|
Weiser as smarty-pants:
============== Well, that's a particularly silly statement, given the fact that the vast majority of your "huge country" is uninhabited and uninhabitable. =============== And that's a particularly stupid statement gven that your system (your whole country, relative to Canada) has economies of scale (or is that an unknown concept to you?). It basically matters not what we're talking about -- healthcare, railways, highways, telecommunications, etc -- the per capita cost of providing services in Canada will be higher -- significantly higher -- than similar costs in the USA. So my point remains: even at similar levels of service, Canadian costs (hence taxes) will be higher. . frtzw906 |
Wilko on rick:
============== NB: Obviously there's enough for him to like about Canada to want to keep on going there from Ohoho. ============== I wonder if he's a cheap ******* and brings all his *Mart stuff with him from the USA or if he spends the odd dollar in Ontario. If the latter is the case, then he must be happy to know that his contributions to Ontario's sales tax help keep KMAN healthy GRIN. What I find curious about rick on this topic is that, while he is happy to trash Canadian healthcare, I've never actually seen him post his approval of the American system. In the previous thread, he purposefully refused to get into a discussion of comparisons. Personally, I think he's afraid of a comparative analysis. I think beyond his constant bleating about "People have died in lines!" he has nothing further to say. Also interesting, he, like Scott, has not offerred an opinion of what medical premiums for full medical coverage (no deductible) for a family of 4 might be in the USA. I think rick is a one note samba. Cheers, frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message k.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... rick, can you not stay on-topic on the OT thread? Why do we care what KMAN said on another thread? Why not resume your "did too" stance over there... ======================== Because you ailed to stay on-topic of the off-topic post. You are the one that mentioned the thead, and continued you 'side' of it. And, in case you failed to notice, I replied to kman after he responded to me. LOL. After I hit him first he hit me back and all I was doing was hitting him back! ======================= Fine, live with your delusions. I have the satisfaction of knowing that you have recanted your lies. Thanks or that little laugh... Teehee. It's pretty obvious that you try, and you try, and you try, and you try, but you don't get no...oh no no no! |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Tink: ================ Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch. ==================== Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an entire system. It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone. And you know what, if the critique were coming from someone in Australia, or Germany, or France or whereever we could lean something about how to do things better, I wouldn't mind so much. But what can we learn from the American system? First, let's be clear: we tried the American system and rejected it. Yeah, freedom and liberty are SO unnecessary... it's not like Canada doesn't have experience with privatized medicine. that's what we had before we went universal. And that's what you'll have shortly, after your socialized system fails completely. As it is, many Canadians are coming to the US to get immediate medical care they can't get in Canada. I'll take expensive medical care I can get on demand to cheap medical care I can't get when I need it. I'll figure out how to pay for it later. As to what we can learn; that's simple. America is good at providing excellent care, quickly, if (and this is a huge IF), you can pay for it. Which makes it a good idea to stay healthy or save a lot of money against future medical problems. Why should anyone else have to bail you out if you don't use good judgment? I don't need to know much more about the American system than what Frederick has outlined. That's enough to convince me that it needs fixing in a bad way. There's no way a decent, hard-working, family should have to live with such stress. Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? What a stupid way to treat the people who make your system work and make your country great. It's dehumanizing. It's STUPID! It's life. Sometimes you die. So what? Big deal. There'll be another one just like you along in a few years. Death comes to us all, eventually. Get used to it. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Weiser on caring for others:
============== Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? =============== Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism and using community instead. I think caring for your neighbors is a part of what it means to be a member of a community. My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this task. This is what it means to be a member of a community. Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving a damn about your fellow human. Spit out the bile, Scott. frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Tink: ================ Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch. ==================== Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an entire system. It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone. Why do you have socialized education? |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Wilko on rick: ============== NB: Obviously there's enough for him to like about Canada to want to keep on going there from Ohoho. ============== I wonder if he's a cheap ******* and brings all his *Mart stuff with him from the USA or if he spends the odd dollar in Ontario. If the latter is the case, then he must be happy to know that his contributions to Ontario's sales tax help keep KMAN healthy GRIN. What I find curious about rick on this topic is that, while he is happy to trash Canadian healthcare, ========================== Actually all you've seen me do is trash a lie. Unlike you, I have never claimed any one system better than all the others. That wasn't the purpose of my original post. That you have to continue to make the subject something other than what I posted tells me that I was right on the money the first time, because you have spent alot of time replying without ever refuting what I originally posted. I've never actually seen him post his approval of the American system. In the previous thread, he purposefully refused to get into a discussion of comparisons. =============== Because that wasn't what I was replying to. Again, that you have to change the subject indicates I was right. Personally, I think he's afraid of a comparative analysis. I think beyond his constant bleating about "People have died in lines!" he has nothing further to say. ==================== LOL What part of the original post don't you understand? I replied to a lie. I backed up my assertions, and all you've een doing is changing the subject. Also interesting, he, like Scott, has not offerred an opinion of what medical premiums for full medical coverage (no deductible) for a family of 4 might be in the USA. I think rick is a one note samba. ================ I think you'll do anything to keep rom discussing the originl post I made. Says alot about your ideology. Cheers, frtzw906 |
rick:
=============== I think you'll do anything to keep rom discussing the originl post I made. Says alot about your ideology. ============= This has NOTHING to do with your original post. Please check the first post in this thread... I believe it is by Scott. You've come in after the fact and are as much a one-note-samba as before. It is clear you have nothing to add. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser: ============== "The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation." ================ This is perhaps an interesting basis for discussion. While I'm not sure how accurate these figures are, let's just accept them, for the time being, and try to establish a discussion around healthcare costs. By those figures, a Canadian earning $50,000 per year pays $800 per month for full coverage (no deductible) medical care (for his/her entire family -- let's assume a family of 4). Now we need to know how much a family of 4, in the USA, would pay for full medical coverage. First you need to recognize that Canadians aren't paying for "full coverage" for themselves, they are paying for full coverage for everyone, whether they themselves ever need any medical care at all, whether they like it or not, and they have absolutely no choice in the matter. In the US, if you pay for full coverage, you are at least only paying for YOUR coverage, not for covering some chain-smoking, 450 pound diabetic with emphysema and heart disease. Thus, you'll get far better care in the US for your $800 than is even possible in Canada, because all of those premiums are dedicated to your benefits, not the benefits of everybody else in the country. What we know from Frederick is that it is, from his perspective, an onerous amount (greater than his mortgage). Perhaps Scott can provide us with this information and others can confirm the veracity. The second thing you need to realize is that each person's (or family's) health care needs are different, and are the responsibility of the individuals affected, not the taxpayers. If Frederick doesn't like his situation, it's up to him to change it, or accept that he may not be able to afford the finest of all possible health care for every sniffle and scraped knee. Kids in the Sudan, and most everywhere else in the third world don't get much, if any, health care, so whining about how much one's insurance costs seems rather petty and insignificant. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick: =============== I think you'll do anything to keep rom discussing the originl post I made. Says alot about your ideology. ============= This has NOTHING to do with your original post. Please check the first post in this thread... I believe it is by Scott. You've come in after the fact and are as much a one-note-samba as before. ====================== LOL Try to keep up, or at least don't dishonestly snip out entire posts and then reply to them the way you want them to say now. I did reply to YOU at the first of this thread, not scott. If you wouldn't have snipped it all out, you would have noticed that you referenced me, by name, about the previous posting and subject. Too far back for you to remember that? It is clear you have nothing to add. =============== It's clear that you have nothing to refute the sites that I posted, and are desperate to again change the subject, even after bringing it up yourself. frtzw906 |
Scott opines:
============== First you need to recognize that Canadians aren't paying for "full coverage" for themselves, they are paying for full coverage for everyone, whether they themselves ever need any medical care at all, whether they like it or not, and they have absolutely no choice in the matter. =============== There you go! I think you've grasped the general nature of INSURANCE. Well done, Scott! frtzw906 |
Wilko, why do I not listen to you?!
