Nat'lized Health Care

[RightinNYC]

The question really comes down to this: Do you feel that everyone should pay a set amount of their taxes to the government in exchange for a system of health care where everyone is taken care of equally, or do you think that people should keep that money, to spend themselves if they happen to fall sick.
Cut from redd's thread:

I'm opposed to national health care for this reason. The vast majority of things that people go to the doctor for are either elective or caused by the actions of the person. Should my tax dollars pay for:

Diabetes medication for someone who got diabetes through poor diet and lack of exercise?
Heart problems for someone who weighs 400 lbs and eats junk food all day?
Chemo/treatment for someone who smoked 2 packs a day all their life?
Adderol for uppity kids?
Viagra for someone with ED?

I see no reason why I should pay for the (preventable) health problems that others bring on themselves by making poor life choices. I work hard to keep myself in good shape so I DONT have to worry about these things, why should I pay for them for someone else?

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't see how people with ADHD made a "poor lifestyle choice", unless you think psychiatric disorders are a matter of personal weakness?

Do you have a source to back up your claim that most health costs are for "things people did themselves"? I seriously doubt it.

I also don't see the reason behind the lack in social conscience. My taxes pay for new warships we don't need, frivolous public entertainment events (such as car races) and private planes for politicians. Am I happy about that? No. But choosing where our taxes go is not our right, and never has been. You're prepared to make a poor family whose 6-year-old has leukaemia choose between rent and medicine, just to spite the obese diabetic you're worried is going to get "your" money? That's absurd. Especially considering you'll need to spend it anyway if you should ever end up sick or injured, so you might as well let the government spend it on public healthcare, in which case you'll still get the treatment you need - and so will everyone else, not just those fortunate enough to afford it.

Take me. My mother's a single parent, who gets no finanical assistance from our dad. She works as a legal secretary, we live in a rented house, and I go to a public school. It's often a struggle to make ends meet, to pay the bills and afford enough food and petrol, but we're good, honest people. If we lived in the US, we wouldn't be able to afford health insurance for all of us. I keep fit and healthy, too - but that wouldn't save me the bad luck of getting hit by a speeding car that's run the red light whilst crossing the road one day. Should my mother have to go bankrupt, and should I have to sacrifice my university education before it's even started just to afford basic medical care and rehabilitation? No.

Don't take this personally, but the American way of thinking in regard to healthcare is just selfish. In Australia, in the UK, no one thinks twice about it - pretty much everyone appalled by the fact that the supposed greated nation on Earth won't even pay for its citizens to get well again. You have public education - why not publich healthcare? After all, technically, why should you have to pay for some ghetto kid who's just gonna drop out anyway, when you don't even have kids yourself (I assume)?

copypasted

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't see how people with ADHD made a "poor lifestyle choice", unless you think psychiatric disorders are a matter of personal weakness?

The problem is that EVERYTHING is a "psychiatric disorder" nowadays. Many, many, many people who are on ADHD medicine are not seriously limited by their "affliction." Is erectile dysfunction something that is enough of a psychiatric disorder that it should be paid for?

Do you have a source to back up your claim that most health costs are for "things people did themselves"? I seriously doubt it.

Really? You don't think so? How about this:

- Substance abuse is the nation's top health problem, causing more deaths, illness and disabilities than any other preventable health problem today, according to a major report to be issued today.

Of the more than 2 million deaths each year in the United States, about one in four is due to abuse of alcohol, tobacco or illicit drugs, the report says. The economic cost of the abuse is estimated at more than $414 billion a year.

http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/drug_war/articles/substance_abuse.html

That's 419,000,000,000 EACH YEAR that the nation is cost because of completely voluntary choices to abuse alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Of course, what with the revelation that dependency can be influenced by genetics, you'd probably classify it as a disorder, right?

According to a 1993 study, substance abuse drives up health care costs:

• Between 25% and 40% of all general hospital patients have been admitted for complications related to alcoholism;
• Between 17% and 53% of falls are alcohol related, and falls are the second leading cause of fatal injuries;
• When heavy smokers are hospitalized, they stay 25% longer than do nonsmokers; and
• About 28% of all ICU admissions and nearly 40% of all ICU costs at one major hospital were due to substance abuse. (3)

http://workplace.samhsa.gov/WPResearch/Costs/HCcosts.html

Causes of Death in the United States
Actual, 1990 †
Percentage of all deaths

Tobacco use: 19%
Poor diet/lack of exercise: 14%
Alcohol use: 5%
Infectious agents: 4%
Pollutants/toxins: 3%
Firearms: 2%
Risky sexual behavior: 1%
Motor vehicle crashes: 1%
Illicit drug use: 1%

# The direct medical costs associated with physical inactivity was $29 billion in 1987 and nearly $76.6 billion in 2000. Engaging in regular physical activity is associated with taking less medication and having fewer hospitalizations and physician visits.

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview_text.htm

Health care costs consume more than 14.1 percent of the U.S. budget representing $1.4 trillion and financing some of the most scientifically advanced health services in the world.

Also topping the list of preventable health problems are diabetes, accidents and influenza and pneumonia. The health groups pointed out that the ongoing gap between actual and achievable health status demonstrates how great an opportunity remains to further reduce the health, economic and social burdens of preventable disease and injury. Tobacco use, unhealthy diet and physical inactivity are the leading causes of preventable death and illness.

Obesity accounts for approximately 9.1% of total annual medical care
expenditures. (Eric A. Finkelstein, Ian C. Fiebelkorn, Guijing Wang, National Medical
Spending Attributable to Overweight and Obesity: How Much and Who’s Paying? Health Affairs,
Web Exclusive, May 2003.)

http://www.wbgh.com/pdfs/obesity_factsheet.pdf

Obesity seems prettly clearly preventable to me.

I also don't see the reason behind the lack in social conscience. My taxes pay for new warships we don't need, frivolous public entertainment events (such as car races) and private planes for politicians. Am I happy about that? No. But choosing where our taxes go is not our right, and never has been.

Uh, actually, is IS our right. That whole representative democracy thing.

You're prepared to make a poor family whose 6-year-old has leukaemia choose between rent and medicine, just to spite the obese diabetic you're worried is going to get "your" money? That's absurd.

You don't see the difference between a 6 year old with leukemia and a 55 year old with emphesma and heart problems from smoking 3 packs a day and eating McDonalds every day?

Especially considering you'll need to spend it anyway if you should ever end up sick or injured, so you might as well let the government spend it on public healthcare, in which case you'll still get the treatment you need - and so will everyone else, not just those fortunate enough to afford it.

But heres the thing: Everyone is essentially at an equal risk for certain diseases, and as such, it does make sense for some sort of gov program to be instituted to help everyone. But everyone is NOT going to suffer from certain afflictions. I will most likely not develop lung or throat cancer, or cirrhosis, because I am not a smoker or an alcoholic. So because I make that smart choice, should I pay for someone elses dumb choice?

Take me. My mother's a single parent, who gets no finanical assistance from our dad. She works as a legal secretary, we live in a rented house, and I go to a public school. It's often a struggle to make ends meet, to pay the bills and afford enough food and petrol, but we're good, honest people. If we lived in the US, we wouldn't be able to afford health insurance for all of us.

Well, if you lived in the US, youd make on average 33% more money because of our stronger economy. That socialized economic system doesn't sound so great when you look at it that way, does it?

I keep fit and healthy, too - but that wouldn't save me the bad luck of getting hit by a speeding car that's run the red light whilst crossing the road one day. Should my mother have to go bankrupt, and should I have to sacrifice my university education before it's even started just to afford basic medical care and rehabilitation? No.

And in THAT case, an accident that is NOT a conscious choice you made, it should be looked at differently than care for smokers/alcoholics/drug addicts. Like Ive said over and over.

Don't take this personally, but the American way of thinking in regard to healthcare is just selfish.

Don't take this personally, but the Euro/Australian way of governing in regard to health care is just stupid.

In Australia, in the UK, no one thinks twice about it - pretty much everyone appalled by the fact that the supposed greated nation on Earth won't even pay for its citizens to get well again.

Add it to the list of things that Europe is appalled at the US for. Who cares?

You have public education - why not publich healthcare? After all, technically, why should you have to pay for some ghetto kid who's just gonna drop out anyway, when you don't even have kids yourself (I assume)?

Because public education is something that every child needs, and every child has equal access to and benefit derived thereof. Unlike healthcare that covers PREVENTABLE health costs. This is probably the 4th or fifth time that youve made this false analogy, do you understand the difference now?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

RightatNYU!

