The American Spectator

Lisa| 8.26.09 @ 6:51AM

I agree Mr. Goldwater. Nor does Obama know any thing about health care. I am a nurse and very often have had to work a sixteen or twenty hour shift due to lack of nurses. I agree health care cost does need to be acted upon. I just wonder why congress is not concerned about the cost they run up on wasteful spending. I am very disgusted with all of them. Obama is determined to destroy America or is just plain dumb. I can not call Obama president or respect him, for all he has done and wants to do to our economy and freedom.

Melvin| 8.26.09 @ 7:20AM

The House and the Senate had to privatize their dining facilities because they for many, many year these facilities ran in the red and the food was terrible.
With all the failed and expensive boon dongles that the government has embarked upon, it couldn't even operate a porta john in the black.

Robert Rosencrans| 8.26.09 @ 7:51AM

Mr. Goldwater might have mentioned the billions of trees pulped every year to create paper for government forms which are used to request more government forms which are used to create more government which creates the need for more government forms which then creates the perceived need for more government which creates the need for more government forms which creates the need for more government which creates the need for more government forms which creates the need for more government which creates the need for more government forms. Ooops! I believe that's a run on sentence.

Matt| 8.26.09 @ 8:29AM

I don't understand how anyone familiar with the health reform proposal can say that the government is "running healthcare". The president has stated consistently that "if you like your current health care you can keep it". The public option exists primarily to keep private companies honest, because free enterprise only works when there is true competition instead of price-fixing. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY is going to be forced into "government healthcare" under this plan. If you want to talk about the costs of the plan, fine. But you should be ashamed of distorting the facts to defend your stance. Remember, nothing is more injurious to a cause than to defend it with false argument.

GringoBob| 8.26.09 @ 8:51AM

Matt, you poor koolaid drinker, get a clue - Obama is on record and video telling his union cronies how he wants "single payer" - here is a link pal

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncove.....insurance/

Bill| 8.26.09 @ 8:57AM

Amtrak was supposed to reverse over two decades of operation deficits? Don't forget these operating deficits in passenger rail, were incurred by private RR's who couldn't get out of passenger service as fast as they wanted. Early goals of Amtrak were misguded, as well. I'm still waiting for our nations roads and other infrastructure that we take for granted, to make a profit, or even work efficiently all the time.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 8.26.09 @ 9:04AM

Matt?, Go back to sleep for a little bit longer. The public option hasn't even happened yet, but when and if it does happen (if this Health Care Reform passes), these are examples of what "might" happen to the Public Option and your hard earned Tax Dollars. These are just the examples of the biggest and baddest Government Agencies that already exist today, ie: Medicare, Fannie Mae. But for some odd reason, you think they're going to do a better job this time with this new Health Care? Insanity!!, go back to sleep.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 9:11AM

Excellent piece, Mr. Goldwater. These are all well-reasoned, sensible, logical objections to Obamacare. It is an irrefutable argument.

The town-hall shriekers could take a lesson from Mr. Goldwater.

Daniel| 8.26.09 @ 9:12AM

Matt, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with you. It has been proven to me that the President's statement about "keeping" your health insurance is a smokescreen, and I don't believe a word he says anymore. And, the free market is the only way to keep insurance companies (and any other business) "honest". Socialism has failed, and continues to fail, everywhere it has been attempted and Obama's long-term vision for the US economy is pure socialism.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 9:15AM

"I don't understand how anyone familiar with the health reform proposal can say that the government is "running healthcare"

Because there is a difference between "running healthcare" and "running ALL healthcare". Even if Obama's proposal does not end up putting all the private insurers out of business (and there are good arguments to be made that it will not), the government will still be "running healthcare" for the 47 million (or whatever it is) currently un-insured. In either case Mr. Goldwater's argument is entirely valid.

JEFF| 8.26.09 @ 9:16AM

MATT,
PLEASE WAKE UP. I SHARE THE COST OF MY INSURANCE WITH MY EMPLOYER. MY EMPLOYER WILL UPON THIS BILL PASSING WILL DROP MY INSURANCE BECAUSE IT WILL BE CHEAPER FOR HIM. HOW DOES THAT LET ME KEEP MY INSURANCE. THE BILL SAYS THAT ONCE MY HEALTH INSURANCES CHANGES I HAVE TO GO TO PUBLIC ( GOV'T RUN).
WAKE UP WAKE UP!!!!!!

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 9:18AM

"And, the free market is the only way to keep insurance companies (and any other business) "honest"

We do not have a "free" health-care market. We have a system of gov't mandated monopolies with next to no competition. That is why we currently pay more for insurance than any other country while consistently ranking at the bottom in terms of quality when compared to the rest of the industrialized world and has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 9:18AM

That should read "and *have* a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries"

Bram| 8.26.09 @ 9:21AM

Matt - please give us an example of a service that the government has made cheaper and more efficient (not just artificially lowered the price with tax-dollars like Amtrak). Any service, any government.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 9:24AM

Matt ... "Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY is going to be forced into "government healthcare" under this plan"

Tell us Matt, what assurances do you have of this fact other than BHO's promise? Give us a page, section, sub-section or paragraph where this is spelled out.

A brief background for you ... Private or group health insurance is expensive because it is State regulated. Those regulations are packed with, among other things, mandated coverages like accupuncture, chiropractic, drug counseling, etc. In some States, like Jersey, that makes coverage quite expensive, well above the national average.

Now we all know that the government, under bill 3200 would charge my employer an 8% payroll tax if they don't provide health insurance, that's actually in the bill. Here in Jersey, it's very likely that 8% payroll tax will be cheaper than paying for the plan complete with all the unecessary bells and whistles which are mandatory here.

Apply simple math and my employer dumps the costly State regulated plan and all the HR and administrative costs associated with providing it, and shove me into the public "option" (obviously not much of an option for me).

How is this not being forced into the nightmare of publicly funded health insurance?