I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like baby **** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread, and he brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still stuck to it. Wilf |
A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
BCITORGB, don't waste yer time arguing with Weiser on this. The rag he is quoting is obviously some wing-nut publication, because they don't even have a fact-checker to read the article for internal consistency. Darn that Associated Press, they are SUCH a fly-by-night organization... I mean, consider this: the author asserts that Canadians pay (on average) 48% of their income in taxes, "partly for health care". Then she asserts that the Ontario gubmint spends 40% of tax revenues on health care. Then she expostulates: "Wow! Forty-eight percent of income for health care that you can't get when you need it. What a bargain!" Actually, that was me expostulating. Watch for the quote marks... As for the statement, it's true, if somewhat ambiguous. Canadians pay 48 percent in income taxes, and for that 48 percent they get (in part) health care they can't get when they need it. They do likely get other things like roads and condoms too, but the point remains: They pay for universal health care that they can't get timely access to because, well, it's socialized, and as anyone with half a brain knows, socialism doesn't work, ever. It may appear to work for awhile, but eventually the whole system fails because of the "free rider" syndrome. If you can get it for free from the government, why bother to work to earn it? I mean, gee-Zeus, that is just too ****ing inumerate for words! 40% of 48% is about 19% of Ontareans' income spent on health care, not 48%! This idiot author is arguing from completely baseless figures. And the publication may very well be deliberately ignoring the arithmetical stupidity, deliberately skewing the facts of the story, in order to make some kind of right-wing partisan point. And Scott is moron enough to read and believe this ****. And you're too stupid to parse a post properly, much less comprehend the finer points involved. Please, trust me: don't waste yer time arguing with a narrow-minded Tory(who evidently cannot even perform the simple mathematical calculation needed to expose his sources as bogus) and non-boater (who is exercising his legal right to be a rude mother-****er by intruding on a newsgroup dedicated to a sport he does not even participate in) Ah, but *participation* is not the metric for posting to RBP, "interest" in paddling is. And I'm intensely interested in paddling (which, BTW, I have "participated"in in the past), considering how often I have to personally deal with rude mother-****ers like you who illegally intrude on my privacy by trespassing on my private property. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott Weiser wrote:
Frederick Burroughs wrote: BCITORGB wrote: But what I find interesting about Frederick's story is that KMAN, Michael, and BCITORGB don't know what it is like being denied insurance coverage because of diabetes or cholesterol issues. We have no idea about the trauma or stress one might feel as the insurance companies jack up the premiums or outright deny coverage. Frederick states that "health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles". I don't have the figures at hand; perhaps the taxes I pay in Canada, and the portion thereof that goes to healthcare, are equal to or greater than Frederick's monthly premiums (somehow I doubt it). However, I do know that I'll always have that coverage. I could lose my health insurance at any time. If I were to change jobs, any potential new employer would have to weigh the added burden of putting a diabetic on their insurance policy. Thus, my job options become much more limited. My present employer could decide to drop insurance coverage (this happened to my wife). As I said before, most insurance companies would deny me coverage. (Cherry-picking is the vernacular for this common practice.) I would be **** out of luck, not to mention the burden placed on a family where dad has serious medical issues and can't get insurance. The threat of loss of insurance is a constant and pervasive source of worry for me, despite the sizable contributions I have paid into it over the years. That was your first mistake. Instead of paying for insurance, which is pretty much like throwing money down the sewer, you should have been taking that money and investing it, or saving it under your mattress for that matter, for a "rainy day" medical emergency, and paying for minor stuff out of pocket. You'd be way ahead of the game if you had done so. Health insurance is a mug's game. It's a massive fraud perpetrated on the people and the only thing is does is make the insurance companies and their investors rich. Figure out some time how much you've paid in premiums over time versus how much medical care you've actually *needed* (not the "convenience healthcare" where you go in because you've got the flu just so the doctor can tell you to go home and tough it out) and figure out exactly how much you *really* paid for your essential health care. It's way too much, I guarantee it. What's more, if you are an average working Joe, it's a complete waste of money because if you get *really* ill, and require emergency life-saving care in the US, you will get it. You can't be turned down by any federally-funded hospital if it's a matter of life and death. Of course, piles aren't a life or death matter, so you may have to stick with Preparation H rather than getting surgery, but that's your problem, not mine or the rest of society's. And lest you think I'm being callous, I'm in *exactly* the same position you are. I don't have, and can't get health insurance. But I don't whine about it, I just figure out how to pay for it myself while not expecting others to pay my bills for me. Personal responsibility is a very liberating thing. Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles. But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their noses) and it encourages you to save money. Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics. Most of our "savings" are going into my son's college fund. So, should we short his education in order to stuff more into "my" rainy-day health care mattress? If I require hospitalization and don't have insurance, then I become indebted to the hospital and doctors for the entire bill. There goes my son's education, again. And, what happens if I lose a foot (or suffer some other debilitating complication from diabetes; heart disease, kidney disease, stroke...), and am unable to work because of a disability? I guess we can sell the house and other personal property to help pay the bills. My wife can get a 2nd and 3rd job, and my son can kiss college good-bye. Or, maybe my wife should take the financially sound course and divorce me? Along with my choice of being the recipient of bad genetics (or, was it the immunoglobulin shot I got when I was 8 years old, to hyperactivate my immune system against the measles going around the neighborhood at the time. [Should I sue the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical company who manufactured the immunoglobulin [[or, the donor(s) of the virus infected blood from which the immunoglobulin was derived?]]]), there was my personal decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible, manageable, efficient and affordable system. -- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott cites: ============= The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, ============= And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay? The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits. BWAHAHAHAHA That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips. Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking." That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care for onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by taking from everyone else to cover your bad health. BWAHAHAHAHAHA That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the government health plan!!! Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which is bad for your liver. That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always. That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has been all but eliminated there. I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose. What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to heal them when they screw up. None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual from obtaining private medical insurance That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well here. I wonder how they stay in business? By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised to put in the bank. and forces them into the public system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism. Yup, very uncaring, trying to ensure that everyone has access to good quality health care. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just ask Stalin's victims. I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the government. We are all (at least those of us up north) thrilled to hear that! I thought you might be. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ============= The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits. That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care for onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by taking from everyone else to cover your bad health. That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always. None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual from obtaining private medical insurance and forces them into the public system. That's the essence of uncaring socialism. I'll stick with the US system, thanks. At least here, I can get whatever health care I need when I need it, without asking the permission of the government. What a MAROON! Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the Spanish. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser, puffing up his macho chest, blusters: ================= If I get sick, either I come up with a way to pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's. ================ But very CLEARLY, if you'd bothered to respond to ALL the data I provided (not just the stuff convenient to you), I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody else's post. I lose track of which Netwit I'm debating with, you're all so much the same. you'd also realize that, in your attitude lies the answer to lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality rates in the USA. Very obviously, people in the USA do NOT take responsibility for their health or, more likely, many can't afford to. So what? That's their free choice, isn't it? The idea that the government has some duty or obligation to provide universal medical care is an extremely dangerous one because it's a direct path down the slippery slope of government regulation of behavior and conduct it deems "too dangerous" or "too likely to result in unnecessary medical costs." When you let government go there, the result is the ultimate Nanny State in which you are not allowed to do or own anything that might be deemed harmful to you because it might end up costing the government money. That would likely include dangerous sports like, oh, kayaking. You want proof? Try "mandatory seat belt laws" on for size. Time for the class to discuss the issue of government boating bans based on "unnecessary risks to rescuers" rationales. Anyone? Anyone? I'd rather live in a free society where I'm free to injure or kill myself in whatever way pleases me because my government doesn't think it's going to cost the taxpayers money if I do. Thank god there's not many like you up here! Be careful what you wish for. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Also interesting, he, like Scott, has not offerred an opinion of what medical premiums for full medical coverage (no deductible) for a family of 4 might be in the USA. I have no idea. Nor do I care. I don't buy in to the fraud and I'm glad I finally saw the light and got out. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Frederick summarizes:
=========== there was my personal decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible, manageable, efficient and affordable system. ================ Frederick, I get the impression from Scott's posts that he has no responsibilities for anyone other than himself. I suspect he can't even begin to comprehend what it might be like putting children through school and worrying about their health. Many years ago, when I was in my early twenties, and well before I had kids, I used to spout such nonsense too. I used to read Ayn Rand and pontificate at length about personal responsibility, and "tough ****" on those who can't fend for themselves, and "who asked you to have kids" and everyone should pay their own way and blah, blah, blah..... AND THEN I GREW UP! And then I realised that we're all in this together and that we are all interdependent. That we are only as strong as our weakest link (BTW, I understand that's a basic tenet of military tactics -- how very socialist!). I learned to make connections: perhaps if my neighbors kids were well educated and healthy, I wouldn't have to worry about them vandalizing the neighborhood. Perhaps if my neighbors could all go to the doctor as required, I would have less to fear from contagious diseases. CONNECTIONS. I wish Scott could make the connections. Geez he must live in a sad and lonely, heartless world! Cheers, Wilf |
Scott thnks:
=========== I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody else's post. ============ Nope! What about the lines pertaining to life expectancies and infant motality and measures of overall health system efficacy? frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Wilko, why do I not listen to you?! I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like baby **** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread, and he brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still stuck to it. ====================== No, you brought it back. You are the one that replayed the last thread. I see you still can't provide an informed opinion on it. Wilf |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser on caring for others: ============== Why not? Why should their health problems cause a financial burden for me? Why should I have to pay for heart surgery for people who eat McDonalds till they weigh 450 pounds and clog up their arteries with plaque? Isn't that THEIR problem? Shouldn't THEY be responsible for their own health, and for paying for fixing what's wrong with them? What justifies imposing that financial burden on other people? =============== Hmmm.... where to begin? Let's start by throwing out the term socialism and using community instead. Let's not. Let's call socialism exactly what it is. I think caring for your neighbors is a part of what it means to be a member of a community. I agree. The difference is that I believe that it's up to YOU whether you choose to do so out of altruism, guilt or whatever emotion you choose. What I don't agree with is the idea that unwilling partners can be required to "care for" their neighbors by having the government forcibly take money from them to give to someone who is most likely not a neighbor at all, but is more likely to be some alcoholic with a damaged liver who got that way not because he was concerned about the "community" but because he was interested in going to hell in his own way while expecting other people to pay for it. My elderly neighbor occasionally needs a ride to the hospital. I offer to drive her. I don't ask her whether she might not have avoided her maladies if she'd taken better care of her health in earlier years! I just drive her. Another elderly neighbor has difficulty getting her trash can to the street on collection day. My kids or I take on this task. This is what it means to be a member of a community. Good for you. That's very charitable and altruistic of you. Nothing whatever wrong with your doing so. You are free to spend as much of your time and money as you wish doing so. You are even free to get together with like-minded neighbors and pool money through some organization to hire people do do it. What's wrong, however, is to use the Mace of State to force someone who doesn't freely choose to participate in that altruism, to pay for what you think "community" ought to be. Universal medical insurance is also about community. It's about giving a damn about your fellow human. No, it's about coercive force, sometimes at the point of a gun. Down here in the USA, we have a little right we call the right to "freedom of association." Under that right, we have the right to freely gather together with whomever we please, whenever we please, in a peaceable manner. Inherent in that right is the equally protected right of *dis*association. Just as we are free to associate with others, we are free NOT to associate with them, and that includes the right to NOT be required to subsidize or support their particular lifestyle. For example, I have no interest in paying for the medical expenses of those who contract AIDS as a result of engaging in unprotected sex. I should not be forced to do so by the government, whether directly or through socialized medicine. They did the deed, they get to suffer the consequences. That may result in unfortunate circumstances for them, but I didn't do the deed, so why should I be made financially liable for their bad behavior? Spit out the bile, Scott. Altruism coming from the barrel of the taxman's gun is not altruism, it's slavery and oppression. I'll be altruistic and charitable to those whom *I* deem worthy of my charity and altruism, not who some government flack thinks is worthy, thank you very much. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Tink: ================ Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch. ==================== Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an entire system. It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone. Why do you have socialized education? Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight them all the time. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott opines: ============== First you need to recognize that Canadians aren't paying for "full coverage" for themselves, they are paying for full coverage for everyone, whether they themselves ever need any medical care at all, whether they like it or not, and they have absolutely no choice in the matter. =============== There you go! I think you've grasped the general nature of INSURANCE. Well done, Scott! Not quite. Insurance is something that people freely choose or decline, based on their own personal assessment of the various risks and costs. It's a voluntary contract with a private entity which exchanges a small sum on a regular basis for a promise of full compensation should a covered event occur. Canada's socialized medicine system is not "insurance" by any stretch of the imagination. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles. But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their noses) and it encourages you to save money. Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics. Most of our "savings" are going into my son's college fund. So, should we short his education in order to stuff more into "my" rainy-day health care mattress? That's a decision you should have made before having children. Why should society bail you out of your lack of foresight and planning? Besides, your son ought to be able to work his way through college, as many millions of young people have done for a very long time. He'll be a better student if he has to work for his education, just ask any party-girl at CU who isn't smart enough to change a light bulb but gets to go to college and party for four years because daddy's paying for it. Students who work their way through college understand the value of a dollar and the amount of hard work it takes to earn the educational privilege college offers. Do you children a BIG favor and spend their inheritance and college fund on yourself. Force them to become responsible, intelligent, hard-working citizens, not self-indulgent, selfish, lazy layabouts with no work ethic. You'll be doing society a favor too. If I require hospitalization and don't have insurance, then I become indebted to the hospital and doctors for the entire bill. Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem? There goes my son's education, again. Is your son disabled? Can he get a job? Is society going to have to take over for you after you're gone because you didn't give your son the proper work ethic and understanding of the costs of a college education. And, what happens if I lose a foot (or suffer some other debilitating complication from diabetes; heart disease, kidney disease, stroke...), and am unable to work because of a disability? I guess we can sell the house and other personal property to help pay the bills. My wife can get a 2nd and 3rd job, and my son can kiss college good-bye. That could happen. It would be unfortunate, though hardly unique. Again, why is that my problem? Perhaps you should have bought a smaller house, a cheaper car and saved more money. Your best bet is to invest your son's college fund in an emergency medical account and tell him he'd better look forward to working his ass off to be worthy of the privilege of a college degree. If your son truly understood the situation you're in, and if he was an ethical and compassionate son, he'd decline to take your money and offer to go to work to help you save enough to provide for your future medical needs. After all, he's lived on-the-cuff his whole life so far, right? Time for some payback. Sounds like you need it. Or, maybe my wife should take the financially sound course and divorce me? Why not? In today's society, she can do it and you can still live together just as you do now. Once more, why is that a problem for which I should be required to pay? Along with my choice of being the recipient of bad genetics (or, was it the immunoglobulin shot I got when I was 8 years old, to hyperactivate my immune system against the measles going around the neighborhood at the time. Life suck sometimes. I felt the same way when I was diagnosed. How is that your problem? [Should I sue the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical company who manufactured the immunoglobulin [[or, the donor(s) of the virus infected blood from which the immunoglobulin was derived?]]]), Probably a little late, but you can try if you want. there was my personal decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country that lacks a civilized health care system. So sue your parents or emigrate to Canada. I don't know, a single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible, manageable, efficient and affordable system. Except that they don't work, ever. And, they are immoral, unethical and fattening. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote: What a MAROON! Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the Spanish. What an idiot. Wolfgang |
Weiser states:
============== Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem? ============ Thanks, Scott, for the succinct summary of the philosophical underpinnings of the American approach to health care. Now let's all vote. All those in favor of the "Why is that my problem?" approach to public policy? [SIDEBAR: I think, "Why is that my problem?" is what Canada and other nations said when your guy went into Iraq.... HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Only sad bit about that is all poor young people who sacrificed for that folly. But, at least, they'll have socialized medicine when they come back, right?] frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Frederick summarizes: =========== there was my personal decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country that lacks a civilized health care system. I don't know, a single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible, manageable, efficient and affordable system. ================ Frederick, I get the impression from Scott's posts that he has no responsibilities for anyone other than himself. I suspect he can't even begin to comprehend what it might be like putting children through school and worrying about their health. Not true. I'm partly responsible for supporting a family of eight, including me. That's a choice I made knowingly and voluntarily, understanding completely the burden I was accepting. Every adult in this family wants the best for the children, but we also don't expect anyone else to provide that for them. We also know that the worst thing you can do for a child is to pamper and provide everything for them. We understand that adversity breeds character and that only through personal struggle do we come to understand the value of personal character and integrity. It may be that not all of the five children will be able to attend college on dad's dime. So what? What's important is that the children be raised to be strong, intelligent, self-assured, men and women who are capable of providing for themselves through the sweat of their own brows. Scholarship is much more important than college funds. Anybody with a college fund can go to college, but not all (or even most) of them deserve (or need) a college education, much less achieve the goal. If some of the children choose mediocrity, that's their choice. That will be unfortunate perhaps, although somebody has to flip burgers, but our responsibility is merely to prepare them to make that choice, not force it upon them unwillingly. However, an excellent young scholar, with a strong work ethic and good morals will be welcome at most colleges, including Ivy League schools, even if they don't have a dime from Mom and Dad. Does the word "Scholarship" ring a bell? As for their health, of course we all hope that they will be happy and healthy, but at the same time, we all recognize that the responsibility for providing for their medical needs is upon the parents, and that anyone else who participates does so out of love and altruism, not because they were coerced into it. Moreover, it's a fact that sometimes you die. In fact, everybody dies. That's just the way it is. People get sick too. It's sad and unfortunate, and one hopes that altruists in society will choose to help those who cannot afford proper medical care, including these kids if it becomes necessary. But we don't expect it, and we plan for the future accordingly and accept that fate may not always be kind. Many years ago, when I was in my early twenties, and well before I had kids, I used to spout such nonsense too. I used to read Ayn Rand and pontificate at length about personal responsibility, and "tough ****" on those who can't fend for themselves, and "who asked you to have kids" and everyone should pay their own way and blah, blah, blah..... AND THEN I GREW UP! And who paid for YOUR college education? Evidently they didn't get too much for their money. And then I realised that we're all in this together and that we are all interdependent. That we are only as strong as our weakest link (BTW, I understand that's a basic tenet of military tactics -- how very socialist!). I learned to make connections: perhaps if my neighbors kids were well educated and healthy, I wouldn't have to worry about them vandalizing the neighborhood. Perhaps if my neighbors could all go to the doctor as required, I would have less to fear from contagious diseases. CONNECTIONS. I wish Scott could make the connections. Geez he must live in a sad and lonely, heartless world! Nope. My world's just fine. But I don't whine about my plight and I don't blame others for my bad judgments a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with altruism, it's a wonderful thing, but it has to come from within, it cannot be imposed or coerced by external forces, nor should it be. Not everyone is deserving of altruism and charity, after all, and governments are notorious for failing to hold people accountable for their own mistakes. I don't object to altruism and charity, I merely wish to be left to decide for myself to whom I will extend it. What's wrong with that? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott thnks: =========== I believe I responded line by line to each cite...or was that somebody else's post. ============ Nope! What about the lines pertaining to life expectancies and infant motality and measures of overall health system efficacy? What about them? Sometimes you die. Get over it. I'd rather live with a somewhat (slightly) less efficacious system if it ensures that I get to make the decisions about my medical care. Liberty has costs, and that's one cost I'm glad to bear in order to be free of government interference in my health care choices. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote: What a MAROON! Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the Spanish. What an idiot. You certainly are. You're ignorant too. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser states: ============== Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem? ============ Thanks, Scott, for the succinct summary of the philosophical underpinnings of the American approach to health care. It's not just our approach to health care, it's our approach to nearly everything, to one degree or another. We are a people dedicated to liberty, which includes the liberty to screw up our own lives and the liberty not to be forced to pay for other people's mistakes and bad judgments. Now let's all vote. All those in favor of the "Why is that my problem?" approach to public policy? AYE! [SIDEBAR: I think, "Why is that my problem?" is what Canada and other nations said when your guy went into Iraq.... HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Which is fine with us, but it does mean that you don't get to share in the spoils of war. Only sad bit about that is all poor young people who sacrificed for that folly. Um...every one of our soldiers is a volunteer. But, at least, they'll have socialized medicine when they come back, right?] Ever been to a VA hospital? What a nightmare to be *required* to go to a VA hospital and be forbidden to seek your own hospital or surgeon. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott's query:
============= And who paid for YOUR college education? ============ Entirely financed by me. Left home after high school graduation at 17 and worked summer jobs to fund my education. I was smart enough (likely Scott will disagree) to seek out a union job as I wasn't keen on getting exploited (it didn't take me long to figure that out as some of my buddies were working for sleaze-ball nonunion shops). Occasionally we even agree, Scott. Right now, my daughter is at university and is there on her own dime. I gave her some money up front to get her started right out of high school which has all been paid back. Yes, you are correct, it does children good to know the value of a dollar. She's working part-time while attending school full-time and, like her father, she had the good sense to get herself a union job. Solidarity to you brother, and cheers to the working classes ;-) frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself Mark H. Bowen wrote: What a MAROON! Er, no, I've never been a slave, much less an escaped slave of the Spanish. What an idiot. You certainly are. You're ignorant too. Har, har! That's what I love about this place.......every time you turn around it's another totally unexpected original one and only one of a kind surprise! :) Wolfgang how DO you guys do it? |
|
|
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote: BCITORGB wrote: Scott cites: ============= The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, ============= And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay? My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us, health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A. Wah. I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's. Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else. Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy. The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I should be required to do so. You make a whole lot of typically incorrect assumptions. No one in my family smokes, or drinks in excess of healthy moderation. Our newest car is 5 years old. My canoe and kayak were bought having recreation and exercise equally in mind. As you know, exercise is especially important for diabetics. Along with hiking up and down the mountains around our home, I paddle. There are two wonderful rivers just a 10 minute's drive, and paddling is a quick, enjoyable, effective and addictive form of exercise. Hell, I don't even know I'm exercising except for slightly sore muscles at the end of the day. I will also utilize the kayak to fish. If I limit my fish take to the river free of mercury & pcb pollution, and to the local ponds, these will be a healthy addition to my diet. (Thanks to government monitoring for alerting the public to this health concern.) If I was healthy, and lived alone in the woods, and didn't give a **** about others, your health care suggestion might be an option worth consideration. However, family obligations and demanding health conditions make insurance the prudent choice. There are others besides myself involved in the calculations. Also, I'm happy that a small percentage of my local and state taxes go to support our local hospital, and supply our local emergency medical volunteers, and help to distribute vaccines and medicines to the community. Bizarre that any one would object to the socialization of health care since much of it works and is already based on a socialized, community-based model. -- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott's query: ============= And who paid for YOUR college education? ============ Entirely financed by me. Left home after high school graduation at 17 and worked summer jobs to fund my education. I was smart enough (likely Scott will disagree) to seek out a union job as I wasn't keen on getting exploited (it didn't take me long to figure that out as some of my buddies were working for sleaze-ball nonunion shops). Occasionally we even agree, Scott. Right now, my daughter is at university and is there on her own dime. I gave her some money up front to get her started right out of high school which has all been paid back. Yes, you are correct, it does children good to know the value of a dollar. She's working part-time while attending school full-time and, like her father, she had the good sense to get herself a union job. Solidarity to you brother, and cheers to the working classes ;-) Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 11:59 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/21/05 7:49 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Scott cites: ============= The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, ============= And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay? The author didn't say. However, the point is that *I* don't have to pay a major portion of my income for *your* bad health habits. BWAHAHAHAHA That's right, the insurance company doesn't make generalizations in setting your premium, they just look at you as Scotty Weiser and set a special rate based on the fact that you don't eat a lot of potato chips. Well, yes, in large part they do. It's called "cherry picking." That incentivizes me to stay healthy, since I know if I get sick, I have to pay for it or die. In Canada, there's no impetus to care for onesself because if you get sick, the government pays for everything...by taking from everyone else to cover your bad health. BWAHAHAHAHAHA That's right, Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they know they can see a doctor without going bankrupt. In fact, I'm working on damaging my liver right now so that one day I will have the chance for surgery on the government health plan!!! Facts are facts. Canadians are famous for over-indulgence with beer, which is bad for your liver. Wow, that's brilliant, and it proves your theory that Canadians are deliberately unhealthy because they have access to health care! That's wrong. Personal responsibility is the best way, always. That's why Americans are the healthiest people on the planet and obesity has been all but eliminated there. I did not suggest that personal responsibility results in good health, only that it doesn't shove off the costs of poor health habits onto others. Every person is entitled to preserve or destroy their health however they choose. What they're not entitled to do is expect someone else to pay for trying to heal them when they screw up. LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. Indeed. Liberty, self-reliance, prosperity, individual responsibility, mutual respect...yep, lots of consequences. More like paranoid assholes walking around with concealed weapons and living their life in fear. No wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone living in a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect them from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where people might care about each other. I see. Respecting other people's right to live their lives as they wish without having the government or one's nosy neighbors interfere is anathema to you? Living without a concern for others is anathema to me. Contributing to public education and public health is a simple and effective means of showing concern for others. My "utopia" is a land where people get to do what they want, so long as they don't harm others The fact that a system of private sector health care will cater only to those who can afford to pay means that supporters of said private sector health care are indeed harming others. and other people neither interfere with them nor do they require them to subsidize the equal exercise of liberty rights by others, even when such exercise results in some ill effects. This does not preclude anyone from offering assistance of their own free will, but it does preclude the "community" from extracting "caring" by force of law from those who do not choose to be "caring" for one reason or another. Yup, I know that's your vision. Everyone in their own little cabin with their own little guns with their entire life devoted to protecting what's theirs. None of it matters a whit in a country that forbids a private individual from obtaining private medical insurance That's odd. Because the private medical insurance business does pretty well here. I wonder how they stay in business? By soaking dumb Canucks for insurance premiums they would be better advised to put in the bank. ? First you say private medical insurance is forbidden, and hext you say Canadians are paying to much for it? Yeah, Canadians are *really* stupid that way...buying something they can't use and don't need. Sheesh. Well, which is it...is there not such thing as private medical insurance in Canada? Or is there such a thing? |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Tink: ================ Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch. ==================== Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an entire system. It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone. Why do you have socialized education? Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight them all the time. Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education? No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money from people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't pay, don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches and harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens. "Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash collection to access to federal lands, why not education too? Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy for them to support education for the next generation of workers they will need to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be far more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an appendix. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com