Do you not think that this type of foolishness should be in the economics forum?

 

[RightinNYC]

RightatNYU!

Do you not think that this type of foolishness should be in the economics forum?

yea but if its down here i can call people assholes and cacksuckers.

turdburgler.

 

[vergiss]

1. Erectile dysfunction is generally a physical problem. Just because some people are wrongly diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder doesn't mean the majority aren't sick. What's your definition of being seriously affected, anyway? I'm not seriously affected by my asthma. That doesn't mean I don't need the inhaler just in case.

2. Okay - but how much in taxes does the US government earn on tobacco and alcohol (and presumably fattening foods too, if you have some sort of GST that covers it) every year?

3. You can't possibly make everyone happy with the distribution of taxes via representation government. Why should some have to pay for the Iraq War when they don't support it?

4. Of course I see the difference between the hypothetical child with leukaemia and the 300 lb 55-year-old with God knows what. Problem is, under your system, the hospitals don't. That kid's going to have a debt hanging over his head that his family can't possibly afford, before he can even count - and all just so he can survive.

5. No. In which case, I'd technically have no problem with those who have a proven self-inflicted disease having to pay for their own treatment privately. It has to be proven in front of a judge or some similar, impartial authority figure that the patient is directly responsible for their condition, though. Otherwise it'd suck for you if you were overweight but developed a heart condition that wasn't actually caused by your weight. Not particularly far-fetched, considering healthy people have heart attacks, especially from middle age onwards. Furthermore, in cases of substance abuse, each patient should be allowed free rehabilitation - assuming it works, money will be saved in the long run (and it's the ethical thing to do).

The only problem with this way of thinking is that there are too many grey areas. What about the cost of contraception? What about the cost of having a baby (technically, it's preventable). What about the cost of abortion (personal issues aside, it is a woman's right under law, and unless she and her partner were foolish, the contraceptive failure was no more preventable than my hypothetical car mishap).

Also, depending on the tax money the US earns from the vices in question, couldn't you just logically spend that on paying for the medical costs that result instead? An ironic sort of public insurance?

6. Source? Is that the mean average wage, or what? I have a few major issues with drawing such a conclusion on that basis, not least because there are way more billionaires in the US than Australia, thereby sucking the average upwards.

7. See five.

8. I don't see how socially ethical equals stupid.

9. See five.

I have an American friend, whose friend was denied a lung transplant by his insurance company for no good reason. He died, aged only 20. I'll try and find the relevant website about the case.

Nothing like that ever happens in Australia. It shouldn't happen anywhere, let alone the wealthiest nation on Earth.

 

[vergiss]

http://www.save-allan.org/

Here's the site.

Dead, all for the sake of red tape.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

RightatNYU

yea but if its down here i can call people assholes and cacksuckers.

Good point....

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I'll keep the money.. Why pay more and get less

 

[RightinNYC]

1. Erectile dysfunction is generally a physical problem. Just because some people are wrongly diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder doesn't mean the majority aren't sick. What's your definition of being seriously affected, anyway? I'm not seriously affected by my asthma. That doesn't mean I don't need the inhaler just in case.

So you would choose to have your tax money go to pay for viagra for old men, ritalin for whiny kids, prozac for depressed people, gastric bypass surgery for fat people, throat surgery for smokers, etc etc...?

2. Okay - but how much in taxes does the US government earn on tobacco and alcohol (and presumably fattening foods too, if you have some sort of GST that covers it) every year?

Lots. What does that have to do with anything? If people didn't spend money on that, they'd spend it on other things. Gov gets its $$ anyways.

3. You can't possibly make everyone happy with the distribution of taxes via representation government. Why should some have to pay for the Iraq War when they don't support it?

Are you really actually criticizing the principle of "representative government?" I'm quite content with it.

4. Of course I see the difference between the hypothetical child with leukaemia and the 300 lb 55-year-old with God knows what. Problem is, under your system, the hospitals don't. That kid's going to have a debt hanging over his head that his family can't possibly afford, before he can even count - and all just so he can survive.

YOUR system doesn't know the difference either. According to you, that man who is in his condition completely through his own failures gets care equally as the kid. You don't think resources should be more fairly allocated?