The scenarios go on and on and on. I lose my job and get another ... sorry, private health insurer can't pick up new enrollees (that's in the bill too), it's the public "option" for me. Get divorced? bang! public "option". Get too old for your parent's health plan ... you guessed it ... you've been "optioned".

Do some actual research and get your information in more than 10 second sound bites. You might actually realize this is bad for you too.

2Anglico| 8.26.09 @ 9:33AM

Obama has NO plan of his own, unless you think HR3200 is really what he wants. He is laying on the bs and using smoke and mirrors to divert your attention. He wants TOTAL government control. HR 3200 gives him that.

George True| 8.26.09 @ 9:43AM

Matt said: "The public option exists primarily to keep private companies honest, because free enterprise only works when there is true competition instead of price fixing."

Wow! Difficult to know where to begin. I am floored at the idea that somehow we need government (a very corrupt government, mind you) to keep insurance companies "honest". Which companies, specifically, are being dishonest? Which companies, specifically, are engaging in price fixing? The answer is, none of them.

As an independent insurance broker, I deal with close to two dozen health insurance companies. They must walk a very fine line in determining how much premium they will charge. If they charge too little, they run the risk of not making a profit at all or even becoming insolvent. But if they charge too much, they get clobbered by their competition. Health insurance is extremely competitive, and it is not easy to make a profit. The idea that they somehow need the government to compete with them is nonsense.

The real reform that is needed in health insurance is to get the federal and state governments out of the way. A year ago here in Arizona, American Republic tried to get a new plan approved that was avery good plan with very competitive premiums. The insurance commisioner said they weren't charging enough for such a plan, and would only approve the plan if they charged substantially higher premiums. As a result, the plan is too expensive, and they haven't sold much of it. The consumer loses.

Health insurance is a tough business. The leftists were all up in arms earlier this year when it was announced that United Healthcare had made a profit in the billions of dollars. They pointed to that as an example of a big, bad, eee-vil insurance making obscene profits on the backs of the consumers. Of course, they never did the math. United Healthcare insures 25 or 30million people nationwide. Their "obscene" profit came out to something like $32.00 per insured person.

Peter Goodrich| 11.19.09 @ 10:43AM

United Healthcare needs to find another vehicle than AARP for the promotion for its health insurance services. I was ready to transfer my supplimental Medicare to United Healthcare until AARP threw their elderly, more conservative members under the bus.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 9:47AM

SL Toddard ... "That is why we currently pay more for insurance than any other country while consistently ranking at the bottom in terms of quality when compared to the rest of the industrialized world and has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries. "

Benjamin Disraeli ... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

We all know (or should) that Europe and the US use different standards as to what is considered a live birth making infant mortality rates uncomparable. If Europe used the same standards the US does for what is considered a live birth (the full WHO definition) their infant mortality rates would likely be higher than the US. In addition, the stat for life expectancy gets skewed by inner city violent crime in the US.

A better measure would be to look at survival rates for cancer, heart disease, etc where US rates are well above Europe and Canada.

Interesting also is your claim that we "pay more for insurance". What about how much we pay in taxes? Never any mention of that. I don't have to work until August to pay my health insurance bill, but I do to pay all my tax bills ... from income tax to property tax to sales tax to capital gains tax (I'll leave off all the governement fees which we all know are really taxes). Which is the bigger burden for working America?

Frankly, I don't mind paying for health insurance, even if it is slightly inflated by high tech testing and drug research. At least I'm getting something for my money.

Denver Todd| 8.26.09 @ 10:08AM

I am kind of curious, in an historic sense, was there the same kindof critique about New Deal programs as there is now about healthcare reform? What were the newspapers and magazines saying when Medicare and Social Security were in the works?

Mike| 8.26.09 @ 10:09AM

Barry sees Amtrak, but not AIG. Even Greenspan admitted that financial institutions working in the market gave us, how shall I say this, something less than utopia. Whatever. Its deeply human to see what conforms to our world view and to ignore what doesn't.

Remember the Biblical warning about trying to serve two masters? As our system works now, health insurance companies are being asked to serve Wall Street and their customers. By serving the former, they screw the latter with ever increasing insurance premiums, pre-existing condition exclusions, life time caps, non renewals for people who are ill and everyday practices of giving customers seeking payments the run around. This is health care rationing, pure and simple.
Are there problems with government programs? Sure. But the government is trying to help people. The insurance companies are trying to make a profit, too often at the expense of people.

R Martin| 8.26.09 @ 10:40AM

Both Matt above and our president have used the words, "...keep private insurance companies honest..." to justify Obamacare. That has to mean, a priori, that insurance companies are now operating honestly. Therefore, we all deserve and explanation as to what exactly is going to happen in medicine, health care and health care insurance to cause the insurance industry to abandon honest behavior in favor of acting dishonestly. It is, of course, utter nonsense and just one reason of many why the leftist health care reforms being proposed must be quashed.

bill C| 8.26.09 @ 10:47AM

Dear Matt the troll: Please go to the nearest socialized health care country and ask them to extricate your head from your rear end. Oh that is right, you will have to wait six months to get that MRI to see if you head is truly up there. I hope you can hold your breath for a long time.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 10:54AM

Mike ... "the government is trying to help people."

[insert Dutch quote here]

Mike, you've not been paying attention. The government is trying to help the government. You yourself make that argument with ...

"Remember the Biblical warning about trying to serve two masters?"

Those in elected government pursue only the almighty vote. Why do you think Medicare is broke? Over the years it's been expanded considerably (without regards to how to pay for) by promising increased coverage in exchange for votes leaving us with $30T+ in unfunded liabilities.

"As our system works now, health insurance companies are being asked to serve Wall Street and their customers. By serving the former, they screw the latter with ever increasing insurance premiums, pre-existing condition exclusions, life time caps, non renewals for people who are ill and everyday practices of giving customers seeking payments the run around."

So the government can magically give everything to everyone and still be able to pay for it? Look ... Insurance companies can only please their investors (which in the case of mutual companies are also their customers) by actually turning a profit, which means they must keep their customers (patients) happy so that consumers actually buy from them. A carrier who charges too much in premium doesn't have any customers and thus doesn't make their investors happy. One with a reputation for cancelling coverage or not covering catastrophic illness is also the victim of consumer choice and again doesn't make their investors happy. The concept of the interests of the customer and the investor being opposed is a flawed one. A company cannot please one without also pleasing the other.

Now, conversely, the government doesn't have to please the customer at all. If they refuse you treatment where will you go? To another government? Nope, no competition so you're stuck. You can't take your premiums elsewhere because there is no option and besides, you don't have any choice whether to pay for health insurance or not because it's now mandatory. In addition, the government doesn't have to please investors (or in their case, taxpayers) because they just confiscate operating capital through taxation. The only one they have to please is their large voting blocks. Once the beauracracy is in place, they don't even have to please them because beauracracy is self-perpetuating. When was the last time we had the ability to vote the DMV director or the nasty clerk at the post office out?

Try to think it all through and understand supply-side. It is the only model that works.

Anthony| 8.26.09 @ 11:06AM

You can add to this list of government infamies, the House Banking and Post Office scandals of the 1990s; which demonstrated for all, that the current generation of politicians, not only can't run these programs, but given their reprehensible lust for power, are corrupt to boot. TERM LIMITS NOW!!
.

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 11:16AM

Let's see --- just the other day a Wall Street Journal article with another law passed by our Congressmen that all insurance companies rewrite their policies to put "mental health coverage" on parity with "physical health coverage."

Well, my policy for one is a state self-insured fund and has mental health coverage, though not "parity."

Instead of the 30 days mental institutional coverage and three months psychiatric coverage, the coverage will now have to been pretty much unlimited for mental hospital and mental therapy. This will add millions and millions of costs to the state run health care system, but do the feds care? No. Not on iota.

You see, the state senators have no power to advocate what should be retained as "states' rights" any longer. So, in effect, the federal government can mandate, legislate, initiate any activity without political consequences to the politicians.

The political consequences are felt by the state legislators when they have to raise taxes to meet yet another federal mandate.

The political consequences are felt by the state legislators when their citizens are howling about increased medical premiums and needing reform of those "evil insurance companies."

It's not the "evil insurance companies," it's the evil politicians who can't keep their power base without corrupting everything they touch.

They have never abided by any "principle" other than "keep me in power (employed and sucking at the teat of government) at all costs; no matter if it sinks an entire industry, or in the case of disquised "health insurance reform," an entire Nation's well-being.

The bottom line is, everyone equally miserable but Congress and the bureaucrats.

Rick| 8.26.09 @ 11:24AM

Matt
Ever heard the term Liar. Your president is a liar, he by his own admission hasn't read the Bill. Yet he tells us what it won't do, and omits what it will do.

George True| 8.26.09 @ 11:29AM

Mike: I hate to burst your little utopian bubble, but this bill is not about the government trying to help people, it is about the government trying to CONTROL people. The leftists who are pushing this plan are doing so because they are control freaks. And what better way to control everybody than to force everybody to go on a type of welfare (which is exactly what socialized healthcare is).

Serving customers and trying to make a profit at the same time does not in any way mean serving two masters as the Bible defines it. Such an analogy is fundamentally flawed. By your reasoning, anybody who sells any good or service is therefore "serving two masters". Thus, if you charge enough to make it worth your while, you are by definition "screwing your customers". This is sheer nonsense, and is not what Jesus was referring to when He talked about serving two masters.

Specifically, which insurance companies are engaging in "everyday practices of giving customers seeking payments the runaround"? Can you name even one? I thought not. You also mentioned "non-renewals for people who are ill". I don't know how to break it to you, but for a very long time it has been forbidden BY LAW for any insurance company to drop anybody from coverage because they got sick. They arenot even allowed to single anybody out for a rate increase because of illness or claims experience.

And of course health insurance companies will not knowingly issue new coverage to somebody who has a serious pre-existing medical condition that is likely to cost the insurance company many thousands of dollars a year. You may not think that's fair, but that's how insurance works. Ater all, try going to an auto insurance company and telling them you just wrecked your car, but you want them to issue you a new policy on it and then to pay all the costs of fixing it.

There are plenty of ways to help the approximately 15 million people in this country who are chronically without health insurance (and no, it is not 47 million). The government can design a program aimed at them. The government can issue tax exemptions and even tax credits to cover some or all of the costs of insurance for people who truly cannot afford it. The government can develop a program specifically to address the needs of people whith pre-existing conditions. But these things are not attractive to the Dems because they cannot control everybody with such programs. It is all about control.

Mike| 8.26.09 @ 11:35AM

JerseyJ
You write: "Those in elected government pursue only the almighty vote." I could not agree with you more. I have said many times before in this forum that the problem is not the government (Reagan), the "problem" is the people. What politician has ever been elected on a platform of not promising to give the people what they want? This is true even when what the people want is contradictory, i.e. no taxes and all of the government benefits.
Further, you write: "So the government can magically give everything to everyone and still be able to pay for it?" No. But what politician has the guts to point this out their constituents? The people who will eventually break the news to us will likely be the Chinese.
You also write: "Look ... Insurance companies can only please their investors (which in the case of mutual companies are also their customers) by actually turning a profit, which means they must keep their customers (patients) happy so that consumers actually buy from them." I understand your argument. In fact, I own stock in health care companies. The dividends do not come close to the cost of my health insurance, so while what you say is true it is not cogent argument for continuing doing business the way we are.
And, finally, you write: "A carrier who charges too much in premium doesn't have any customers and thus doesn't make their investors happy." This argument ignores the lack of real competition in too many markets. This is the heart of the argument by those who want a public option.

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 11:36AM

To Mike: That's a good one; the government is trying to "help people." Yea, help themselves to other people's money!

The government is supposed to do those things enumerated in the Constitution. All other items are left to the states, or the people.

The reform of health care will require the creation of a health care bureaucracy at each state level. Another layer of government expense all under the disguise of "helping people."

Government is supposed to stay out of the way, and impose regulations on commerce, etc. when necessary. Not to "help people to other people's property" through excessive taxation and mandates because "it feels good" and keeps the politician in power.

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 11:50AM

The people who want a government option are looters who only want something for "free." They are no different than the politicians.

They believe that through power attained by numbers of ignorant voters, they can also feed at the public trough. The problem is, the producers pretty much will quit and become looters themselves, which will bring down the entire Country.

In other words, the immigrants today come here for a "better life" not because of opportunities to better themselves, but for the free "##it" handed out by the politicians and the looter voters who think they can get away with it.

It won't work. When you take from the producers and redistribute the fruits of their labor and give it to non-producers, you have basically destroyed any pretense of a "civilized" society.

There are voters now, today, who are products of the welfare state (looters for three decades or more - of all races) and they have no intention of ever working or bettering themselves. Why should they? If they become producers, the government will just take it from them, too.

The ones that have truly broken the looting chains and become producers are called ugly names by the ones who chose to remain in the chains of government poverty.

Do you not see the circle of poverty that is being woven around all of us? The chains of a third-world Country where it is demanded by the politicians and the looting voters that everyone be equally miserable?

The only ones left standing will be the politicos and the bureaucrats - just like it is in the Soviet Union. If you want fresh fruits and vegetables and choices, you get to shop at the "politically controlled-connected" markets - the ones who are not politically connected are left out of society.

It's as simple as that.

All of this will occur because we have the leadership of compromised politicians who do not care about a vision of the future, they only care about "transforming," "changing," "redistributing wealth," which basically translates into looting from the producers.

Louis Jenkins| 8.26.09 @ 11:59AM

The dreaded words: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

JerseyJ:

Took the words outta my mouth. "We all know (or should) that Europe and the US use different standards as to what is considered a live birth making infant mortality rates uncomparable. If Europe used the same standards the US does for what is considered a live birth (the full WHO definition) their infant mortality rates would likely be higher than the US. " The neonate must be born viable for it to count towards a mortality rate.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 12:01PM

Mike ... I'll go one by one.

"What politician has ever been elected on a platform of not promising to give the people what they want?" Lots actually, I'll pick Reagan to keep it simple.

" This is true even when what the people want is contradictory, i.e. no taxes and all of the government benefits."

I don't want any so-called benefits. Frankly there are very few Constitutionally legitimate "benefits" provided by the government. It is my job to take care of myself and my family, not the government's. People who expect the government to be provider, protector, payer and savior simply make me sick. It is not the American people who want a bunch of government promised "programs", it is a small group of agitators and victims. Most Americans want to the government to leave them the hell alone. Take enough in taxes to provide for defense and minting and other necessary functions and then stop hassling me.

"Further, you write: "So the government can magically give everything to everyone and still be able to pay for it?" No. But what politician has the guts to point this out their constituents?"

Ummm ... this makes no sense. Have you been only watching MSNBC? There are several politicians (I commend Demint and the like) screaming that this "plan" can't be paid for and won't provide care to everyone for everything as our teleprompter-in-chief has promised.

"I understand your argument. In fact, I own stock in health care companies. The dividends do not come close to the cost of my health insurance,"

Again the sense-o-meter is flat-lined. So the dividends paid by a company should match the cost of their goods or services? I invest in Boeing but I've never been paid a dividend that matches the cost of a 747.

"This argument ignores the lack of real competition in too many markets. This is the heart of the argument by those who want a public option. "

Bingo! Now you're getting somewhere. The myth furthered by the lefties is that what we have now is a free market that's failing. What we have now is far ... FAR ... from free-market. There is a marked lack of competition due to varied degrees of regulation at the State level. Why is health insurance (insurance in general actually) one of the few industries that is blocked from inter-state commerce? The lack of competition is purposeful for the creation of near monopolies (the Blues) in exchange for ... wait for it ... votes (in the form of monetary political contributions). Say it with me now ... "Big business loves big government." Democrats are the party of big government and big business.

If you think that government involvement doesn't compound any inherent but minor problems making them far worse than they would be in a free(er) market then you're either naive or not capable of coherent logic.

Government won't create more competition, it will absolutely, without doubt, restrict and eventually destroy it. How do you not see that?

On a totally unrelated point ... This all should start with tort reform. Loser Pays has a certain ring to it, no?

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 12:02PM

To George True: The government can "fix" the uninsured by doing two things and two things only: rewrite the "poverty" lines for acceptance into Medicaid and allow the disabled to buy into Medicare upon acceptance of a disability claim.

Then, guess what? Poof - problem solved for coverage.

They, the politicians, don't want a solution to the "made up" problems of coverage. This wouldn't endear them to ignorant voters. They want to control the amount of money spent on elderly care via Medicare and the VA system.

The government mandates and the tax code laws is what has driven up medical premiums for the last 25 years.

The other component is the simple fact that technology and the use of technology is so great in this Country, that it outpaces inflation.

There are medical procedures that were unheard of just five years ago. These procedures are saving peoples' lives.

However, under the new medical protocols that may be written by the 27 unelected bureaucrats, the uses of technology may be reduced and, therefore, lives lost.

This is where the fight must be made. Obama touts that "you can keep your doctor," but what medical procedures will he be allowed to use on you to either improve your quality of life or possibly, even save it?

Keeping your doctor won't be worth a hill of beans if "procedures" and "technology" are denied because of your age, or some subjective "contribution" to society application.

This is the battleground. The coverages for the "uninsured" is the smoke and mirrors. The uninsured are receiving health care today, albeit, expensively and at the hands of the producers with increased premiums.

We must not take our eye off the true battle which is health care spending.

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 12:07PM

In our state, about 15 years ago, the legislators touted with "mandated coverage for all" and "preexisting coverage for all."

Guess what. All but three major underwriters of insurance policies left the state, and our premiums tripled! Then, we became a "magnet" state for every kind of looter there was imaginable - illegal immigrants, welfare recipients who liked the expanded free stuff, and on and on.

It left our taxpayers (producers, again, don't you see) with a gigantic hole to fill and we've not recovered yet today.

2Anglico| 8.26.09 @ 12:07PM

Mike would have us believe he hates health insurance companies (see his first post) but, he buys their stock and complains their "dividends" are not enough. Note to Mike: A sophisticated investor like yourself should know the reason to buy stock is for "long term capital gains" not "current income" i.e., dividends. For higher income, see the chapter on "bonds".

Sue| 8.26.09 @ 12:10PM

How about not treating the shooting victims of drug crimes? Here where I live, we've had about 50 of them in eight months. I wonder if they have insurance?

If we can no "plug" in someone because they've outlived their "usefulness" to the state, maybe we can not treat criminals?

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 12:20PM

Sue points out ... "In our state, about 15 years ago, the legislators touted with "mandated coverage for all" and "preexisting coverage for all."

"Guess what. All but three major underwriters of insurance policies left the state, and our premiums tripled! Then, we became a "magnet" state for every kind of looter there was imaginable - illegal immigrants, welfare recipients who liked the expanded free stuff, and on and on."

And the libs would have us believe we have a free market that has failed us.

Your's is a terrific example of why this is a manufactured problem created by too much government regulation. Welcome to the fray.

George True| 8.26.09 @ 12:46PM

Sue: The things you suggest for fixing the problems of the chronically uninsured due to poverty or pre-existing conditions are logical, they make sense, and they would work. Therefore, they are not allowed to even be discussed by the leftists Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al and their MSM lapdogs who are promoting this gigantic steaming pile of dung called "healthcare reform". As I am sure you know, the Republican minority has an alternative plan that incorporate somed of these things you speak of. But have you heard even one word about it in any of the MSM coverage? Of course not, and we won't. If it doesn't support a leftist big-government agenda, they will pretend it does not exist.

I am going to try to get into McCain's townhall meeting here in Phoenix this evening. Yesterday he was saying we need to reject the public option but pass the rest of the bill. If I can get anywhere near a microphone I intend to tell him that the whole thing is a fundamentally flawed pile of crap and needs to go down in flames. I also intend to ask him why he wants to throw the Dems a lifeline when their plan is self-destructing and taking them down with it.

By the way, do you live in Oregon or Washington state? These states ran most of the health insurance companies out with just the kind of draconian mandates that you speak of.

Mike | 8.26.09 @ 12:56PM

George True
You write: "Can you name even one? I thought not." Clearly, you have no personal experience in this realm. I suspect many reader of TAS could regale you with stories. My wife and I are dealing with an insurance company now that insists a particular physician who is in a radiology group that is in network , is not a provider. Go figure. Looks like the runaround to me.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 1:02PM

"If Europe used the same standards the US does for what is considered a live birth (the full WHO definition) their infant mortality rates would likely be higher than the US."

According to the WHO, the U.S. ranks behind 40 other countries in infant mortality rates, and behind *all* the "socialist" countries of Western Europe.

*The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study)*

"Frankly, I don't mind paying for health insurance, even if it is slightly inflated by high tech testing and drug research. At least I'm getting something for my money."

You don't mind paying "a little extra" for high infant mortality rates and low quality health care, according to the source you yourself rely on? That's odd. The reason our healthcare is so poor is because our healthcare system is corrupt and competition-free. The solution is NOT to implement Obamacare, but it is also *not* to retain the broken system we have now, which is one of the worst in the industrialized world.

Donaldoc| 8.26.09 @ 1:47PM

So many great comments coupled with massive confusion about the role of the Federal government. The role of the Federal government was always intended to be as little as possible, as much as necessary. Governing was intended to occur at the level closest to the individual and small group, with less government at each successively higher level. Our Founding Fathers developed the finest model of government for freedom and liberty ever conceived. We - as a nation - have lost sight of what gave us the freedom and prosperity we've enjoyed for most of the last 220 years.

Tyranny starts as a gradual decay growing to a stifling repression. STOP LOOKING TO THE GOVERNMENT TO FIX EVERY PROBLEM! I'VE WORKED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, AND BELIEVE ME, IT IS BLACK HOLE THAT CONTINUES TO ABSORB UNHOLY AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL WITH FRACTIONAL OR NON-EXISTENT RETURN.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 1:49PM

Toddard ... "According to the WHO, the U.S. ranks behind 40 other countries in infant mortality rates, and behind *all* the "socialist" countries of Western Europe. "

Liberal selective understanding at work [ugh].

Read this slowly ... The WHO ranks the US behind other countries USING DIFFERENT CRITERIA.

For example ... Germany uses only three of the four WHO criteria for determining what is considered a "live birth". The UK does not count any baby born prior to 24 weeks that dies whether they are initially breathing and showing signs of life or not. Similarly the Netherlands does not resuscitate babies born prior to 25 weeks. Switzerland uses only two of the WHO's criteria and a baby must be 30cm to be considered a live birth. France uses the term "alive and viable" (so what's considered "viable"?).

You state our system is one of the worst in the world. So tell us ... how many other systems have you experienced first hand and long term? Are you following Moore to get your treatments in Cuba (sans toilet paper)? Go sell your tales of a "broken" system somewhere else. We're not buying. Address the real (and few) problems like tort reform and over-regulation and don't break the best system in the world to the ends of expanded government control.

Donaldoc| 8.26.09 @ 1:54PM

Want to fix health care? Wrong problem - fix health insurance. Make you - the patient - the primary consumer. Make prices of insurance and care (physician, hospital, long-term, etc.) totally transparent. Give the tax credit to you - the patient - rather than your employer. Give you - the patient - true competitive choice. That's called free markets, and for all of you that complain about free markets, capitalism, etc., find a better, more rational system that works and I'll be the first to sign on. Unfortunately, there his and never has been one.

True health-insurance reform is needed. Health care reform will be driven by a true health-care market where you select the insurance that meets your needs, the health care provider and health care services at the right cost / benefit, and the government can focus on the much smaller percentage of people who truly can't afford health care or can't get insurance coverage. This provides a quantifiable target group rather than allowing total control of health insurance / health care by the government, a very frightening notion.

George True| 8.26.09 @ 2:18PM

Mike: What you are describing sounds like an administrative SNAFU, not an insurance company denying your claim in order to get out of paying a legitimate claim. Being in the insurance field for 20 years, I have in fact heard a lot of such stories. In most cases, it results from policyholders not having a good understanding of how their coverage works, and specifically what is and is not covered under the policy. I have seen a smaller number of cases in which the insured was actually trying to defraud the insurnace company by concealing pre-existing conditions and the insurance company found out. I personally have never seen a case where the insurance company denied a legitimate claim simply to (illegally) get out of paying the claim. I am not saying it never happens, but in 20 years I have never personally seen it.

A few years ago, HealthNet came under fire here in Arizona for allegedly denying large claims and leaving their policyholders high and dry. In those cases the company alleged pre-existing conditions that the insured concealed and lied about. I do not know who was right and who was wrong. But this represented a handful of cases (about a dozen) among literally thousands and thousands of cases where they paid the claims with no questions asked. So it helps to keep it in perspective. Sure, if you are one of the people that had your claim denied I am sure that to you the innsurance company is evil. But when it is a handful of claims among thousands, it is hard to make a case that the insurance company is doing it as a matter of habit.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 2:18PM

"The WHO ranks the US behind other countries USING DIFFERENT CRITERIA"

Wrong. The WHO absolutely and positively uses the same criteria for all countries - in fact you can go on their website and download the reports showing the hard numbers and breakdowns. You're simply incorrect.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 2:26PM

SLT ... "Wrong. The WHO absolutely and positively uses the same criteria for all countries - in fact you can go on their website and download the reports showing the hard numbers and breakdowns. You're simply incorrect. "

Buzzt ... Sorry, wrong. The WHO defined live birth in 1950 or so. That criteria hasn't changed. It's the individual countries who choose to use all, some or none of those criteria and report their "live births" based on the criteria they've chosen. They don't all use the full WHO criteria when reporting live births and thus skew the infant mortality rates.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to report you to fishyhead@whitehouse.guv for spreading false info.

Sam| 8.26.09 @ 2:27PM

I retired a little over 3 years ago. I was to recieve company paid health insurance until I go on social security. Now I get a letter from the company that says that will change if a health bill passes. I like what I have now. I have read parts of the House version of the bill(Yes I know there is no real bill). I do NOT like what I have read. Obama has NOT told the whole story! Maybe he should read what the proposals are before talking about what he must not really know!!

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 3:10PM

"That criteria hasn't changed. It's the individual countries who choose to use all, some or none of those criteria and report their "live births" based on the criteria they've chosen. They don't all use the full WHO criteria when reporting live births and thus skew the infant mortality rates."

I am willing to consider that you may be correct. Could you please link me to any supporting evidence from an impartial, non-partisan source? You're obviously not obligated to, but if you do and it checks out I will happily concede that you are correct and I am in the wrong.

Houston Rao| 8.26.09 @ 4:22PM

Matt said " I don't understand how anyone familiar with the health reform proposal can say that the government is "running healthcare". The president has stated consistently that "if you like your current health care you can keep it". The public option exists primarily to keep private companies honest, because free enterprise only works when there is true competition instead of price-fixing. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY is going to be forced into "government healthcare" under this plan."

Please tell that to the seniors who are forced into Medicare today - otherwise they forfeit their social security benefits. Unlike private insurers who are required by law to maintain reserves to fund claims, Medicare is allowed to operate with no reserves. Is that honest competition in insurance for the seniors?

61% of the private insurers are non-profit companies. Are they not adequate to keep for-profit companies honest given that profit is not their motive? And there is nothing to stop Obama teaming with up his friends, Buffet and Soros, for $6 billion of their private capital to start another insurer that operates like and offers the same benefits as the 'public option'.

JerseyJ| 8.26.09 @ 4:45PM

"Could you please link me to any supporting evidence from an impartial, non-partisan source?"

OK, I'll bite, but define "non-partisan" ... a quick google yeilds these:
www(dot)nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

http://www.positiveliberty.com.....-care.html

If those are too partisan for you, here are various country's definitions of stillbirths:
http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.u.....ndix-7.pdf

Clear to see there are difficulties comparing the rates of different countries when country A counts any infant death in a birth prior to 27 weeks as a stillborn and country B will count it as a live birth and death.

K7UGA| 8.26.09 @ 5:03PM

Thanks Barry,
Good to hear from you after all this time. Well done.

Mike| 8.26.09 @ 5:44PM

Jersey J
Ronald Reagan? I can only assume you jest. He of infinite optimism, boundless bon hommie armed with the Laffer Curve really gave it straight to the American people. Try reading about the real Reagan as opposed to the Reagan of conservative myth.
I am with you completely about personal responsibility. However, from what you wrote I assume that you do not pay social security and medicare taxes so you have no expectation of ever benefiting from these programs. I also assume you don't work for government or for any company to that contracts with government to provide goods or services. I fso, surely there are those who would consider your job a waste of tax payer dollars.
You sound as if you are young and healthy. I hope you have good insurance that your company or you can afford. As you age the chances of losing your insurance increase for many reasons. Good luck in the future.

What| 8.26.09 @ 6:25PM

Matt and SL Stodard,

Matt look up page 16 of HR 3200..its the lose your current insurance section. Obama is lying threw his teeth and so is every Dem you see on TV. No less than Elizabeth Edawrds was saying the same thing. Why is this a big deal? The plan her husband ran on in 2007(the same one Obama has been crafting his legislation after) was designed by Jacob Hacker. He is a unabashed proponent of single payor and he goes on to say the way to that is thru a public option. He cites the Lewin Group data as support for business dumping health insurance for public option. He gave a speech for tides.org. Elizabeth Edwards(and team Obama) definitely knows this info yet there she was on Larry King saying this public option will not affect your health care/insurance. She lied in a very sincere, believe me, I am a cancer survivor way. But she is being dishonest with the American people. what drives this? Pure ideology..not what is best for patients. Nothing in this bill is in your best interest as a patient.

Life expectancy is simple. We have more violent crime and motor vehicle accidents than any of the other countries. Remove those numbers and we are tops. These numbers are coming under so much scrutinity the "gurus" at the Commonwealth Fund came up with another measure: amenable life expectancy. It is the health care equivalent to "We saved x jobs" No real way to measure for real and the Fund admits it. But none the less the left needs a new number because life expectancy is easy to debunk.
Infant mortality: in a nutshell, viability in the US is defined as any infant from 24 weeks on. IN every other country, it is essentially defined as 28 weeks and up. Those 4 weeks are huge. Ask any neonatologist.

As someone mentioned, look at cancer survivabilty rates, cardiac disease, lung disease etc. We are tops in the world even with a country 6-20x larger, a diverse population, a larger land mass and a more transitory population due to immigrants both legal and illegal. The quality and access here to that quality are unmatched.

Yes other countries have medical care for the rich. Checkout the Harley Street docs in the UK. Private. Canada has the same organizations: Timelymedicalcare.com. Two tiered systems are ubiquitous in these countries.

start reading guys..and stop reciting talking points or at least know where your talking points come from.

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 6:28PM

"Clear to see there are difficulties comparing the rates of different countries when country A counts any infant death in a birth prior to 27 weeks as a stillborn and country B will count it as a live birth and death."

Only one of those sites corroborates the claims you make about the faultiness of the WHO study, and that one is from an anonymous poster named "Twig". I'm looking for an authoritative source to confirm your claim that the WHO study is erroneous because it is based on data provided by countries using markedly different criteria for infant mortality.

Here is the CIA infant mortality rating - according to them the U.S. ranks behind 43 countries in infant mortality rates, and behind *all* the "socialist" countries of Western Europe.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

S.L. Toddard| 8.26.09 @ 6:32PM

"start reading guys..and stop reciting talking points or at least know where your talking points come from"

Please provide any authoritative study which concludes that the United States is either at or near the top of the list vis a vis best overall healthcare.

And let me also state that I oppose Obamacare and would be perfectly happy to find myself proved wrong.

Richard Baker| 8.26.09 @ 9:41PM

Goldwater Jr's Father said in 1964 in San Francisco that "Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is no vice". Truer words today due to the communists/dictators aiming to subjugate this Country and attempting to use "Healthcare" as their vehicle. As I've said before, this country was founded by Revolutionaries and their descendents still live. Keep your powder dry and your flints sharpened.

C. McNees| 8.27.09 @ 12:37AM

First time reader here on TAS.
Very interesting dialog among all of you and a wonderful piece by Mr. Goldwater.

I am reminded of the news many of us read 10+ years ago of toilet seats the government bought for $6000. You know the ones: the same seats you and I could buy in the free market for $20. Need I say more? Who in their right mind can honestly believe this same government who overspends by 300% for toilet seats is going to solve the skyrocketing health care costs?

Sara| 8.27.09 @ 2:47AM

Here is a great chance to drive a large number of targeted visitors to your blogs and websites for free.

Submit your websites, blogs, videos to http://www.zillionsb.com and get 1000s of visitors everyday for free. It also helps your websites/blogs gain valuable backlinks.

Let the other bloggers cast their votes to push your posts up for a greater visibility. Enjoy free huge traffic to your sites.

Thanks

Sara

http://www.zillionsb.com

Marc Jeric| 8.27.09 @ 4:34AM

De Tocqueville said 170 years ago that when you give the right to vote to people who pay no taxes it will be the end of the democratic experiment. As for Obama who said that not covering the pre-existing conditions is the winning argument for nationalized health care - let me spell it out.
A guy starts working at 25 years of age, is healthy, ans does not want to waste $4,000/year for health insurance. The real worth of that "saving" after 30 years is about $1,500,000 - assuming that stream is invested in some stock market index. I do not care if the guy drank it all up in bars - the value is a million and a half. Now at the age of 55 he finds himself with a cancer and he wants finally to but the damned health insurance. And I say to hell with him - I do not want my payments to go up to cover his "smarts". By the same principle one could buy car insurance after the accident, or fire insurance after your home went up in flames, etc.

qwert| 8.27.09 @ 5:24AM

"start reading guys..and stop reciting talking points or at least know where your talking points come from"

Please provide any authoritative study which concludes that the United States is either at or near the top of the list vis a vis best overall healthcare.

And let me also state that I oppose Obamacare and would be perfectly happy to find myself proved wrong.
paper cutter

penis büyütücü| 8.27.09 @ 11:22AM

only to 1.4 in almost a year, not good. wifi restrictions need to be lifted to make "the social" work, add video to zm. in short the zune is the only good thing about owning a zune.

mary| 8.28.09 @ 4:11PM

Mr. Goldberg, why not include Social Security in your article as an example? Try getting disability benefits from Social Security without an attorney, not to mention other areas where they fall short. Matter of fact, let me think of a government program that is ran well….hmmmmmmmmm

Bryan Chauncey Mays| 8.28.09 @ 4:34PM

We have elected people that not only want to control our minds but also want to control our destinies. I thought that was God's job.

Bryan Chauncey Mays

Damian Palmares| 8.29.09 @ 12:26AM

Thank you. Cheers Bryan.....I think we're running into a case of buyer's remorse. Any Lemon Laws against this administration?

Damian Palmares| 8.29.09 @ 12:31AM

"Matter of fact, let me think of a government program that is ran well….hmmmmmmmmm"

You know it's funny Mary, cause everywhere I can I try to just point out that one aspect....it really leads me to believe, has there EVER been a succesful government run program? And I read everything and look back at history like a hawk. And that fact alone doesn't even touch the fact that; is this crap they have been doing is even Constitutional? If you have proof of a gov program that works, please let me know....in the meantime I'll see you in 2010 and 2012 if an impeachment doesn't happen before then.

chen| 8.29.09 @ 1:28AM

You know it's funny Mary, cause everywhere I can I try to just point out that one aspect....it really leads me to believe, has there EVER been a succesful government run program? And I read everything and look back at history like a hawk. And that fact alone doesn't even touch the fact that; is this crap they have been doing is even Constitutional? If you have proof of a gov program that works, please let me know....in the meantime I'll see you in 2010 and 2012 if an impeachment doesn't happen before then. http://www.theaf1shoes.com/ nike af1 shoes
http://www.dunksbsite.com/ nike dunk sb shoes

DamianPalmares| 8.29.09 @ 2:23AM

I used to like Air Force One's....style's not my favorite anymore but I like the Boeing Air Force One.

Richard Baker| 8.30.09 @ 11:15AM

C. McNees:
The "toilet seat" in question cost approximately $600-700 and was not a "seat". It was on the P-3 Orion Navy anti-submarine warfare aircraft. It was actually a composite (mostly fiberglass) cover for the P-3 onboard toilet system and was a large handmade piece. The cost was high because Lockheed made them to order one at a time driving the unit cost up. The other cost factor was that they had to be airworthy items and that drives up the cost of parts in ALL aircraft components, either civilian or military. Was in a Navy Reserve P-3 squadron and one of my friends showed me the cover. It's not a small part. Just a clarification.

richard| 8.30.09 @ 5:39PM

The reason Medicare is broke is because it pays out more than it takes in. Right? Look who Medicare pays for: the elderly whose have much more need of healthcare than the rest of us. To compare the two- private health insurance companies and Medicare is not a fair comparison. If we got rid of this "wasteful, dysfunctional program" do you think the insurance companies could still make a profit insuring our seniors? NO WAY!!! It's easy to make profits when you can cherry pick your customers and deny coverage to people you think you'll have to pay out on. But Medicare covers everyone over 65, denies no one, and covers the segment of the population that, by far, uses health services the most, in other words, people private insurers would never cover. If it's so wasteful, then I want to see opponents of reform who spout nonsense, go on record as calling for the abolishment of Medicare. (See if they ever get re-elected-HA!) Without it our seniors would go bankrupt or die sooner because of...in effect, the free market. THE ONLY REASON WE TOLERATE THESE PRIVATE INSURERS IS BECAUSE THEY CAN USE MEDICARE TO COVER OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS-THE PRIVATE INSURERS ACTUALLY NEED MEDICARE AROUND. One more point. All the posts I've read so far and opponents of reform I spoken with have one thing in common--THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SOLUTIONS OF THEIR OWN TO OFFER. If you don’t like the plans offered so far, propose your own. I can only assume that after speaking with the offices of Republican senators(3 times), and hearing them talk, and noticing that when Republicans ran Congress for 12 years and did nothing about Healthcare, that they don’t have ANY IDEAS TO OFFER!

Richard| 8.30.09 @ 5:46PM

In fact, look at the Medicare drug bill that was passed in 2003. Bush administration officials said it wouldn't cost more than $300Billion. Some Republicans in House and Senate said they wouldn't vote for anything over $300B. As soon as it was passed, we learned from the chief actuary in the Bush administration that it would probably cost close to $535 B. CLASSIC BATE AND SWITCH. Not only that, but it was not paid for with tax increases or spending cuts. But not only that- REPUBLICANS TIED THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT FROM ACTUALLY NEGOTIATING WITH DRUG COMPANIES FOR PRICE BREAKS! If you're a big proponent of the free market then you should be embracing one of the foremost principles of consumerism. WHEN YOU BUY IN BULK YOU CAN USUALLY GET A DISCOUNT.

vuerty| 4.22.10 @ 1:56AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. PoptropicaWhen all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. PoptropicaZeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale Poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. PoptropicaHe will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 3:18PM

MY FRIEND REALLY SURPRISE THIS BLOG. HE SAID THIS PAGE CONTAIN VALUABLE INFORMATION

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 3:58PM

I have been examinating out some of your stories and i can state pretty nice stuff.mesothelioma attorneys

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 9:39PM

Thanks so much for the superb issue related to this good topic. But, I really have all needed stuff at present time.

yaz lawsuit

rechie| 10.24.11 @ 9:45AM

anyway, you can search a lot of topic in this site. so much interesting and i know that you will not fell boring.

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:54AM

this is great and fantastic work topic blog..i kindly like it for your effort

silver spot price

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:55AM

i know this blog is also help for other people and the blog is also the key to success our rank goes to up..

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 9:51PM

I always prefer to read the quality content and this thing I found in you post. Thanks for sharing.

fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 9:26PM

This is a very informative and interesting blog. I am sure he will have a good time reading through it.
Actos Lawsuits

Elisa| 10.20.11 @ 8:39PM

Wow, nicely done.. playing it I kept moving my head around as the view changed, little dose of virtual reality?
Actos side effects

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 1:21PM

This was well worth visiting your site for. I look forward to the next article that you put up.
L Tod Schlosser

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 1:24PM

Hi there! Stunning web blog! I happen to be a regular website visitor...keep updating
L Tod Schlosser

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 2:27PM

this is the best blog i ever read and useful i ever know thanks

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 3:17AM

I get a presentation that i'm presently concentrating on, and i have been getting the style out for such information.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 2:04AM

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.

zoloft lawsuit