REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The War on Taint

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Saturday, July 7, 2007 14:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3193
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, June 29, 2007 9:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


If there could be money made by waging a War on Taint, we'd be losing our kids now in the "Battle Between the Bulge and the A-Hole" and watching it all on CNN & FOX.

In another thread, regarding the debate of healthcare in America vs. healthcare in Canada, the question was raised, "How many Americans come North to be able to afford the medications they need to survive..."

I felt that the obvious answer to that question diserved a topic all of its own. (You may disagree, but here it is anyways) I believe the cause of the answer to this question, which is "nobody in America buys cheaper perscription drugs in Canada", would be because it is illegal, and most likely much harder to pull off than would ever be worthwhile. So we pay the rediculously high prices here. If it weren't illegal, Americans would be more than happy to purchase their happy pills online from Canada, and Canadian companies would be more than happy to oblige.

That's what I did with cigarettes myself when they started pushing the unconstitutional tax raises on cigarettes here in America. I bought them from Russia and American Indian Reservations for around three or so years. F them. I'll buy my smokes from Putin before paying those smoke Nazis any more money if at all possible. I was getting the cigarettes for 1/3 the price and that included shipping half way around the world to boot. All was gravy... until VISA and Mastercard began the "Anti-Tobacco Initiative" which by name implied that VISA and Mastercard were no longer going to allow us to use our own money to purchase such a deadly product online strictly because it was bad for us. Needless to say, I was really pissed about that.

Well.... their joint "initiative" lasted just long enough to inhibit our ability purchase our smokes online while the Government managed to shut down all online avenues of foreign competition and to force Indian Reservation shops and other online vendors all across America to fully disclose all information of people buying smokes online to avoid the tax. Funny..... Try buying smokes online now and you'll find you don't have any problems, now that there's no way for us to do it without avoiding paying the taxes in our area. What happened to Visa and Mastercard's benevolent "Anti-Tobacco Initiative"? I don't know. You tell me. I'm sad now.... for a moment there I really thought VISA and Mastercard cared about my health.

Funny how they can shut down pathways for people to avoid cigarette taxes by purchasing from foreign lands, but they haven't figured out a way to eliminate underage porn which has proliferated in the last 10 years, isn't it? They always use the excuse that the offending sites are from foreign countries, don't they?

My ass....

The Truth is, if child pornography wasn't such a huge cash-cow for our Government, and if fighting it didn't employ so many Government workers on our dime, they would have shut it down a long time ago. No, you say? Where's VISA and Mastercards "Anti-Internet-Porn Initiative"? Wouldn't that mean much more to you than an "Anti-Tobacco Initiative"? They don't give a rat's ass about children's safety either, and the people that are caught and put on TV are simply offered up as sacrificial lambs... akin to the occasional televised drug bust on TV that keeps justifying another giant and brilliantly orchestrated cash-cow, the "War" on Drugs.

The War on Drugs, Medical price gouging, The War on Child Pornograpy, The War on Cigarettes (Cancer).... very much like the War on Terror will NEVER end. They're designed by the archetects to have an infinite shelf life. If any one of these things were to magically dissappear tomorrow, it would likely leave our country, and in turn the world, spiraling out of control economically.

Screw those commercials you see on TV, and screw Michael Moore. THAT'S your daily dose of the TRUTH.






NOTE: Of course, it is the archetects and the machine which are to blame here... not the individual politicians, lawmakers, police or soldiers who really believe that they are doing good. I'm not proposing, by any means, that every individual involved in fighting any one of these "Wars" is in on some grand scale conspiracy. To do so would be sheer lunacy. They're just pawns like the rest of us.





"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:21 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


You want the TRUTH!!!?

You can handle the TRUTH!!!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 30, 2007 7:50 AM

LEADB


I do believe there's some folks who take bus trips to Canada to buy their prescription drugs; I'm not clear why you think this is not the case.

Regarding your distress over having your cigarettes taxed, I have to express extreme indifference. I am rather displeased with the entire 'Indians get rich' by avoiding local laws and taxes; and particularly the way politicians are happy to oblige this when properly induced (with large campaign contributions). In general, I don't have any objections to cigarettes being taxed; I suspect this is an issue we'll just have to agree to disagree on.

One question, you claim "if child pornography wasn't such a huge cash-cow for our Government" I have to admit that's a new one on me; would you explain the mechanism by with the Government makes money on kiddy porn?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:39 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


First off LeadB... thanks for not being rude. I'm more than happy to speak my peace and defend my stance civily.


First of all..... I'm sure people right at the tippy-top of the country do go to Canada to get drugs. I'm sure even some of them smuggle drugs into the US to make boku cash, which is even taking it a step further than you are insinuating happens. If anything, I'm not naive. I've played the game myself, and I've never been shy about admitting it.

I appreciate your views on American Indians, but at the same time, the tax rasises on booze and cigarettes is unfounded and you can't blame the free market (see: consumers and vendors / supply and demand) for trying to procure and secure the best deals. That's called free market, my friend. Without free market, Capitalism is pure bullshit... plain and simple. Our Government proved, without a shadow of a doubt in this instance, that the free market is a fallacy.