5. No. In which case, I'd technically have no problem with those who have a proven self-inflicted disease having to pay for their own treatment privately. It has to be proven in front of a judge or some similar, impartial authority figure that the patient is directly responsible for their condition, though. Otherwise it'd suck for you if you were overweight but developed a heart condition that wasn't actually caused by your weight. Not particularly far-fetched, considering healthy people have heart attacks, especially from middle age onwards. Furthermore, in cases of substance abuse, each patient should be allowed free rehabilitation - assuming it works, money will be saved in the long run (and it's the ethical thing to do).

Right. Because the solution to the red tape that you decry in this post is to add MORE bureaucracy....:roll: And are you actually serious? No disease can be PROVEN to be completely the result of anything, everything contributes to it.

The only problem with this way of thinking is that there are too many grey areas. What about the cost of contraception? What about the cost of having a baby (technically, it's preventable). What about the cost of abortion (personal issues aside, it is a woman's right under law, and unless she and her partner were foolish, the contraceptive failure was no more preventable than my hypothetical car mishap).

Exactly. Why your idea sucks.

Also, depending on the tax money the US earns from the vices in question, couldn't you just logically spend that on paying for the medical costs that result instead? An ironic sort of public insurance?

Lawsuit money from smoking already goes to pay for healthcare/public schools. But you try convincing the government to give up a massive revenue source. How about we make people who ruin their health through their own willing actions, oh, i dont know, be RESPONSIBLE for their own actions?

6. Source? Is that the mean average wage, or what? I have a few major issues with drawing such a conclusion on that basis, not least because there are way more billionaires in the US than Australia, thereby sucking the average upwards.

MEDIAN average wage. Which blows your "billionaire" theory out of the water. So what other reason can you come up with for why we're so much worse off?

8. I don't see how socially ethical equals stupid.

Lets institute a program where people who lose their jobs entirely of their own actions (not going to work, telling the boss to **** off) get the same quality of living as those who go to work every day. Sound like a good idea? Cause thats what socialized health care is.

I have an American friend, whose friend was denied a lung transplant by his insurance company for no good reason. He died, aged only 20. I'll try and find the relevant website about the case.

Nothing like that ever happens in Australia. It shouldn't happen anywhere, let alone the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Because we all know how useful anecdotes are in trying to prove a point.:lol:

 

[americanwoman]

I'll keep the money.. Why pay more and get less

:yt

My insurance covers my zoloft pretty good now. why change a good thing.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

americanwoman

My insurance covers my zoloft pretty good now. why change a good thing.

Now if we could get it to cover beer we'd be set!

 

[RightinNYC]

americanwoman



Now if we could get it to cover beer we'd be set!

Seriously.

If I get diagnosed as an alcoholic in a NHC country, would they pay for the liquor for my aversion therapy?

 

[vergiss]

I believe in compromise. I don't believe the state should have to pay for self-infliced diseases, no (and I don't think it'd be difficult to prove that a man's arteries are clogged because he's fat, or that tar has destroyed his lungs - red tape over who pays what is less of a worry than red tape which stops a man from getting the treatment he needs). However, my main concern is innocent people dying because they don't have enough money. Doesn't that bother you? Let's assume for a moment that someone in your family runs into finanical problems and lapses on his/or her insurance, just in time to be diagnosed with bowel cancer. Then what would you think? Of course, I hope it doesn't really happen.

You still haven't given a source for the wages.

Also, I have a major problem with you putting psychiatric diseases in the same category as obesity. Depression, ADHD, whatever are most certainly not self-inflicted - believe me, no one would choose to have a mental illness. Why on Earth assume that they are?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I believe in compromise. I don't believe the state should have to pay for self-infliced diseases, no (and I don't think it'd be difficult to prove that a man's arteries are clogged because he's fat, or that tar has destroyed his lungs - red tape over who pays what is less of a worry than red tape which stops a man from getting the treatment he needs). However, my main concern is innocent people dying because they don't have enough money. Doesn't that bother you? Let's assume for a moment that someone in your family runs into finanical problems and lapses on his/or her insurance, just in time to be diagnosed with bowel cancer. Then what would you think? Of course, I hope it doesn't really happen.

You still haven't given a source for the wages.

Also, I have a major problem with you putting psychiatric diseases in the same category as obesity. Depression, ADHD, whatever are most certainly not self-inflicted - believe me, no one would choose to have a mental illness. Why on Earth assume that they are?

Medicare, medicade, free clinics.... government programs.. The options for healthcare are out there.... I am not going to pay more while getting less and the people it's mostly going ot benifit are the lazy. Again I see no reason to pay more and get less and with UHC thats exactly what I think will happen

 

[RightinNYC]

I believe in compromise. I don't believe the state should have to pay for self-infliced diseases, no (and I don't think it'd be difficult to prove that a man's arteries are clogged because he's fat, or that tar has destroyed his lungs - red tape over who pays what is less of a worry than red tape which stops a man from getting the treatment he needs).

There is absolutely no way to prove conclusively what causes what, and how much of an effect it has. The only way it could be decided is in court, with expensive lawyers, so youve just successfully made it into rich v. poor again.

However, my main concern is innocent people dying because they don't have enough money. Doesn't that bother you? Let's assume for a moment that someone in your family runs into finanical problems and lapses on his/or her insurance, just in time to be diagnosed with bowel cancer. Then what would you think? Of course, I hope it doesn't really happen.

We have medicare and medicaid for that exact purpose. There are free health clinics throughout the country. Ive used them before, they're fine.

You still haven't given a source for the wages.

Median Australian Income - 39,000 AUD
Median US Income - 43,000 USD

US/Australian exchange rate - 1.4/1

Median Australian Income - 39,000 AUD
Median US Income - 60,200 AUD

http://www.gwrdc.com.au/downloads/LatestNews/Income_20.pdf
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html



http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/table.html

Also, I have a major problem with you putting psychiatric diseases in the same category as obesity. Depression, ADHD, whatever are most certainly not self-inflicted - believe me, no one would choose to have a mental illness. Why on Earth assume that they are?

Its also a BIG question as to whether those deserve the same kind of treatment as cancer, et al. Is ADHD really a disease? Is it as serious and life threatening as a stroke? You can ameliorate the effects of depression through therapy or simply dealing with your ****. Is therapy going to cure cardiovascular problems?

The REASON that health care is becoming so expensive is because everythings a disease now. If you look at the pharmaceutical industry now, 90% of the drugs they're producing are to treat things that werent even considered a disease 20 years ago. What if they create a drug that cures social anxiety? Are we going to give it to every nerd in middle school? Oh, wait, they already created that drug. At some point, we have to say enough.

 

[vergiss]

There is absolutely no way to prove conclusively what causes what, and how much of an effect it has. The only way it could be decided is in court, with expensive lawyers, so youve just successfully made it into rich v. poor again.

Then how would you have them decide what caused what? A doctor just assuming as much?

We have medicare and medicaid for that exact purpose. There are free health clinics throughout the country. Ive used them before, they're fine.

That kid who couldn't get the transplant he needed. Why did that happen? If it's possible to get tree treatment, why did he die for lack of money?

Median Australian Income - 39,000 AUD
Median US Income - 43,000 USD

US/Australian exchange rate - 1.4/1

Median Australian Income - 39,000 AUD
Median US Income - 60,200 AUD

http://www.gwrdc.com.au/downloads/LatestNews/Income_20.pdf
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/table.html

Interesting. However, the US is a much stronger economy all-round - you have nearly 300 million people, we have 20 million people, etc. What about, say, the UK? Much stronger economy than Australia's and has government healthcare.

Its also a BIG question as to whether those deserve the same kind of treatment as cancer, et al. Is ADHD really a disease? Is it as serious and life threatening as a stroke? You can ameliorate the effects of depression through therapy or simply dealing with your ****. Is therapy going to cure cardiovascular problems?

The REASON that health care is becoming so expensive is because everythings a disease now. If you look at the pharmaceutical industry now, 90% of the drugs they're producing are to treat things that werent even considered a disease 20 years ago. What if they create a drug that cures social anxiety? Are we going to give it to every nerd in middle school? Oh, wait, they already created that drug. At some point, we have to say enough.

Psychiatric disorders are most certainly diseases. It's well known that mental illness runs in families, suggesting a genetic predisposition akin to some cancers, diabetes, etc. Also, non-psychiatric diseases can have psychiatric symptoms eg: psychosis (a symptom of a brain tumour, hypoglycemia such as in diabetes, lupus, even the flu), depression (hypothyroidism, celiac disease, hormone disorders such as Cushing's syndrome, that pesky ol' flu again...) etc, suggesting a strong biological cause.

If it's serious enough to cause impairment in a person's day-to-day functioning, wouldn't you say it's a disease? Asthma's not always life-threatening, diseases such as endometriosis and arthritis certainly aren't either, but no one's doubting that they're diseases. ADHD, too, may not be life threatening, but depression, schizophrenia etc definitely are. The sufferer may commit suicide, which alone should prove that mental illness is a disease - no healthy person wants to die, let alone is actually able to defy our strongest instinct, the instinct to survive. Let's not forget anorexia nervosa - 1 in 10 sufferers starve to death. What healthy person can do that to themself? I start whinging if I so much as miss breakfast.

Unfortunately, not all psychiatric illnesses can be alleviated through therapy alone (and therapy costs money, too...). Talking won't stop a schizophrenic's delusions or hallucinations. Bipolar disorder, which I myself have, is also a life-long disease. Without mood stabilisers such as lithium, a manic depressive will go up and down no matter how often he sees his shrink and no matter how easy his life is at that moment - believe me, I tried the anti-drug approach for a long time. What about those many, many patients who have happy, dandy lives until mental illness hits them for no external reason? How will therapy help if they've got nothing to talk about?

I do believe that you shouldn't be hasty to decide that someone whose mother's just died has clinical depression (grief and sadness where appropriate are a normal, healthy part of life). Nor should you diagnose someone with an anxiety disorder just because they're shy or give every energetic kid Ritalin - individual personality is not a disease. However, as we all know, just because antibiotics are frequently over-prescribed for useless reasons like a cold or headace doesn't mean you can't get a genuinely nasty infection. If you keep wanting to harm yourself, you think aliens can read your mind, you can't concentrate on the simplest tasks no matter how hard you try, or just stepping out the front door sends you into a panic... then something's seriously wrong and you need medical help.

Hrmm... apologies for the thesis. Psychology and mental health is an interest of mine.

 

[ptsdkid]

Then how would you have them decide what caused what? A doctor just assuming as much?


***I didn't read all the posts here. But I feel the need to address the option of having private medical accounts, i.e. private medical insurance.

Self employed business owners etc shouldn't be taxed so as to provide medical coverage for anyone else. They chose self employment, ergo, they chose to pay for their medical expenses anyway they choose.

People working for others should look into the many funding options to the many private medical savings accounts that are available. Having the government control an important part of your life like medical expenses is a very risky idea.

We already have medicare and medicaid for the elderly and the physically disabled; why would we want to financially burden the tax payers of America any further by introducting a socialized health care program? Hillary care got soundly rejected in the 1990's. You people need to take a clue for Hillary's failure to present a viable health alternative. Remember, MSA's are the key here. Getting lazy Americans to show some sound financial judgement may be another thing altogether.

And all these pychiatric disorders etc would also be taken care of once the young worker starts his MSA by showing responsible financial behavior. Like I said, in the interim for emergency purposes, the state/government always has a SSI or SSD medicare and medicaid backup program installed.

 

[teacher]

This is the kind of thing that does not belong in the basement. It's above us. But I guess it is adult debate. Do try to not do this again.

To The Dungeon. (Blast.)

 

[Thorgasm]

I would guess this got brought down here so when facts fail, emotions can take over.

What's the matter NYU? You got razorburn on your vagina? A$$-spelunker! There we go. Now maybe this is basement worthy.:roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

I would guess this got brought down here so when facts fail, emotions can take over.

What's the matter NYU? You got razorburn on your vagina? A$$-spelunker! There we go. Now maybe this is basement worthy.:roll:

huh?

We were discussing another thread in the basement, and vergiss and i got off topic about health care. I decided to move the discussion to another thread (also in the basement), so we wouldnt derail the first discussion.

Im confused as to your point.

 

[Thorgasm]

huh?

We were discussing another thread in the basement, and vergiss and i got off topic about health care. I decided to move the discussion to another thread (also in the basement), so we wouldnt derail the first discussion.

Im confused as to your point.

It's the basement, the place to talk smack. Forget I said anything. I was just trying to help it fit into the basement.

 

[RightinNYC]

It's the basement, the place to talk smack. Forget I said anything. I was just trying to help it fit into the basement.

oic

well **** you too, assclown.

ps. eat **** and go to hell:2wave: