OP
pknox
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #21
khadaji:
Wecome back! I think your suggestion is an excellent one.
Wecome back! I think your suggestion is an excellent one.
- Status
How I got the bite is another thread entirely, but ok 7 vials isn't serious... it was a baby snake and was under a group of rocks. It got me on the thumb just behind the nail. Felt it before I saw it. The snake was doing what it naturally does. Protecting itself.
Well now, a shortage of anti-venom and the prices go through the roof... hmm. So if I didn't have insurance (which I don't) and the hospital didn't have the charity waiver... I'd been screwed? This is what I'm talking about when there's no regulation on the pricing. This is a medical and life saving need and they want to make a BUCK?
Ok there's a shortage but obviously there was enough to go around it seems.
The hospitial (@ UofU) was very interested in my case as I was the third victim (so far) that year.
The worse that happened (which puzzled the heck out of the toxicologist) was my arm swollen up to where it looked like a fat sausage and the lymph nodes under the same arm pit were just tender. Other than that nothing else.
Blood test revealed a high concentration of venom in my blood stream... and why not? Baby rattlers (prairie) don't know how to regulate their venom out put the same as adults. Hmm sounds like the pharmacutical industry.
Ender
Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2003
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 21
Originally posted by khadaji
I have been away a long time. This is just the subject to get me back. Oh, and martial arts stuff too
I think I have a good plan. We should get the same health plan that the congress and senet get. Its only fair. So what ever plan they have, modify, and etc we get too...
Wether we pay directly out of our own pocket, or pay through our taxes i see that we still loose money. as a result I do not mind doing it through the tax method, becasue in the end i will still loose the money anyhow. I think of my self as a nice person, and i like to help people, so if the few pennies that i pay in taxes can save someones life it makes me feel good. When i am in trouble i also feel happy that others then help me out. Debts paid, and debts earned.
well your heart is in the right place. But having the government do it thru a tax method is very inefficient. It would wind up costing much more than thru the private sector. Government efficiency is at about 60%. that means for every dollar we give tem for healthcare, 60% will get to the acutal need. just look at medicare, it is rife with cost overuns and corruption. if people REALLY cared about the healthcare in their community they would donate money directly to hospitals and community care centers.
OP
Andi
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #24
To say that the British National Health Service (NHS) doesn't work is very harsh. If it didn't work we'd have chucked it 40 odd years ago so it must be doing something right. But yeah, there are lots of problems and major issues facing the NHS right now. A lot of the problems (seem to) stem from an incredible bureaucratic waste of resources. The NHS employs 1 million people here. That's getting on for 2% of the population. And it's not particularly underfunded (debatable). Yet still (some) waiting lists are ridiculous and there's random shortages of beds in some hospitals. I won't bore you with all the reform proposals (big point of debate here for the last coupla years) but basically, if you guys want to implement some kind of universal health care system you have a job on your hands. Expect similar problems to us. What's happening in the Canadian and other services?
It would be interesting to find out how much the average British/Canadian/Russian (or whoever) actually pays to contribute to the respective systems and then compare that to what kind of figures Americans have to spend on med bills. I don't have time to dig up that info right now, maybe I'll do it a bit later. Of course I realise that medical bills by definition must vary wildly across the population so any comparison would have to bear that in mind.
Bottom line though, I can't imagine not having the NHS, it appeals to my utopian idealist side, and to be honest I'm surprised that you guys don't have some kind of system in place (this is the first I have come across Medicaid- ER's a great show and all but they don't really get into the paperwork thankfully) seeing how you have the resources to do it if you wanted to. It seems strange to outsiders that America is this beacon of freedom and fairness yet if you can't pay for some medicine, then tough luck. Hmmm. Not trying to poke you with America-bashing, just my thoughts.
don bohrer
Brown Belt
I almost dated a canadian nurse. We talked on Canada's health care system and she felt it was not a model system, and fell very short of being effective health care. I still think health care should be provided free for those below poverty, and subsidised for the rest based on income. I still don't know how it should be paid for.
don
don
Even if it were as simple as this, physicians from other countries are allowed to come here and typically fill a double-digit percentage of residencies.
This common-sense notion has been proven false time and again. When there are more physicians in an area, hospitalization rates rise, for example. It just isn't as simple as one might think--health care economics isn't like the economics of other products. If there are more physicians, people will get to spend more time with their internists, will list more ailments and will be given more tests/treatments/prescriptions. People generally want more tests and such.
It isn't at all clear that more physicians would mean lower cost unless their actions were somehow regulated.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
A survay done a few years ago by the UN rated our Healthcare system #37 out of 187 countries.
37..... 37?!?!?!
Come on...we are the richest country in the world, we tell ourselves all the Time "We are #1," but we can seem to get in even the top 10 for Healthcare. And...guess who is beating us? All the universal healthcare systems of course.
Guess who is number one. The beloved French! :barf:
Why: The reason why is because one of the biggest monopolies we have in this country is healthcare, and Health Insurance Companies. They have big $$ to secure their special interest, so they have lobbiest in Washington meeting with our Legislative branches to attempt to assure that we won't go to Nationalized for awhile. They also have P.R. people who filter information through our Media to tie up the issue in the public mind (example: The media covering some obscure story about how some poor lady died on a waiting list for an organ, and it is blamed on a nationalized system. What is not mentioned is that not only is this occurance statistically unlikely, but that this occurance happends ALL THE TIME in unationalized systems). People believe the system won't work, then, for a variety of different reasons, but none based on hard data. The hard data points to a BETTER SYSTEM overall, despite it's problems. The issue is further tied up becuase it is intentionally turned into a Bi-partisen issue as well; "Republicans" being against a Nationalized system, "Democrates" being for it. This only makes things more confusing.
So...my contention is, if done correctly, we can have a Nationalized system here in the U.S.. I believe that we could have a system here that far exceeds what other countries are doing, given the overall wealth of our country. The only problem with this is that our Healthcare/insurance system can't pricegouge, underhand, and screw us with tighter regulation and Nationalization.
So, until we all stop thinking "it won't work" or "it'll never happend", and start thinking "How can we make this work" nothing will change.
My 2 cents.:asian:
37..... 37?!?!?!
Come on...we are the richest country in the world, we tell ourselves all the Time "We are #1," but we can seem to get in even the top 10 for Healthcare. And...guess who is beating us? All the universal healthcare systems of course.
Guess who is number one. The beloved French! :barf:
Why: The reason why is because one of the biggest monopolies we have in this country is healthcare, and Health Insurance Companies. They have big $$ to secure their special interest, so they have lobbiest in Washington meeting with our Legislative branches to attempt to assure that we won't go to Nationalized for awhile. They also have P.R. people who filter information through our Media to tie up the issue in the public mind (example: The media covering some obscure story about how some poor lady died on a waiting list for an organ, and it is blamed on a nationalized system. What is not mentioned is that not only is this occurance statistically unlikely, but that this occurance happends ALL THE TIME in unationalized systems). People believe the system won't work, then, for a variety of different reasons, but none based on hard data. The hard data points to a BETTER SYSTEM overall, despite it's problems. The issue is further tied up becuase it is intentionally turned into a Bi-partisen issue as well; "Republicans" being against a Nationalized system, "Democrates" being for it. This only makes things more confusing.
So...my contention is, if done correctly, we can have a Nationalized system here in the U.S.. I believe that we could have a system here that far exceeds what other countries are doing, given the overall wealth of our country. The only problem with this is that our Healthcare/insurance system can't pricegouge, underhand, and screw us with tighter regulation and Nationalization.
So, until we all stop thinking "it won't work" or "it'll never happend", and start thinking "How can we make this work" nothing will change.
My 2 cents.:asian:
OP
MountainSage
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #28
Before quoting any survey as proof of a position all must understand the premise of the survey, who wanted the survey, who specifically did the survey, and the sample size of the survey. Any organization can slant any survey to meet the need of the policies and desired results. I believe at the time this survey was done that the French delegate was the head honch at the UN.
Mountainsage
Mountainsage
OP
pknox
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #29
Excellent point. You definitely have to keep the source (and their intentions) in mind.
Ender
Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2003
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 21
The UN survey was on cost to consumer, accessibility, and regional coverage. In a socialized healthcare system cost to consumer is lower, but cost to taxpayers is much much higher. Ask any Canadian. also in the US, medical centers are located in heavy metropolitan areas. add to the fact that the US is much larger than France in terms land mass, you can see why it is easier to provide local coverage in France.
The US is number one in medical technology, medical expertise, and quality. No one even comes close. But higher technology and expetise comes with higher costs and if you add governmental bureaucracy, either technology goes down or inefficiency goes up. you can't buy a mercedes ate Huyndai prices, plain and simple.
Also, the healthcare industry IS an economic entity. I worked for a medical test equipment manufacturer and decisions were based on the economy, cost, and politics. For example, We were to endeavor in a project to create the ability to anaylze 145 tests from a single sample of blood. The costs to do these tests were to be around $145. At that time, 8 tests were done on a single sample at a lab cost of $75. in essence you were getting more tests by magnitude of 15. Hillary and Co. were proposing to socialize the healthcare industry (which is 1/7 of the economy), and all costing for testing would be frozen or had to go thru governmental approval. The project was stopped because the company could not see making enough money to produce these machines. So you lose innovation and incentive for companies to come out with new technology. eventually the project was restarted.
another point is you need to find a way to increase resources without "stealing" doctors from other countries.
The way to drive down costs is to have a greater pool of trained personnel, higher technology to replace older processes. technology decreases in costs after it is common place (example: cell phones, x ray machines etc.) Very few new technologies come from government agencies.
The US is number one in medical technology, medical expertise, and quality. No one even comes close. But higher technology and expetise comes with higher costs and if you add governmental bureaucracy, either technology goes down or inefficiency goes up. you can't buy a mercedes ate Huyndai prices, plain and simple.
Also, the healthcare industry IS an economic entity. I worked for a medical test equipment manufacturer and decisions were based on the economy, cost, and politics. For example, We were to endeavor in a project to create the ability to anaylze 145 tests from a single sample of blood. The costs to do these tests were to be around $145. At that time, 8 tests were done on a single sample at a lab cost of $75. in essence you were getting more tests by magnitude of 15. Hillary and Co. were proposing to socialize the healthcare industry (which is 1/7 of the economy), and all costing for testing would be frozen or had to go thru governmental approval. The project was stopped because the company could not see making enough money to produce these machines. So you lose innovation and incentive for companies to come out with new technology. eventually the project was restarted.
another point is you need to find a way to increase resources without "stealing" doctors from other countries.
The way to drive down costs is to have a greater pool of trained personnel, higher technology to replace older processes. technology decreases in costs after it is common place (example: cell phones, x ray machines etc.) Very few new technologies come from government agencies.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Overall quality was a factor also in that survay...something yall convienently left out.
All I am saying is that there are ways to do it, and until we get our arrogent, egocentric idea out of our little heads that our CURRENT system is the best we can do, we won't start thinking of ways to do better.
There are many options to explore. We could possibly do it by state, taking away the problem of our large "land Mass." We could do it in such ways where things aren't getting tied up in a huge Government Beaurocracy. We can do things in such a way were we don't violate healthy competition among companies who would explore technology, medicine, and cures. Perhaps our "national" plan is more like "National insurance coverage" with a bear minimum coverage, and companies and individuals can pay for additional insurance. Perhaps we can have different tiers for working people as well, so someone who is unemployed for years and years, but who has the ability to work, won't just milk off a "socialized" system.
Corporate bureaucracy is just as bad as Government bureaucracy when your getting price gauged to death so it can end up in a few peoples pockets.
And..it doesn't have to be a huge raise to our tax $$ if we can re-appropriate currently misappropriated funds.
Hilary's plan didn't go through cause it sucked. But that doesn't mean that we can't make it work.
We are the United States of America, for cryin' out loud. We should have higher standards for ourselves, and we should not be satisfied with the millions of people out there today w/o healthcare, or with substandard care at best. We can do better. I think that it is unpatriotic to think that we can't. We should start electing people into our government who will actually work on a plan to improve our system gradually, rather then electing people who won't because they are in too many pockets.
But, we never will improve as long as our minds remain closed...
All I am saying is that there are ways to do it, and until we get our arrogent, egocentric idea out of our little heads that our CURRENT system is the best we can do, we won't start thinking of ways to do better.
There are many options to explore. We could possibly do it by state, taking away the problem of our large "land Mass." We could do it in such ways where things aren't getting tied up in a huge Government Beaurocracy. We can do things in such a way were we don't violate healthy competition among companies who would explore technology, medicine, and cures. Perhaps our "national" plan is more like "National insurance coverage" with a bear minimum coverage, and companies and individuals can pay for additional insurance. Perhaps we can have different tiers for working people as well, so someone who is unemployed for years and years, but who has the ability to work, won't just milk off a "socialized" system.
Corporate bureaucracy is just as bad as Government bureaucracy when your getting price gauged to death so it can end up in a few peoples pockets.
And..it doesn't have to be a huge raise to our tax $$ if we can re-appropriate currently misappropriated funds.
Hilary's plan didn't go through cause it sucked. But that doesn't mean that we can't make it work.
We are the United States of America, for cryin' out loud. We should have higher standards for ourselves, and we should not be satisfied with the millions of people out there today w/o healthcare, or with substandard care at best. We can do better. I think that it is unpatriotic to think that we can't. We should start electing people into our government who will actually work on a plan to improve our system gradually, rather then electing people who won't because they are in too many pockets.
But, we never will improve as long as our minds remain closed...
Somehow, we should provide decent coverage to everyone.
Technically one can always go to the ER of the County hospital, but that just isn't enough.
A friend once told me that Ireland covers all minors, but adults not necessarily.
Technically one can always go to the ER of the County hospital, but that just isn't enough.
A friend once told me that Ireland covers all minors, but adults not necessarily.
Old Tiger
Green Belt
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 1
I suggest you do as originally suggested and check into the QUALITY of care provided in countries where socialized type medicine exists. Waiting times to see a doctor, you don't get to choose your doctor or care facility, surgical wait times are horrendous.
The US has the best quality healthcare in the world, comparitively. Why? Greed. Greed is good. It motivates university research facitlities in conjunction with major corporations and doctors to develop the best medicines and care treatments in the world. I suggest that you research the long term effects on your taxes if such a system was implemented.
Answer: buy health insurance.
Say you can't afford it?? B@#$sh#t People afford whatever is important to them. House, car, drugs, four wheelers....etc. Is your health important to you?? buy insurance. Pissed off at what it cost? Then support efforts to stop the billions of dollars a year that are lost to fraud. Any time the government "socializes" anything your rights of choice disappear. Enough of our rights have been eroded without losing right of choice regarding our health care
Remember....the "Welfare system" in our country was never supposed to exceed 3% of the Federal Budget. Now it is over 25% and who pays for that? YOU DO
The US has the best quality healthcare in the world, comparitively. Why? Greed. Greed is good. It motivates university research facitlities in conjunction with major corporations and doctors to develop the best medicines and care treatments in the world. I suggest that you research the long term effects on your taxes if such a system was implemented.
Answer: buy health insurance.
Say you can't afford it?? B@#$sh#t People afford whatever is important to them. House, car, drugs, four wheelers....etc. Is your health important to you?? buy insurance. Pissed off at what it cost? Then support efforts to stop the billions of dollars a year that are lost to fraud. Any time the government "socializes" anything your rights of choice disappear. Enough of our rights have been eroded without losing right of choice regarding our health care
Remember....the "Welfare system" in our country was never supposed to exceed 3% of the Federal Budget. Now it is over 25% and who pays for that? YOU DO
You're right--the Canadian and British systems have serious problems, notably wait-times. People from those countries sometimes buy their care here if thgey can afford to do so because of the wait times!
But Scandinavian countries do OK--at the price of terribly high taxes.
We subsidize people with Social Security, Unemployment...why not Health Care?
But Scandinavian countries do OK--at the price of terribly high taxes.
We subsidize people with Social Security, Unemployment...why not Health Care?
Old Tiger
Green Belt
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 1
Scandinavian countries have far less population to manage. But they pay outrageous taxes for this "priviledge". Also, check out their statistics as to how much of the population is employed. It wouldn't fly here.
We would do much better if we put a time limit (as in Germany) on how long a person can draw welfare benefits if they are able to work. Unemployment is limited. You have to go back to work. It is state governed. Social security never took into account that in fifty years from it inception that the fastest growing part of the population would be over 85. That due to our high quality health care, people are living 22% longer than they used to. All of these "social" programs have removed from our psyche what was once an overwhelming feature of the American mentality. Saving Money.
These are comparitively minor problems that politicians use to draw our focus away from more serious issues. Such as the fact that our country is six trillion dollars in debt to private individuals. The removal of your rights in legislation passed after 9/11. A self perpetuating welfare system. There is so much going on behind the scenes these issues are penny ante. We worry about should we have socialized medicine, we scream about dwindling social security funds... but we send 18 Billion dollars to some african country we never heard of... The truth is to a great extent documented but people don't read anymore. Don't question anymore. Don't stand up and say "excuse me.." anymore. And the really funny part is that when someone presents information revealing something questionable that has happened or is going on, we laugh and say "no way!" Let me give you an example: If you believe the purilent blather you hear on the tv news, and what you read in magazines at face value you are in real trouble.
Our government was designed to be complicated enough so as to slow down any changes that could be made before the public could react and say "hey, wait a minute!" But when the public no longer cares or raises its voice our "elected leaders" are in full control. Now days we elect people to office because we are comfortable with what THEY say they want to do. Not because we are convinced that they will represent what WE want them to do.
OP
MountainSage
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #36
I with Catch; I have also seen numerous examples of people whining about health insurance cost while wearing expensive cloths and driving expensive cars, the term expensive is relative. We all make choices in our lives and must live with the results. My wife and I pay $400/per month for health insurance and pay for additional eye glass, dentist, long term health care and cancer policies. Arnisador, you want to add a third mistake on top of the two you listed. Three strikes and your out. Bottomline is that our society can't save everybody and the liberals are going to have to accept that if you don't adapted to your situation then you go away.
Mountainsage
Mike Wood
Mountainsage
Mike Wood
There will always be people out there who fall into the extreme ends of the curve for distribution.
Yet, I have seen people with Cable and PAY channels for HBO, etc, and they have big screen TV's and DVD players and stereo's and all kinds of toys and gadgets. They go out to eat every night and the go to the movies, and they do lots of things. SOme of these people make lots of money, some of these people do not make that much money at all, yet they all have what they want, and can have right now. They want health care only when they need it. Not when they are planning on how to spend there money.
Now to let you know yes I do make lots of money and have health care, I do have a 1981 18" TV and one 1988 small boombox for a stereo, hand me down dining room table and chairs, an old couch and love seat that have seen better days, and my bed only has a frame no head or foot boards. Why? What is important to me. I have cable modem, because I want it, I have an older 700 MHz PC, because I built back in the day. I have a new motorcycle and truck because I financed them and now have no spare cash. Yet these the items are what I wanted.
At my place of work, I have to choose and pay for health care above and beyond that of the base insurance. The Base insurance is Blue Cross Blue Shield. To get HAP or some other HMO would cost me about $3500 to $8000 a year more. Now, I do not knwo the reason why it would cost me so much more? Other than that it most likely cost 's the company more. At the 80/20, base insurance where I have to pay for office visits and perscriptions, until my deductible of $500, and 20% of of everything after the $500 and test and other care. I would have to have $32,000 in medical to break even on the out of pocket to match the $4,000 HMO. And with BCBS has a large value for individual payout per case or incident then the HMO's.
The HMO is what most people want, they just go to the doctor and it is covered, yet why is it so expensive compared to traditional insurance?
So, if we had a nationalize insurance program we would have to have it so everyone could go to the doctor, with no cost to them at that time. So, This cost would have to be paid be everyone, or those who pay taxes.
So, what is important to you. Call your congress person and let them know. If they do not listen in two years you can re-elect your representative and this will send a message to the rest as well as to the senators from your state. Let them know this is important, and follow through and follow up and have them send you the actual legislation, not just the write up from one party of the other. Get involved, and make your voice heard, the only way to make a difference is to care and get involved. Do not make it a party issue, or religious issue, just make it an issue and then you can try to make a difference.
Yet, I have seen people with Cable and PAY channels for HBO, etc, and they have big screen TV's and DVD players and stereo's and all kinds of toys and gadgets. They go out to eat every night and the go to the movies, and they do lots of things. SOme of these people make lots of money, some of these people do not make that much money at all, yet they all have what they want, and can have right now. They want health care only when they need it. Not when they are planning on how to spend there money.
Now to let you know yes I do make lots of money and have health care, I do have a 1981 18" TV and one 1988 small boombox for a stereo, hand me down dining room table and chairs, an old couch and love seat that have seen better days, and my bed only has a frame no head or foot boards. Why? What is important to me. I have cable modem, because I want it, I have an older 700 MHz PC, because I built back in the day. I have a new motorcycle and truck because I financed them and now have no spare cash. Yet these the items are what I wanted.
At my place of work, I have to choose and pay for health care above and beyond that of the base insurance. The Base insurance is Blue Cross Blue Shield. To get HAP or some other HMO would cost me about $3500 to $8000 a year more. Now, I do not knwo the reason why it would cost me so much more? Other than that it most likely cost 's the company more. At the 80/20, base insurance where I have to pay for office visits and perscriptions, until my deductible of $500, and 20% of of everything after the $500 and test and other care. I would have to have $32,000 in medical to break even on the out of pocket to match the $4,000 HMO. And with BCBS has a large value for individual payout per case or incident then the HMO's.
The HMO is what most people want, they just go to the doctor and it is covered, yet why is it so expensive compared to traditional insurance?
So, if we had a nationalize insurance program we would have to have it so everyone could go to the doctor, with no cost to them at that time. So, This cost would have to be paid be everyone, or those who pay taxes.
So, what is important to you. Call your congress person and let them know. If they do not listen in two years you can re-elect your representative and this will send a message to the rest as well as to the senators from your state. Let them know this is important, and follow through and follow up and have them send you the actual legislation, not just the write up from one party of the other. Get involved, and make your voice heard, the only way to make a difference is to care and get involved. Do not make it a party issue, or religious issue, just make it an issue and then you can try to make a difference.
Ender
Black Belt
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2003
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 21
socialized healthcare plans will kill innovation, medical technology, competiton, and will bankrupt us. it's not going to cost us pennies, or dollars, or hundreds of dollars to each taxpayer. it will be thousands of dollars in new taxes...and our healthcare will sink to the depths like medicare.....corrupt, wasteful and fraudulent. you will have to wait weeks to get an appointment. months to have surgery, and hospital conditions will become like county hospitals.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #39
There are some things that yelling about the perils of socialized medicine and the welfare state, while relying upon a social Darwinist concept of the issues, aren't going to change.
First off--you're worried about rationing, lack of access to care, etc? Anybody going to seriously contend that we don't have that now, under our present "system?"
Second off--anybody seriously willing to contend that it is either fair or moral to have poor kids hurt for lack of care?
Third off--am I wrong, or do countries like Holland and Denmark, those wacky radicals, have far better stats on every single index of health?
Fourth--is it just me, or is it contradictory to argue that we should just bite the bullet and make some rational choices about what we can pay for as a society, then almost simultaneously attack these, "liberals," because they argue for getting together and making rational choices about health care?
Fifth--is it just me, or does every study I've ever seen demonstrate pretty conclusively that we would, nationally, save money with national health care?
Sixth--it's all very well to think that we have private care now. We don't. It's pretty much gone the way of family farms--it's corporate care.
Oh well, it's prolly just me.
First off--you're worried about rationing, lack of access to care, etc? Anybody going to seriously contend that we don't have that now, under our present "system?"
Second off--anybody seriously willing to contend that it is either fair or moral to have poor kids hurt for lack of care?
Third off--am I wrong, or do countries like Holland and Denmark, those wacky radicals, have far better stats on every single index of health?
Fourth--is it just me, or is it contradictory to argue that we should just bite the bullet and make some rational choices about what we can pay for as a society, then almost simultaneously attack these, "liberals," because they argue for getting together and making rational choices about health care?
Fifth--is it just me, or does every study I've ever seen demonstrate pretty conclusively that we would, nationally, save money with national health care?
Sixth--it's all very well to think that we have private care now. We don't. It's pretty much gone the way of family farms--it's corporate care.
Oh well, it's prolly just me.
First, off it is not just you, Robert.
Second, I am only discussing itme five here, as the rest I do not have any additional data to argue for or against.
Could you point out to me, which reports show conclusively that money will be saved. Like any greedy American, I want to save money. Would it be better to contract out this service to these other countries who have shown success? not jsut model there plans, actually contract it out, to get their people in to our haces to make it happen?
Curious
- Status
Similar threads