The way I see the Government making money on kiddie-porn is simple. It's the same way I'll explain the money being made on the "War" on drugs. I'll put it to you in a question... how many law enforcement officals would be laid off tomorrow if the 'War" on Drugs or the Hunt for Cyber preadotors ended tomorrow?

Tons.... Even if you counted each human laid off as one pound, the answer would still be tons.

That's not even mentioning backdoor deals that the most corrupt of our politicians make behind our backs.

Hence, the Machine..... It feeds itself off of us indefinately as long as there is lust in the hearts of man, and a desire for more money.

Look up on the internet several sources of how many taxpayer dollars go into investigations and bust of "johns", simply watching child porn when the real perps are allowed to go along "perping", or how many people are in a jail for posession of an eighth of an ounce of weed when murderers go free after 5 years with good behavior.

All I'm saying is if they can make VISA and Mastercard join up for a (temporary) "Anti-Cigearette Initiative", why can't they get VISA and Mastercard to team up for an "Anti-Online-Child-Porn" initative?





"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 30, 2007 9:03 AM

LEADB


For sure; the further you have to travel to Canada, the less sense it makes to travel there to save money. Sadly, I think many folks in the south do the same in Mexico; and my 'sadly' is more to the point that I don't believe Mexico does anywhere near as good a job on managing the safety of their drugs as Canada.

We can quibble on this one all day...
'the tax raises on booze and cigarettes is unfounded' Bottom line, if one supports what the Government does, they need to pay for it; thus some form a taxation is needed. I have no particular objection to taxes being raised via these type of product purchases. On the flip side, I'd surely like to see some reduction in the Government; but I'd be for eliminating income taxes before most other tax forms; and starting on the lowest end of income tax, and working our way up to the top (and frankly, perhaps leaving some tax on income over 500,000, inflation adjusted forward).

No, I don't particularly object to folks trying to get the best deal they can on things; however, on principle I will not go to Indian Casinos nor purchase gasoline at Indian stations. I believe it would be appropriate to tax these purchases (or if you prefer, imports to 'normal' US soil) for normal US citizens on par with local tax structure for same products.

Pure Capitalism has its problems, too. I tend to support minimum wage requirements, for instance.

'how many law enforcement officals would be laid off tomorrow if the 'War" on Drugs or the Hunt for Cyber preadotors ended tomorrow? ' Ok, so you see it as these 'issues' enable the government to 'sell' folks on the current tax collection structure to maintain the police staffing levels? Can't say I thought of it that way before, but I see your point.

I'm pretty clear you are against much of the 'War on Drugs' (and to be honest, I suspect there's much 'overkill' on marijuana enforcement and suspect it might be better with it legalized and controlled much as alcohol sales), are you in favor of legalizing all drugs? Likewise on Kiddie-porn, are you advocating releasing all restrictions on it? Regarding Kiddie-porn, I see the problem more on the 'creation' end than the sales; but with money motivating the creation, I don't see how we stop the former leaving the latter legal. Thoughts?



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 12:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


As an aside, we used to get a drug from Canada (Frisium) on a USA prescription. It was non-FDA approved, not because it was dangerous or ineffective but because the drug companies decided they already had too many similar products on the market in the USA (generics for Valium, Ativan, Klonopin,Tranxene, etc) to go thru the approval process. That was unfortunate for us because Frisium is a marvelous anticonvulsant that is more effective and less habituating than the alternatives.

Well, the Canadian government adopted a policy about four years ago where you can no longer purchase Canadian drugs on a USA scrip. And furthermore, their pharmacies are tracked on the number of scrips they fill; pharmacies that fill and unusual number of scrips are investigated for online and cross-border sales (illegal). The Mexican govt has had the same policy for years so at this point if you buy online you have a more than even chance of getting counterfeit (read worthless) drugs.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 3:17 AM

LEADB


So Frisium has been in use in Canada for more than four years? At some point, the US should establish 'recognition' of prescription drugs used in countries with good medical regulation and tracking as sufficient to allow FDA approval, or at least fast tracking, of such drugs. I can't believe a drug in use in Canada for four years has not essentially established its safety record in such a time.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 4:34 AM

SERGEANTX


Should we be surprised that attempts to monopolize the drug supply create dangerous black markets?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


LeadB- It has been used in Canada since 1974 as an anxiolytic and approved as an ajunctive anticonvulsant since 2005 (although it's been used off-label as an anticonvulsant since at least 1990 when we became aware of it.)

Sarge- The FDA's approval process is slower, more conservative, and more expensive than other nations. They point to thalidomide - the drug that caused "flippers" to form in children instead of hands and feet- as the sterling example of why it should be so. Since the FDA has been pushed to create a faster approval process (by the Reagan and subsequent Republican administrations) they'd had to pull a fairly large number newly released of drugs off the market. The problem with Frisium may partly be due to the approval process, but it is also partly an economic decision by the pharmas. Unless they see a BIG market for a drug they will not invest in it's development and approval, so people with rare diseases also experience "orphan drug syndrome". BTW- It is the FDA that restricted toothpaste from China that contains anitfreeze, wheat gluten containing melamine, and farmed fish containing toxic antifungals and antimicrobials. I'm not sure I want the FDA to disappear.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:55 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure I want the FDA to disappear.



And you think we'd be helpless without their 'guidance'?

There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from bad chemicals. Plenty of ways to ensure that the drugs you buy are safe. Government provides one way. That's not bad in and of itself, but the problem is that they also prohibit any alternate solutions. What's the problem with allowing people to look for other options?

Seriously, keep the FDA up and running if you like. Keep the AMA and state medical boards. People who want the government stamp of approval can have that. But at least allow those of us who can't afford the current scheme to look for something else without becoming criminals in the process. It's not the FDA, or monitoring for safety that bothers me. It's telling people that they have to have the government's permission to take drugs that aren't approved or to seek health care outside the system.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Make people sign a waiver?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:29 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Make people sign a waiver?



Waiving what?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:36 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure I want the FDA to disappear.


And you think we'd be helpless without their 'guidance'?

There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from bad chemicals. Plenty of ways to ensure that the drugs you buy are safe. Government provides one way. That's not bad in and of itself, but the problem is that they also prohibit any alternate solutions. What's the problem with allowing people to look for other options?

Seriously, keep the FDA up and running if you like. Keep the AMA and state medical boards. People who want the government stamp of approval can have that. But at least allow those of us who can't afford the current scheme to look for something else without becoming criminals in the process. It's not the FDA, or monitoring for safety that bothers me. It's telling people that they have to have the government's permission to take drugs that aren't approved or to seek health care outside the system.

SergeantX

It wasn't that long ago that 'patent medicines' were all the rage. It is very difficult to resist the 'cure all' when conventional medicine can't help; even if it turns out the 'cure all' is bogus, or even deadly.

Various alternative medicine and practices are available, though often insurance won't cover it; but is it safe to presume you are speaking outside insurance coverage for the instances you speak? Would you be willing to list a few procedures and medicines which believe you might be interested in 'having available' but would be outside the realm of what the government permits? And to be clear, you are talking about the US?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 1, 2007 5:33 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
And to be clear, you are talking about the US?



Yeah, in the US. Not sure what it's like elsewhere, but here only doctors who graduate from AMA approved medical schools can practice. This ensures they are deeply invested (literally and figuratively) in the status quo. You're only allowed to use drugs that an AMA approved doctor and the FDA give you permission to use. This keeps big pharma happy and rich.

And all in the name of my safety. BS. It's a money making cartel at its core. What the heck, if you can't get customers the old fashioned way, just pass a law. It's the [new] American way!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 4:56 PM

LEADB


Sorry, got tied up a bit... so, in the US there seems to be a burgeoning popularity in 'alternative medicine', I'll reference:
http://skepdic.com/althelth.html
and caution they seem to be pretty 'down' on it, but I believe this is a case in point that these practices are available, and it is very much a 'buyer beware' area. If you've never been to a Message Therapist, you might give it a go. The practitioner I go to will use various pressure points and other techniques to work to resolve various ailments. For instance a friend of mine went when she had a cold, and the practitioner worked various aspects to help with that; and the friend said she felt significantly better after.

So again, specifically, what therapies do you feel are not available in the US?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 3, 2007 6:07 PM

SERGEANTX


I'm not talking about specific treatments as much as alternative models of providing service. I'm certainly not endorsing any of the 'hippie medicines' (No offense, hippies. We all love ya' but the extract of radish leaf didn't make my allergies go away ;) ). I'm talking about relaxing regulations around drug control and expanding the services nurses can provide. It shouldn't be a choice between the best health care money can buy, and nothing.

I understand that the additional cost (of seeing the doctor, getting a prescription, and negotiating regulation) provides valuable screening and prevents many dangerous accidents. But it has a cost on the other side. We've cranked the requirements up so high that, while providing some of us with excellent quality health care, it puts it beyond reach for most of us.

The bottom line is this: we need cheap health care. And, yes, that does mean lower quality health care. No one wants to acknowledge that, but I think it's exactly the problem. Imagine if all the grocers in the nation decided to promote legislation that allowed only the highest quality, and the most expensive, food products to be legally sold. Would it make much sense to have people starving in the richest country in the world? (in the name of maintaining the highest food quality standards)

Does it make much sense for people to go without routine health care in the richest country in the world? (in the name of maintaining the highest health care standards)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:33 AM

LEADB


I see where you are coming from. Unfortunately, I really don't know where the lines are drawn at this time; I know sometimes the place I go will shuffle me to a nurse if I need to get in and the Doc is busy. In any case, your position deserves serious consideration in any genuine health care reform. I don't see any reason why a nurse should not be permitted to 'put out a shingle'; as long as it is -very- clear that is the care level being provided.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 7:59 AM

FLETCH2


Healthcare will always be an expensive business, even if you take the for-profit motive out of the equation. Drugs, equipment, training, staff all have to be high quality because you may end up making life and death decisions. While you can argue that the US for profit system makes things more expensive than they need to be that isn't the same as saying that socialised medicine is cheap because it isn't.

What all medical systems try to do, public or private is to agrigate costs and delivery of services. So, it makes sense to build a big hospital with many beds and agrigate patients there because cost per patient will be lower. You can share a $50M MRI machine between 900 patients so it's fixed cost and operating costs are split between as many as possible. Good idea financially but big hospitals make individual patients statistics rather than people and quality of care suffers accordingly.

Likewise both public and private payment models agrigate patients. In the UK we pay taxes towards the NHS. In a typical year most healthy individuals probably dont get back what they paid in. Instead that money may go towards treating someone with a chronic condition who would not have been able to pay for the whole of his treatment himself. Ignoring the profit taking US insurance works in a similar way, you pay a lot of money and most years you dont get back anything like what you paid, however those excess funds in part help cover those people who's massive treatment need exceeds what they themselves have paid into the system.


So in short whatever system you decide on has to agrigate the supply of services to ensure efficiency and arrange a method to agrigate payment between large groups of patients.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 12:49 PM

SERGEANTX


One of the most popular refrains about the health care fiasco is that the profit motive is the root of the problem. I fail to see how. There are millions of people out there dying (some of them literally) for low-cost health care. If there was a way to provide that legally, someone would do it. It's a huge under-served market that no profit driven entrepreneur would deliberately ignore.

It never seems to register with people but I'll keep making the point, because it's screaming to be made. We've outlawed low-cost health care. Until we address that issue, we're spitting in the wind.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:36 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
One of the most popular refrains about the health care fiasco is that the profit motive is the root of the problem. I fail to see how.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is the -only- problem in our health care; but when a hospital charges a walk-in patient paying cash 6,000 for a procedure and charges an insurance company 1,200 for the same thing; I have to believe that 'profit' fits in there somewhere.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:32 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
We've outlawed low-cost health care.



BLAMMO!!!!

For all of the reasons that you stated above as well.

I don't reckon I know a much better way to say it than that.

Healthcare being just one of the major fixed games I spelled out in my original post. We're all players in a fixed game who's outcome was, on a whole, decided long before we were born.

Little unexpected things come up all the time, sure.... but nothing so large that it will register as more than an insignifican't bump in the road for the Establishment.

Maybe Ron Paul is that road block some of us have been looking for. I'll be the first to admit that there is actually a candidate that I actually like, and I'm amazed by it. I'm so cynical, I'm starting to spend more time figuring what cog he plays in the machine rather than figuring if he's the real deal.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I have no clue what the hell sixstring is talking about, but on the general issue of healthcare in the US, allow me to speculate for a moment, and please note that this is not a researched topic, just speculation based on my many years of observation:

The problem that I see with healthcare in this country is that we have regulated it to suit the doctor not the patient. The MD has been given as near to god-status as is possible without declaring healthcare a religion, and that has imbued the MD with a sizable amount of political power; that is made even more powerful because people don’t even realize that there is political power there. To a lesser extent, we’ve done the same thing with teachers, and as a result of the political power granted to teachers by their status they have created very powerful teachers' unions that seek to control public education for the benefit of the teacher not the student.

Let me just briefly address the inevitable strawman that will be thrown at me. I’m not saying that teachers don’t care about their students or that doctors don’t care about their patients. In most cases the political bodies that have emerged, the AMA and the teachers’ unions, are run by a small number of elitists and demand support from the broader constituencies and get that support not because the majority agree with them necessarily, but because they realize that these groups are on their side. Nor am I saying the policies that benefit doctors or teachers don’t also benefit patients or students, or that this elite is not acting in what they truly believe is the right way. So please avoid the inevitable strawman that I’m trying to paint teachers or doctors as evil.

In the case of public education, I think most people realize that the teachers unions practice protectionist policies at the expense of the students, but I don’t think that realization is as strong among doctors. If for no other reason then that we tend to believe that what the doctor says is always golden. But in reality MD’s are just human and many of them, sadly, are not nearly as well trained and modern medicine is not nearly as infallible as we seem to believe. By some accounts deaths due to malpractice exceeds accidental death due to firearms. That’s not to say that doctor’s aren’t the experts and should be listened to, but what it does mean is that we need to abandon the AMA control of the market and allow more supply and demand to operate.

Open more medical schools and train more doctors. The more doctors we have the lower the price of doctors will be. Relax restrictions on medical practices so that professionals with expertise in certain medical procedures, despite a lack of MD licenses, can practice those procedures. It takes a surgeon to do open heart surgery, but it doesn’t take a surgeon, or even an MD, to mend a broken leg or arm, most of the time. Allow less expensive nurses to practice medical procedurals they are adept at. In most cases you will find that many nurses are far more competent at many things then all but the most expert doctors simply because they are there with the patient all the time. Most US states have even outlawed midwives. Why?

Why? One reason is lawyers. The number of lawyers, unlike doctors, are regulated more by the market then the Bar Associations. As a result many people go to law school because the market demand for lawyers is high. Part of the reason why the demand for lawyers is high is because of our god-like reverence for MDs. When an MD screws up, or even appears to screw up, or a lawyer can convince someone that an MD has screwed up, then they sue. No matter how ridiculous the case is, they sue. We have this notion that if a doctor screws up it can only be because that doctor was a fraud or evil, because everyone knows that all real doctors are gods and gods are infallible, therefore anything and everything (esp. considering the oftentimes emotional state of the patient and patient's family) become a cause for law suit. That’s not to say that some malpractice suits are not justified or that some doctors are not frauds or evil, but I do believe that the system is being taken advantage of.

So there are two things working here. First overregulation – the AMA controls the number of doctors and how those doctors can practice so as to increase the salaries and power of doctors. Second, underregulation – our unrealistic view of doctors has created a seemingly infinite market for lawyers to exploit. The end result is that the market is not being allowed to work in the field of healthcare. Let the market work and the price will come down.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:12 AM

CHRISISALL


Wow. That was an excellent analysis, Finn.




Dr.Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:17 AM

SERGEANTX


So, I'm agreeing with Finn twice it one week.

Chris, I'm scared...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Chris, I'm scared...


Fear is the mindkiller....

Mua d'Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:38 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I have no clue what the hell sixstring is talking about...

...Entire rest of post....



Well, you seem to have nailed a good portion of it very digestably for the proles there. Most admittedly, my weakest point.

Can't say I argue with any of that Finn. If every point wasn't pretty much right on the money, it was definately well within the ballpark... the infield even.

Don't worry about not getting what I'm saying. Most people have no clue what I'm talking about until it happens, and when it does, they've heard about it so much in the media by that point that they don't even remember that I said it years before it became part of our "business as usual"

I was talking about the "housing bubble" three or four years before they coined a term for it. Didn't make sense to me that somebody would pay $500,000 or $1M for a house that wouldn't be worth that much money (in relation to general income of citizens) if the interest rates ever shot up to 14% to 22.5% like they did in the early 80's again. Man.... what amortization would do to a million dollar house at 22.5% interest for 30 years......

Of course, the housing market is pretty stable now, but we're only at 5.5% or something like that. If we ever see interest rates of 20% again, people are going to be jumping out of windows.

Of course, as always, I hope I'm completely wrong about all of this. I'd sleep better at night knowing that I'm as crazy as I hope I am.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sarge: I have to disagree with certain aspects of the free-market solution RE the FDA:
Quote:

There are plenty of ways to protect yourself from bad chemicals. Plenty of ways to ensure that the drugs you buy are safe. Government provides one way. That's not bad in and of itself, but the problem is that they also prohibit any alternate
Such as....? The problem with "alternative solutions" is that there is no way (at this point) for people to learn from other's experience so each time you try an alternative medicine or treatment it's a blind experiment. If there were some way of creating an internet database of individual experiences (where individual experiences are verified to keep salesmen from "stuffing" the ballot-box) you COULD in theory create a record of thousands of adverse experiences and successes. Still, that doesn't address the basic question of purity and concentration. If you have any ideas on alternatives, let me know.
Quote:

There are millions of people out there dying (some of them literally) for low-cost health care. If there was a way to provide that legally, someone would do it. It's a huge under-served market that no profit driven entrepreneur would deliberately ignore.
SOME medicine is relatively cheap, but trauma care, brain surgery, cancer treatment, etc. are just inevitably expensive. And I doubt that you're promoting "low quality brain surgery" so you must have something else in mind (so to speak).

As for Finn's analysis, it's about 30 years out of date.
Quote:

The problem that I see with healthcare in this country is that we have regulated it to suit the doctor not the patient. The MD has been given as near to god-status as is possible without declaring healthcare a religion, and that has imbued the MD with a sizable amount of political power; that is made even more powerful because people don’t even realize that there is political power there.
Doctors no longer practice medicine, insurance companies do. They determine what kind of treatment will be used for which ailment, how many days in-hospital they will pay, which drugs are in their formulary and which aren't etc etc. At the same time, the AMA no longer has the political clout that it used to, the real wheelers and dealers are the insurance compnaies. That is inevitably so because the six large insurance companies which handle billions of dollars each year are able to concentrate so much more money on a cause than the 120,000 practicing members of the AMA.
Quote:

we need to abandon the AMA control of the market and allow more supply and demand to operate.
The enrollment into medical school has been static because those who are looking for high incomes (white males) are opting out of the profession, due to insurance company billing and treatment restrictions.
Quote:

Open more medical schools and train more doctors. The more doctors we have the lower the price of doctors will be. Relax restrictions on medical practices so that professionals with expertise in certain medical procedures, despite a lack of MD licenses, can practice those procedures. It takes a surgeon to do open heart surgery, but it doesn’t take a surgeon, or even an MD, to mend a broken leg or arm, most of the time. Allow less expensive nurses to practice medical procedurals they are adept at. In most cases you will find that many nurses are far more competent at many things then all but the most expert doctors simply because they are there with the patient all the time.
Those are options proposed by the medical profession as well: White males' interest in entering medical school has declined, but female and Asian entry into medical school has increased, keeping the current numbers of graduating medical students constant. Three strategies may be employed to counteract the expected physician shortage. These are: delegate more responsibility to nonphysician clinicians, increase the number of IMGs into graduate medical training, or build more medical schools http://ea.acponline.org/physicians/MSE.html
Quote:

Why? One reason is lawyers. The number of lawyers, unlike doctors, are regulated more by the market then the Bar Associations. As a result many people go to law school because the market demand for lawyers is high.
Finn, I think you seriously contradicted yourself here. Your previous strategy for increasing the number of doctors was letting the market take over, and let supply catch up with demand. Now you seem to be saying that since the market is controlling the legal professions the demand for lawyers is high?
Quote:

Part of the reason why the demand for lawyers is high is because of our god-like reverence for MDs. When an MD screws up, or even appears to screw up, or a lawyer can convince someone that an MD has screwed up, then they sue. No matter how ridiculous the case is, they sue. We have this notion that if a doctor screws up it can only be because that doctor was a fraud or evil, because everyone knows that all real doctors are gods and gods are infallible, therefore anything and everything (esp. considering the oftentimes emotional state of the patient and patient's family) become a cause for law suit. That’s not to say that some malpractice suits are not justified or that some doctors are not frauds or evil, but I do believe that the system is being taken advantage of.
It's ridiculously difficult to sue doctors. YOu can't collect money if a doctor makes a boneheaded mistake, you can only collect when negligence is involved and that is very hard to prove. I'm sure there are a few cases here and there that don't merit a settlement but by and large the system favors doctors (and their insurance companies).

FYI I have family members who are or were nurses, techincians, EMTs, and doctors. I have two chronically ill family members who both have rare disorders, I tried (at one point) to bring a complaint againt our HMO, and I've gone up and down the block looking for alternatives. So I feel like I've seen the situation from all sides.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:52 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I think you seriously contradicted yourself here. Your previous strategy for increasing the number of doctors was letting the market take over, and let supply catch up with demand. Now you seem to be saying that since the market is controlling the legal professions the demand for lawyers is high?

No, the demand for lawyers is high because we want lawyers. The Market has created exactly the number of lawyers that is needed to fill the demand, which it would also do for doctors. But the market does not distinguish frivolous lawsuits from serious lawsuits.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:18 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I think you seriously contradicted yourself here. Your previous strategy for increasing the number of doctors was letting the market take over, and let supply catch up with demand. Now you seem to be saying that since the market is controlling the legal professions the demand for lawyers is high?

No, the demand for lawyers is high because we want lawyers. The Market has created exactly the number of lawyers that is needed to fill the demand, which it would also do for doctors. But the market does not distinguish frivolous lawsuits from serious lawsuits.

I'd disagree; lack of regulation has allowed more lawyers than we want; this yields a situation where lawyers are looking for 'any' case that might yield a payback. Better to spend 10 hours on a law suit which which has 10% chance of making a million dollars than spend 10 hours thumb twiddling.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:51 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I'd disagree; lack of regulation has allowed more lawyers than we want; this yields a situation where lawyers are looking for 'any' case that might yield a payback. Better to spend 10 hours on a law suit which which has 10% chance of making a million dollars than spend 10 hours thumb twiddling.

I don’t think it is more lawyers then we want, but I do think it is more then we need or should want. We have all these lawyers because we’ve discovered that if we feel slighted or pissed of we can get a lawyer and stick it to the world. We don’t like that we’re fat, so let’s sue McDonalds. We hate Christians, so let’s sue the local school and get Christmas break killed.

It’s not the lawyers or the number of lawyers. It’s us.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 1:50 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge: I have to disagree with certain aspects of the free-market solution RE the FDA



As I've said before, have all the monitoring and government endorsement you want, just don't mandate that people follow it. That way if they can afford the highly trained, AMA endorsed physician with a government license they can go that route. But if the can't, or they've found someone outside the system they can trust, they have that option. Essentially I'm asking, how do you justify telling people what doctors they can patronize, especially in the face of a crisis that leaves so many of us without?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:23 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think it is more lawyers then we want, but I do think it is more then we need or should want. We have all these lawyers because we’ve discovered that if we feel slighted or pissed of we can get a lawyer and stick it to the world. We don’t like that we’re fat, so let’s sue McDonalds. We hate Christians, so let’s sue the local school and get Christmas break killed.

It’s not the lawyers or the number of lawyers. It’s us.

It's not me, I never sued nobody; and neither did my father, nor his father before him! Ok, I don't know about grand-dad for sure;-) Well, I truly think we hit a glut of lawyers, which is making what you describe all too easy; but I truly believe idle lawyers drumming up work is perpetuating the cycle.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I agree with the post, I think, but still don't know what 'taint' is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 3:35 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I agree with the post, I think, but still don't know what 'taint' is.

It's the next stage of the "War on..." In this example, it's the war on anything questionable. At least, that's my interpretation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:00 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I agree with the post, I think, but still don't know what 'taint' is.



Quote:

Originally posted by LeadB:
It's the next stage of the "War on..." In this example, it's the war on anything questionable. At least, that's my interpretation.



I don't think you'll find the definition for the word "taint" in the sense I'm using it in any Websters Dictionary that's out today. It's relatively recent slang for the skin between the naughty bits and bums on both men and women. Hence the comment about our kids dying at the "Battle Between the Bulge and the A-Hole" at the top of the thread.

LeadB was pretty much right on the money with my usage of the word here though. Thanks LeadB....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 1:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

As I've said before, have all the monitoring and government endorsement you want, just don't mandate that people follow it. That way if they can afford the highly trained, AMA endorsed physician with a government license they can go that route. But if the can't, or they've found someone outside the system they can trust, they have that option. Essentially I'm asking, how do you justify telling people what doctors they can patronize, especially in the face of a crisis that leaves so many of us without?
I guess you're against government nanny-ism? Maybe part of the solution would be to make the non-FDA practitioners and medicines post a big sign: NON-FDA APPROVED. Truth-in-advertising. ANd I'd have to say that the credulous- or the very desperate- would be killed off pretty quickly. It would be nice, tho, to set up some kind of public databases so that these experiences can be tracked. That way we could accumulate knowledge from the experience of thousands of people.... something that society is useful for.

But the other issue would be the insurance companies, which would refuse to pay for anything not approved. And what do you do to solve the problem about people who need and want FDA-approved treatments but can't afford them? If businesses are raking in huge profits (they are) providing FDA-approved treatment, how do you break the monopoly?


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 2:36 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

As I've said before, have all the monitoring and government endorsement you want, just don't mandate that people follow it. That way if they can afford the highly trained, AMA endorsed physician with a government license they can go that route. But if the can't, or they've found someone outside the system they can trust, they have that option. Essentially I'm asking, how do you justify telling people what doctors they can patronize, especially in the face of a crisis that leaves so many of us without?
I guess you're against government nanny-ism? Maybe part of the solution would be to make the non-FDA practitioners and medicines post a big sign: NON-FDA APPROVED. Truth-in-advertising. ANd I'd have to say that the credulous- or the very desperate- would be killed off pretty quickly. It would be nice, tho, to set up some kind of public databases so that these experiences can be tracked. That way we could accumulate knowledge from the experience of thousands of people.... something that society is useful for.

But the other issue would be the insurance companies, which would refuse to pay for anything not approved. And what do you do to solve the problem about people who need and want FDA-approved treatments but can't afford them? If businesses are raking in huge profits (they are) providing FDA-approved treatment, how do you break the monopoly?

I've been pondering the question of how insurance companies would fit into this relaxation; and I'm not sure how to do it without letting insurance companies -force- folks down this route.

I believe the bulk of this discussion is what to do for folks without insurance. Initially, I'd be inclined to require insurance to give coverage of FDA approved treatments at the recipients preference.

In general, if the insurance company feels that what you want to do is effective, they are more than delighted to shell out less money (eg: having a nurse set a broken arm when appropriate rather than a surgeon).

Ultimately, I'd expect insurance companies to get behind this; they will find a way to reduce their costs and increase their profits against this mechanism. Likely they will only initially cover things which have an FDA counter part. The hard part will be to get them to cover items which don't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 4:00 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess you're against government nanny-ism? Maybe part of the solution would be to make the non-FDA practitioners and medicines post a big sign: NON-FDA APPROVED. Truth-in-advertising.



Well, I see no reason why the non-approved folks should have to wear the 'mark of shame'. You could just as easily have signs that marked the approved providers. But, yeah, you've got the basic idea.
Quote:

But the other issue would be the insurance companies, which would refuse to pay for anything not approved.

Well, that's sort of the point. I never imagined the insurance companies would want to be play with the unapproved stuff and, frankly, I wouldn't want them to be involved. Perhaps people could take care of routine stuff themselves utilizing whatever venues they found suitable, and maintained policies with very high deductibles (and therefore much cheaper premiums) for the hardcore stuff.
Quote:

And what do you do to solve the problem about people who need and want FDA-approved treatments but can't afford them?

I dunno. Same thing you do now I guess. Except the problem wouldn't be as bad since the routine stuff would be cheaper so people wouldn't be waiting for emergencies before they seek care (as often).
Quote:

If businesses are raking in huge profits (they are) providing FDA-approved treatment, how do you break the monopoly?

Just cut them loose. The monopolies are built on the regulatory framework. That's why I see removing regulation as the most important part of fixing the problem.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 6, 2007 5:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


This has all veered slightly off topic from the original post, but then again, this is a huge problem I have with the fixed Game. I find this to be very constructave conversation, (look, no insults!) and wonderful alternatives to an involuntary Universal Healthcare.

Kinda funny how one of the main things the Government is supposed to protect the People from while it is serving the People, namely monopoly behemoths, pretty much go unchecked as they grow exponentially, innit?

Meanwhile.... the Government is putting its hand in every other cookie jar that it has no business touching.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 7:37 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Keeping with the ranting-ness of this thread I would like to post one of my favorite rants. A scathing satire on the welfare state by Larry Elder.

Quote:


A USELESS Law


Today Congress approved the three hundred billion dollar Universal Support Enablement Law for Evaders of Suitable Skills, known as the USELES bill.

USELESS supporters call the measure’s passage a statement to people with no work skills, bad attitude, poor personal hygiene that they, too, are Americans. The program is open to “any individual who can – but won’t – work, whether due to laziness, self-pity, or bad attitude.”

The USELESS passage delighted the chairman of the [[]DNC[]] who, during the New Hampshire primary, called the measure a centerpiece of the year 2000 presidential campaign. “I know a lot of people who don’t like getting up on Mondays. People who stay up too late, who drink too much, and sleep too little. We should honor those who refuse to submit to the Internet era.”

USELESS seeks to close the gap between the rich and the poor, the skilled and the unskilled, the motivated and the unmotivated. “Many people,” said the chairman, “lead lives of intellectual stupor. They watch Jerry Springer and smoke Winstons without filters. They think Picasso is something you order from Pizza Hut. They drink out of glasses that originally came from grape jelly. They eat at Sizzlers, bowl on Tuesdays, and say things like ‘boo-yah’ or ‘what’s u-u-u-p-p-p?’ Somebody needs to be there for them."

A quarter of a million USELESS volunteers will be paid twenty-five dollars an hour, plus benefits, to watch for and identify the indifferent, the lackluster, and the lazy. Volunteers are instructed to approach those not working and say, “Stand up. You count, too. That’s why God invented microwave popcorn, the remote control and the living room sofa.”

USELESS participants will receive vouchers enabling them to purchase goods, products, and services they are simply not interested in working to acquire. Program sponsors say fraud will be kept to a minimum because the lazy and indifferent lack the energy and creativity to cheat the system. “It’s the best of both worlds,” said Hillary Rodham Clinton. “The critics say that giving money to the lazy, dumb and stupid provides a disincentive to learn, grow, or educate. But every day contributions are made by those who are confused, disorganized, and dysfunctional. Except they call it Congress.”

Even Republican George W. Bush yielded to the measure’s popularity. “Life can be cruel to somebody who doesn’t like working. We had a cousin, Irving, who didn’t like to work. Gee, I remember in those long ago, less-sensitive days, we just hollered at him and told him to get a job. Oh, he did, but he held it against us for a really long time.”

USELESS tax incentives will be awarded to employers who hire those with slovenly work habits, low self-esteem, and poor personal hygiene. Obsessive attention to profits and to corporate image, say USELESS sponsors, denies rights to those without taste, fashion sense, or social skills. “I was out of work a long time,” said Ed Trucker, a former St. Louis airport baggage handler. “People complained that I smelled funny. I admit I never bathed or showered. But I don’t trust the fluoride they put in the water. Makes me itch. But now, with this new law, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.”

USELESS, which goes into effect on April 1, prevents landlords from requiring security deposits, mortgage lenders from seeking collateral, and employers from requiring employees to show up and perform as a condition of compensation. “We shouldn’t create two classes of citizens – those who are punctual and those who are not,” said Ms. Clinton. “Just because you come to work late, or don’t how up at all, doesn’t mean you can’t contribute. What would have happened to the play, Waiting for Gobot, if Gobot had shown up on time?”

The measure also outlaws intrusive personal questions during job interviews, such as, “Did you bring a résumé?” “Have you worked before?” or “Why aren’t you wearing pants?”

The measure excited Wally Dipstick of New Brunswick, Maine, who calls himself “an auto mechanic who’s never actually worked on a car.” Dipstick cheered after becoming USELESS eligible: “Finally, there’s something for somebody like me. I graduated in the bottom half of my class. It’s guys like me who make the top half possible. You get rid of unmotivated persons like me, how would you separate the winners form the losers?”

Said Ms. Clinton, “With the USELESS law, we can finally bridge the horrible gap between people with initiative and those who couldn’t care less. Just because you’re willing to get up early, stay late, and work harder does not entitle you to special privileges. For those of you out-hustled, outsmarted and out preformed by money-motivated colleagues – USELESS says that you are not useless.”





Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 7, 2007 2:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Hillary Clinton = Handicapper General


Thanks for sharing Finn. Got a good laugh out of that one.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, March 27, 2024 07:58 - 6153 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL