature deaths in the U.S. in 2010, followed by lung cancer, which accounted for 6.6 percent of deaths.

Additionally, Alzheimer’s disease, liver cancer, Parkinson’s and kidney cancer were all found to be on the upswing, rapidly accounting for a significant increase in premature deaths in the U.S. Murray and his team were also surprised to find that deaths attributed to road traffic injuries, drug abuse and self-harm were more prevalent than previously thought. Drug use disorders accounted for more years of life lost than both prostate cancer and brain cancer combined – up 448 percent since 1990.

...
“The main important finding is that there are places in the U.S. that have actually done rather well as compared to high income countries. As a whole we don’t do so well. But when you look at the key risk factors, there are places that have done a good job of improving. We need to learn from our own success stories from within the U.S. and transfer that to areas inside which haven’t seen progress,” Murray said http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/10/united-states-health-outcomes-far-worse-than-other-comparable-nations/

quote:

---

We're not comparing medical outcomes between states in the US.

---

The above, once again, iterates the importance of taking such things into consideration. Also, for the record once again, you don't dictate terms to me or anyone else here. If I deem it important to include information about how Hawaii differs from the rest of the states, that's my prerogative. It is good for you to be exposed to more "socialistic" systems that already provide notable benefit within our country, so that you don't rely on bad information in coming to notably poor conclusions.

Another result speaks specifically towards one of those things you didn't like in the WHO article: education:

Higher Education Predicts Better Cardiovascular Health Outcomes in High-Income Countries (Science Daily)

Perhaps there is something to be said of education. (Why are Conservatives always bashing education?)

quote:

---

The US shows a far greater reduction in death rates from stroke, the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of disability in adults in the US and most Western European nations, than almost all Western European nations and the European Union overall."

---

[url=http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/05/02/02/index.html?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-43-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/1999 1312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html] [/url]

posted October 29, 2013 11:33 PM            

There's no need to defend against your bullshiiit claims.

I know you and other leftists believe any kind of bullshiit deserves a hearing and equal consideration in a debate. But, that brain dead thinking doesn't pass the giggle test.

AND, O'Bomber is just a common leftist liar who said...IF YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE POLICY, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR POLICY. IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR.

Congressman Joe Wilson who shouted YOU LIE when O'Bomber said there was no abortion coverage in O'Bomber Care was absolutely right. There is and there's about 15 lawsuits against O'Bomber care in US federal courts on that issue alone.

posted October 29, 2013 11:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Why isn't the UBB code working?

---

posted October 30, 2013 12:34 PM            

Your malarkey about bullsh__, and brain dead thinking more aptly describes your position, and I'm going to disregard it for the nonsense it is.

quote:

---

AND, O'Bomber is just a common leftist liar who said...IF YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE POLICY, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR POLICY. IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR.

---

I don't mind you having this opinion.

quote:

---

Face it, your little Marxist Messiah is just a common every day liar who proves he's a liar every day.

---

When such a charge is given from a serial liar like yourself, it tends to carry less weight.

quote:

---

Looks like you left out URL in the tag?

---

posted October 30, 2013 12:37 PM            

No one else can speak for it

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 30, 2013 10:53 PM            

I quote real experts who actually work in the field...in this case medicine.

Medical outcomes for serious disease and illness are much better for Americans than for Europeans and Canadians.

"Let�s compare data for cancer, heart disease, and stroke, the most common sources of sickness and death in the US and Europe, and the diseases that generate the highest medical expenditures.

American cancer patients, both men and women, have superior survival rates for all major cancers. For some specifics, per Verdecchia, the breast cancer mortality rate is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the US, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer mortality rates are strikingly worse in the UK, Norway, and elsewhere than in the US; mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the US."

"Treatment for heart disease is also superior in the United States.

First, a comparison of the US to ten Western European nations (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) showed that 60.7 percent of Americans diagnosed with heart disease were actually receiving medication for it, while only 54.5 percent of Western Europeans were treated (a statistically significant difference).

Likewise, US patients needing surgery for heart disease receive it more frequently than heart patients in countries with nationalized insurance. For example, twice as many bypass procedures and four times as many angioplasties are performed per capita in the US as in the UK. A separate comparison between Canadian and American patients showed the same pattern: of patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease, a higher percentage of US patients actually received treatment.

But is there evidence that Americans with heart disease actually benefit from receiving treatment more frequently compared to patients elsewhere? The answer is yes. Specifically, the US shows a significantly greater reduction in death rates from heart disease than Western European nations, the European Union as a whole, and Japan.

A separate study showed that Americans had a significantly longer five-year survival after acute heart attack than Canadians. The authors concluded that �our findings are strongly suggestive of a survival advantage for the US cohort based on more aggressive revascularization.�

Another comparison study showed that fewer Americans than UK residents die (per capita) from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events. In fact, the heart disease mortality rate in England was 36 percent higher than that in the US. These superior outcomes from US medical care are particularly impressive, considering that American patients have far more risk factors (diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease) that worsen outcomes and death rates after heart attack and after heart surgery.

The US shows a far greater reduction in death rates from stroke, the third leading cause of death and the leading cause of disability in adults in the US and most Western European nations, than almost all Western European nations and the European Union overall."

Scott W. Atlas, MD is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author of the recently published book In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America�s Health Care (Hoover Press, 2011
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/15/facts-about-americas-health-care-quality-that-world-doesnt-know/

posted October 30, 2013 11:00 PM            

July 1, 2009
Here�s a Second Opinion
by Scott W. Atlas

Ten reasons why America�s health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas.

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers, and academics beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America�s health care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
�Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

�Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

�More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

�Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report �excellent� health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as �fair or poor.�

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long�sometimes more than a year�to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either �fundamental change� or �complete rebuilding.�

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the �health care system,� more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade�even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and senior fellow by courtesy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.

Atlas's research interests are domestic and global health care policy, particularly the role of government in pricing, quality, access, and innovation. He lectures throughout the world on MRI advances and key economic issues related to technology innovation. Atlas has been interviewed on television, radio, and other news media, including BBC Radio and the Lehrer News Hour, and in newspapers such as England�s Financial Times, Brazil�s Correio Braziliense, Italy�s Corriere della Sera, and Argentina�s Diario La Nacion. His most recent book, In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America�s Health Care (Hoover Institution Press, 2011), gives evidence of the high quality and access found in the US health care system relative to those of other countries and suggests free-market reforms to reduce costs and maintain quality and consumer choice. Atlas, who has received numerous awards and honors, has been a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for several years.

posted October 31, 2013 06:32 AM            

Me, Vapid?

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 31, 2013 08:46 AM            

Don't make me laugh acoustic. You've "debunked" nothing.

You can't tie your own shoelaces; don't know the difference between a scapula and a spatula. Don't know the difference between a femur and a lemur.

You haven't turned your brain on in so long you've forgotten where the on switch is.

On the other hand, the guy you say you've debunked is a world famous medical expert and member of the Nobel nominating committee for the Nobel prize in Medicine and Physiology, several times. You would know that if you spent less time running your mouth and more time reading with comprehension.

Here acoustic, let me help you out. I know your attention span is limited so I'm breaking it down in smaller increments just for you.

"Atlas's research interests are domestic and global health care policy, particularly the role of government in pricing, quality, access, and innovation. He lectures throughout the world on MRI advances and key economic issues related to technology innovation. Atlas has been interviewed on television, radio, and other news media, including BBC Radio and the Lehrer News Hour, and in newspapers such as England�s Financial Times, Brazil�s Correio Braziliense, Italy�s Corriere della Sera, and Argentina�s Diario La Nacion. His most recent book, In Excellent Health: Setting the Record Straight on America�s Health Care (Hoover Institution Press, 2011), gives evidence of the high quality and access found in the US health care system relative to those of other countries and suggests free-market reforms to reduce costs and maintain quality and consumer choice. Atlas, who has received numerous awards and honors, has been a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for several years."

posted October 31, 2013 09:05 AM            

"Another comparison study showed that fewer Americans than UK residents die (per capita) from heart attack despite the far higher burden of risk factors in Americans for these fatal events. In fact, the heart disease mortality rate in England was 36 percent higher than that in the US. These superior outcomes from US medical care are particularly impressive, considering that American patients have far more risk factors (diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease) that worsen outcomes and death rates after heart attack and after heart surgery.

"But is there evidence that Americans with heart disease actually benefit from receiving treatment more frequently compared to patients elsewhere? The answer is yes. Specifically, the US shows a significantly greater reduction in death rates from heart disease than Western European nations, the European Union as a whole, and Japan."

"A separate study showed that Americans had a significantly longer five-year survival after acute heart attack than Canadians. The authors concluded that �our findings are strongly suggestive of a survival advantage for the US cohort based on more aggressive revascularization.�

posted October 31, 2013 09:35 AM            

Worse health care, inferior medical outcomes, more deaths per capita from serious illness and disease and longer wait times for treatment...and, it's OK if you die waiting for an appointment to see a doctor.

Give us O'BomberCare they whine, screech, howl and shriek. I'd far rather give each usual suspect, each Accidental American and each grubby little Socialist $10,000, a deportation order and an airline ticket to Europe...provided they agree to renounce their US citizenship and promise to never return to the US.

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long�sometimes more than a year�to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either �fundamental change� or �complete rebuilding.�***See how much those who have Socialist Health Care love Socialist Health Care??***

posted October 31, 2013 09:47 AM            

GRUBBY is the right word for ALL of them

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 31, 2013 11:29 AM            

Whatever. You're entitled to pay through the nose if you like, I guess. That you could get the same for less and others could too who aren't on your financial level, is not your concern.

That you are ALREADY PAYING more for others' healthcare (at ERs etc around the country) is of no interest either. Just so we do it our AMURRICAN WAY goldarnit!!

posted October 31, 2013 12:51 PM            

You're sounding like the grubby little Socialist I know you to be.

And, exactly why should the best health care delivery system on planet earth be scrapped for Socialist health care which produces worse medical outcomes across the entire spectrum of serious illness and disease and across all income levels?

Why should the best health care delivery system on earth be scrapped in favor of Socialist health care which is hated and despised by more than 70% of adults in the western world who already have it and want it changed or gone?

"7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either �fundamental change� or �complete rebuilding"

Why should Americans listen to grubby little Socialists who advocate for a health care system 70%+ or more who have it don't want it?

posted October 31, 2013 01:14 PM            

You got that right

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 31, 2013 01:16 PM            

I do know that many Brits complain...because the systematic dismantling of the NHS by privatisation has crippled what was once a much better setvice.

Our own Kaiser group not only love being involved over there, but what they learned there has benefitted American customers greatly.

But the repetition is getting boring. When are you going to answer my medicare question? I am looking forward to becoming eligible for that soon...after years of not being able to afford a plan that covered something significant!