Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,774,755 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul - broken link)
I can't say I'm crying buckets.
My heart goes out to those who are uninsured, who have high premiums, have high deductibles, etc but this bill Congress put together is not the direction our country needs to go in.
We can learn a lot from all the other industrialized countries that have managed to figure out universal health care. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't guarantee health care to all it's citizens. Let's take a look at Germany, France, the UK, and Canada. They all get very good marks in certain areas.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,774,755 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
I voted against Obama in the primary. He doesn't deserve the support of strong progressives because he doesnt lead. He's a triagulator. Preserving the status quo and his hide are his most important priorities.
Of course he's light years ahead of these knuckle dragging GOP candidates but that a very low bar to clear.
Do you remember "the limbo" at roller skating rinks? For you young folks it was a bar held up and skaters would attempt to skate under it as it got lower and lower without knocking the bar down. The last skater who went under it without knocking it down would win the prize and the title of "Future Republican"
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,774,755 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntamedOhioan
If it doesn't pass, the Democrats are pretty much done for in the midterms. At least they could motivate Democrat voters to get out and vote if they passed health care, DADT repeal, jobs bill, and wall street revenge. Democrats won't care if they don't do so.
This bill is so horrible that it would not motivate me a bit. As a part of the "base" the Dems can count my ass out for November. I am staying home. And there is no doubt that November will be a blood bath for them. And they deserve it. When I see the change and hope I voted for, I will come back.
This bill is so horrible that it would not motivate me a bit. As a part of the "base" the Dems can count my ass out for November. I am staying home. And there is no doubt that November will be a blood bath for them. And they deserve it. When I see the change and hope I voted for, I will come back.
I'll take one year of stagnation to the eight previous years of working our way into the abyss.
Stay home if you think that the alternative is better.
Last edited by learningCA; 02-05-2010 at 07:45 PM..
Joseph Stiglitz, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations this Thursday about his new book, "Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy". NPQ
I am sorry, doctorHugo, I did not mean to rain on your parade.
The truth is that we are all in it together, democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, federalist, green, and everything in between. Defending one's mental position does not help, just clouds the real issues at play.
We messed up, there is no easy fix for it. Just hard, honest, collaborative work to figure out the best solutions available to us now will bring stability to this economy and us back to leading normal lives again.
Playing the blame game, or as in this thread, attempting to teach people or companies compassion for those less fortunate does not work. There will always be someone to yell from the top of his longs that he won't pay a cent more in taxes to help others even if people are dropping dead in the streets from lack of medical care. I now remember an episode in US history - while Europe lied crushed by Hitler and London was in flames from Blitz, America was still debating if it had any place intervening in European affairs. Such is human nature and democracy.
This is why we need a government to care and act for the welfair of the people it is elected or employed to serve, for this great country that is no less civilized than any other developed country in the world.
Yeah, I know, I am dreaming, infighting will never stop, people come together just for moments when tragedy strikes.
Oh, well, what do I know, I'll go to sleep, good night.
Last edited by learningCA; 02-06-2010 at 04:00 AM..
In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's government-run health care bill that funds abortions and has other pro-abortion problems.
Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.
“The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,” Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.
“There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,” he said.
For those opposed - call your US House Representative and make your voice heard.
I am sorry, doctorHugo, I did not mean to rain on your parade.
The truth is that we are all in it together, democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, federalist, green, and everything in between. Defending one's mental position does not help, just clouds the real issues at play.
We messed up, there is no easy fix for it. Just hard, honest, collaborative work to figure out the best solutions available to us now will bring stability to this economy and us back to leading normal lives again.
Playing the blame game, or as in this thread, attempting to teach people or companies compassion for those less fortunate does not work. There will always be someone to yell from the top of his longs that he won't pay a cent more in taxes to help others even if people are dropping dead in the streets from lack of medical care. I now remember an episode in US history - while Europe lied crushed by Hitler and London was in flames from Blitz, America was still debating if it had any place intervening in European affairs. Such is human nature and democracy.
This is why we need a government to care and act for the welfair of the people it is elected or employed to serve, for this great country that is no less civilized than any other developed country in the world.
Yeah, I know, I am dreaming, infighting will never stop, people come together just for moments when tragedy strikes.
Oh, well, what do I know, I'll go to sleep, good night.
I agree with you in concept. we have elected a leader, not my choice, but, he is now in charge. IMO, the american people want a leader who leads, not constantly "blame " the previous administration and "blame" the other party because he cannot get his own party to vote in his favor.
Quit palying the blame game comes from the top. In one of his first bi-patisian meetings meetings the repubs wanted someting changed and Obama said "we won, we are in control", or something to that affect. in essence telling the repubs that it was his way or the highway.
I would like to see true bi-partisianship. How can we get it when the controlling party locks out the minority party and them blames them for not participating.
Obama needs to stop this type of action on his part and tell congress to grow up and do what the people elected them to do.
You and I pretty much disagree with great consistency on these forums, but the DOESN'T mean I don't respect your right to voice you opinion. I only ask that you back opinion with facts when pivotal to the discussion.
(In respect for your topic, if you feels this encourages a discussion too far removed from your original topic so advise me and I'll make a separate topic post.)
In saying this...
Quote:
I can't say I'm crying buckets.
My heart goes out to those who are uninsured, who have high premiums, have high deductibles, etc but this bill Congress put together is not the direction our country needs to go in.
We can learn a lot from all the other industrialized countries that have managed to figure out universal health care. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't guarantee health care to all it's citizens. Let's take a look at Germany, France, the UK, and Canada. They all get very good marks in certain areas.
I find myself in agreement with your first paragraph as we're all in the same boat.
It's in the second paragraph you indicate the great shism in this country. I'm going to addess this to see if we can come to at least a partial agreement. However, you sort of contradict yourself and, for me,
evidence a modicum of doubt as to the ability of the "government" to provide what you want. Then you set about justifying or trying to..., goverment provided health care by the use of "guarantee health care".
You made a statement saying..."Let's take a look at..." and then fail to follow-up with any reference data at all to complete that suggestion. I took it upon myself to dig for some stats in that area and came up with this. I spent much time trying to find a valid, truly non-partisan source whose information could be corroborated. I found NONE that met that standard. Then I came upon this and decided that it addressed the issue in a very intelligent and a simple manner. It's a long read, but definitely worthwhile.
When one discounts what I refer to as the "bomb-throwers" and pays attention to those who make a 'factual' and coherent, the parting of the ways on this issue comes to one very obvious point. The provider. Who shall it be? The government (known as the "public" option now) or the commercial marketplace (private companies).
The only qualifier I would insert for this to work is we have to agree that all here commenting believe in the America as established by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and reject socialism in all forms as an alien form of government to that which America was conceived as. I say this because an adocate for any alien form of government is an advocate for the overthrow of this existing and original form and a traitor. I simply do not debate traitors. Hopefully that is the rare individual, because a non-partisan and frank and honest discussion may well set us on the road to a potential resolution of what is the best way to go. The author of this piece obviously put some dedicated time into this to position the most significant considerations and comment upon them. Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?
Yes
The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 45 million (although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.).
Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all fairness, the 45 million uninsured number has been called into question since in includes illegal immigrants, people making over $75K who choose not to buy coverage, and others who have options for coverage but choose not to get it. The true number of people without options is closer to 15 million.
Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.
We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.
Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.
Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.
Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage. One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health care systems is that patients with a past or current medical condition such as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy to such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive illness or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In a universal system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the loss of health insurance.
No
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleeze that is already prevalent in other areas of government. In President Obama's push for health insurance "reform", we saw firsthand how politics rears its ugly head. In order to secure 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats put in special payoffs for Nebraska (the "Cornhusker kickback"), Louisiana (the "Louisinan Purchase"), and Florida in order to secure votes from reluctant senators. In other words, the merits of the bill and the good of the nation took a backseat to politics as usual. Another example was the proposed tax on "Cadillac Health Plans", which was one of the few things in the 2000+ page bill that economists predicted would actually help reduce overall costs. Unfortunately, Obama's biggest political supporters--big unions--were set to be hit. So of course, a deal was struck to exempt his union supporters, whereas non-union members in the same boat still faced the tax hikes. With something as important as health care, can we really have politicians and special interests taking power? How long before funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. are decided based on those who give the most political support, as opposed to which will save lives and improve quality of life?
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?
Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
Bascailly it was like the stimulus where he let the congress with all their wants for their districts and states take over the bill with no leadership form him. It became a don't make me pay ;give my state speial exemptions.Now he is like Madoff wanting americans to allow him to borrow more money. Some like in the madoff case just believed the something for nothing and some still do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PurpleLove08
