|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Quote:
I've seen the French socialized healthcare firsthand in the late '90s ... a scene out of a vetrenarian clinic of the 1960s.
Not comparing systems here, but every healthcare system including the best, will generate plenty of individual horror stories. What's the real relevance though in terms of the long-term health of the citizens of a country? IMO you have to look at the big picture to make that comparison. And in that comparison, and in most categories, the U.S. system doesn't seem to fare so well.
Quote:
There is also a reason that if anything serious happens, most expatriates try to make it Stateside for treatment.
I haven't heard (and I for one am not claiming) that the quality of healthcare delivery in the U.S. isn't excellent. And those Americans who can afford to travel abroad probably have the ability to pay for healthcare anywhere they want to get it, so why not access it in the U.S. Is that however the point?
Quote:
The US healthcare system isn't perfect and does need some serious adjustment done to the malpractice and procedure side of it, but God is it head and shoulders above what most other countries have.
Perhaps the best, undoubtedly one of the best (and would certainly be better with malpractice reform) - but again, this statement applies only for those who have affordable access ... and according to everything I read these days, that number is shrinking at the same time as the population is growing. If this trend continues, what do you think would be the eventual outcome?
And as part of your next posting, may I respectfully suggest you disclose any bias by stating whether or not you have healtchare insurance coverage?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Not comparing systems here, but every healthcare system including the best, will generate plenty of individual horror stories. What's the real relevance though in terms of the long-term health of the citizens of a country? IMO you have to look at the big picture to make that comparison. And in that comparison, and in most categories, the U.S. system doesn't seem to fare so well.
I've done a fair amount of travel across 5 of 7 continents, lived in Europe and worked both in Europe and Central America. I've seen the healthcare systems up close in Costa Rica, Mexico, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Hong Kong through either going there myself for some spat of intentinal disorder or sinus issue or having a close friend or family member partaking of the services in these areas where I was there to help translate.
NONE could compete with the quality of care I've seen given here in the US; most were along the lines of what I experienced in France or WORSE. I have heard this from countless other natives that have experienced the difference as well, or have had absolutlely abysmal treatment within state-sponsored programs.
The relevance is that long-term health has little to do with the healthcare given by a private program OR a socialized one. Why? Healthy citizens start with a quality LIFESTYLE, DIET and EXCERCISE. The US is almost piss-poor last on my list of civilized healthy places on the planet, and again, I've been to quite a few.
Healthcare, socialized or otherwise, will NEVER address the compounding issues of poor diet, little to no excercise and an stressful existance. This is why I see the US ranked where it is, and deservedly so.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
I haven't heard (and I for one am not claiming) that the quality of healthcare delivery in the U.S. isn't excellent. And those Americans who can afford to travel abroad probably have the ability to pay for healthcare anywhere they want to get it, so why not access it in the U.S. Is that however the point?
To boil it down, I believe in the age-old adage of "you get what you pay for". This is the concept I was trying to parallel here, in so many words.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Perhaps the best, undoubtedly one of the best (and would certainly be better with malpractice reform) - but again, this statement applies only for those who have affordable access ... and according to everything I read these days, that number is shrinking at the same time as the population is growing. If this trend continues, what do you think would be the eventual outcome?
The bulk of the US population still has affordable access. I must concede that this number is shrinking and this trend is of SERIOUS concern. Change is needed, though "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" isn't my idea of the correct magnatude of change, hence my dislike for a leap towards socialized medicine. With malpractice reform (which would also drive some procedural reforms in the medical field), the cost would be substantially lower and more affordable.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
And as part of your next posting, may I respectfully suggest you disclose any bias by stating whether or not you have healtchare insurance coverage?
I certainly do; the best I've had since I've been alive. During the few times I didn't in my life, I didn't blame the government for this issue as I've never seen it as their responsibility to coddle and support me; that's my job. In short, I found better employment that had better benefits or worked it out where I could get on a plan that met my financial and personal needs.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Quote:
I've seen the healthcare systems up close in Costa Rica, Mexico, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Hong Kong
I respect your perspective here ... my experience with healthcare systems is restricted to U.S., UK, Canada, and Germany ... and frankly, for the reasons I was there (always sinus and ear infections) I couldn't say I saw much difference. And as I was covered by insurance in all cases, I also didn't experience any difference in access.
Quote:
NONE could compete with the quality of care I've seen given here in the US;
In terms of the countries you list, I'm not in a position to argue this point - conceded.
Quote:
The relevance is that long-term health has little to do with the healthcare given by a private program OR a socialized one.
Agreed, in so far as it applies to those who have access to it; those who don't have access to a private system, would undoubtedly think a socialized one available to them would provide better care than no care at all.
Quote:
Why? Healthy citizens start with a quality LIFESTYLE, DIET and EXCERCISE
Agreed that these factors have a huge impact on the overall health of a nation; but not all metrics, especially those regarding infants and children - infant mortality for example.
Quote:
Healthcare, socialized or otherwise, will NEVER address the compounding issues of poor diet, little to no excercise and an stressful existance.
There are those who would argue that publicy funded healthcare systems, being national in scope and being relieved of the requirement to generate profit for shareholders, have much greater latitude to focus on lifestyle and prevention and to direct resources in those areas.
Quote:
I certainly do; the best I've had since I've been alive. During the few times I didn't in my life, I didn't blame the government for this issue as I've never seen it as their responsibility to coddle and support me;
Given your situation, what advice would you give to a working family that, through no fault of their own, loses their insurance coverage and is forced into bankruptcy in order to try and save a loved-ones life?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Agreed, in so far as it applies to those who have access to it; those who don't have access to a private system, would undoubtedly think a socialized one available to them would provide better care than no care at all.
This is where I think some serious reforms in respect to the current healthcare climate here in the US can address this without adding yet another level of socialization. COBRA benefits (which come into effect after one has been laid off of work) need to be revised to be more affordable; in their current form they are outrageously priced. I seem to recall that health coverage wasn't a rampant issue before costs started to spiral upwards, even among low-income families. Let's find a way to get back to this environment.
Long story short, I don't want to force socialized healthcare on everyone, as I'm quite sure a privatized practice would continue to exist and a LARGE percentage of people would opt out of socialized coverage, due to the quality differences. Given my experiences, I sure would.
Do we as a nation try to continually provide for the needs of the minority at the ongoing cost of the majority, or try to facilitate an environment that pushes all to reach towards the majority?
If we can address the issues at hand that we know to have played a hand in spiking healthcare costs here in the US, this in turn can make healthcare more affordable across the board.
Everyone wants the best care available and the US has it for the most part; the fact is they don't want to pay for it. Don't take this as a belittlement to the astronomical rises that the US has recently seen; I'm in agreement that there are problems that NEED to be addressed in it's cost structure.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Agreed that these factors have a huge impact on the overall health of a nation; but not all metrics, especially those regarding infants and children - infant mortality for example.
I'm at a loss on the infant mortality piece; the US population continues to rise at an aggressive rate past most countries that have socialized healthcare (especially in Europe), so the correlation is somewhat lost on me.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
There are those who would argue that publicy funded healthcare systems, being national in scope and being relieved of the requirement to generate profit for shareholders, have much greater latitude to focus on lifestyle and prevention and to direct resources in those areas.
I take issue with this line of thinking, since US lifestyles and diet are vastly different than most anywhere else on the planet. Pushing state-sponsored programs isn't going to change the fast food industry, nor will it change the TV dinner/frozen food culture that seems to have exploded and so many of our citizens partake in.
Many Europeans and Central Americans are eternally thinner than their US counterparts; this has nothing to do with their healthcare system. This is largely due in part to their diet, in addition to the fact that most maintain a level of physical movement that is alien to our population. Living and working in Spain and Mexico, in addition to going to school in France had me walking just about EVERYWHERE. I used to put miles on my shoes every day. Here in the US? If I didn't hit the gym 4-5 times a week, I'd be in serious trouble as my activity level outside of it is close to nill, except on the weekends.
The caloric intake and lack of excercise among all levels of our population is KILLING us. I see this as more of an education issue than a ongoing health issue that needs to be addressed by socializing healthcare and throwing dollars at something that doesn't address the main catalyst behind what is perhaps our largest health issue.
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Given your situation, what advice would you give to a working family that, through no fault of their own, loses their insurance coverage and is forced into bankruptcy in order to try and save a loved-ones life?
Before I answer this, are situations like this the rule of by FAR and away the exception to the rule? What percentage of the US population is going into bankruptcy to responsibly care for their loved ones? Is there an element of the US population that is taking a few isolated yet terribly heartbreaking and disturbing situations and trying to make political hay off of it?
Furthermore, how are we to be sure that socialized medicine would provide the level of care to address the needs of the patient in question? I hear mention of age cutoffs on procedures. I doubt the latest, best and most expensive procedures would be available under a socialized structure, as what incentives exist for R&D in this type of environment?
Now, what would I say to that family? It depends on the situation. I know my wife and I have it in writing to "pull the plug" if either of us gets so bad as to create a situation where it would financially drain either one of us and an acceptable quality of life wouldn't ensue. Other people seem to be happy knowing they are caring for a human vegatable and gladly do so even though it ruins their existance for themselves and the rest of their family. I'm one that places more concern on "quality of life" instead of "quantity of life". I simply don't know what I would say because there exist FAR too many stipulations that can be found within your example.
Last edited by JaTo; 10/21/04 04:29 PM.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
You raise some interesting questions (processing) but in the meantime ... Quote:
Long story short, I don't want to force socialized healthcare on everyone
Any debate about whether a private system or a publicly funded system delivers better healthcare is moot if you fundamentally donâ??t believe basic healthcare is a right of citizenship. As it appears that you do not believe that basic healthcare is a right of citizenship, could you help me to better understand that POV.
For example, in terms of the U.S. and its fundamental values and its collective vision as a nation, how do I reconcile the following:
The wealthiest nation on the planet by a long shot
A country based on the doctrines of fairness, equality and â??doing whatâ??s rightâ? for its citizens
A country proud of a tradition of â??walkinâ?? the talkâ?
A history of coming together to â??take care of our ownâ?
A history of innovation and pulling together to solve problems
A history of doing the right thing, regardless of how hard, because itâ??s right
A history of helping the underdog or the disadvantaged â??? millions even billions spent to do it
A willingness to sacrifice their own citizenâ??s lives, ostensibly in support of another countryâ??s freedom â??? and a willingness to spend hundreds of billions in the process
Hundreds of billions spent over the years in support of the nationâ??s security and ability to extend its power around the globe
Millions if not billions of tax $ spent to support private enterprise faced with global competition
Billions spent to explore space on behalf of the entire planet
Billions being spent to militarize space
Broad based cross-party support for universal access to a basic education system dedicated to â??leaving no one behindâ?
Millions if not billions of tax $ spent on supporting sports/entertainment infrastructure
Hundreds of thousands of tax $ spent on Viagra and breast implants for members of the military
A willingness to extend tax cuts to those who arguably donâ??t need them; at a time of record deficit and debt, and during a time of extraordinary expenses
A partially socialized healthcare system that provides catastrophic care for the destitute or disenfranchised
Millions of citizens with access to arguably the best health care delivery in the world
But â?¦
No consideration for providing, as a right of citizenship, the basic healthcare needs of millions of working, tax-paying families that otherwise donâ??t have access to it; not to mention a significant portion of the population that, even at the best of times, never had access.
Iâ??m a reasonably logical guy, open to being educated â?¦ I see a huge disconnect here that simply doesnâ??t make sense â?¦ what part of this equation am I missing?
Please tell me itâ??s not about money; and please tell me itâ??s not about about politics.
And please tell me itâ??s not about maintaining a higher standard of healthcare for those who are fortunate enough to have access â??? because I have to say, when I boil all the arguments down to their essence, thatâ??s what Iâ??m hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Think about it ... what does it say about a nation's values when as a citizen your constution guarantees you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (life listed first here) and that is translated into
the right to vote (change government)
the right to a basic education
the right to bear arms
but not the right to basic healthcare?
Right to life was I believe intended to imply that the government would not deprive you of same, not interviene against "natural causes"...
Life requires more than just heathcare..food, shelter as well. Are we then OBLIGATED for providing food & shelter for all who need it? Further, as "I think about it" the phrase does not differentiate from those who CAN and CANNOT obtain these things for themselves. If I am able to work but for "religious reasons" choose not to, does the constitution obligate YOU to subsidise me? I am sorry but I do not accept that the US Constitution is a blueprint for communism.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
...And please tell me itâ??s not about maintaining a higher standard of healthcare for those who are fortunate enough to have access â??? because I have to say, when I boil all the arguments down to their essence, thatâ??s what Iâ??m hearing.
And this is what it is precisely about; better healthcare for the MAJORITY of the population instead of marginalizing healthcare for ALL through wholesale socialization to address the needs of a few. I don't believe in marginalizing quality to simply bring quantity to the masses, especially when there are better ways to address the need. If we take care of the issues that have begun to plague our healthcare industry, I would suggest that we could certainly lower the cost where it would become much more affordable.
Socializing medicine isn't going to solve the issues we need to reform, namely malpractice costs. Medical procedures haven't innately gone up in value; the RISKS associated with performing them in today's legal environment have and the insurance premiums have poked through the roof due to this. Drug costs are a seperate issue, though and one that needs to be saved for another time as it is a mess taken in conjunction with this.
Do I think everyone should have affordable healthcare? Yes. Do I think it should be a Constitutional right? No, because of the fashion in which it would be implemented. Given the mismanagement that a number of governemnt social programs have seen here in the US, why should I dare to risk my healthcare to the same effects of bureaucracy and governmental control, when the private industry version has worked in a very effective fashion for so long?
Again, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" just isn't the right solution for the MAJORITY of the population here in the US. Lowering the bar so everyone qualifies isn't nearly as attractive to me as fixing the situations that are keeping more and more people from being able to reach the bar.
I fail to see where the Founding Fathers addressed socialized medicine, and I continually fail to see where government control has been a boon for the bulk of the population (take Social Security for just one example off the top of my head). The fact is that the BULK of the population will NEVER see even an EQUAL return of their investment in most government social programs.
Why is it in Canada that I've read that wait times for treatment is outrageous in some cases and some Canadian citizens are heading to the US for medical assistance? To better afford benefits for all of it's citizens, why has China lowered benefits across the board in the past years? Must I reiterate my own experience and that of others that I know about socialized medicine?
For the MAJORITY of the population, I firmly believe that not having an entirely government subsidized healthcare system is better, ultimately cheaper and effective in the long run. With the proper amount of attention paid to the legal and insurance climate that has absolutely spiked costs to outrageous proportions, I strongly believe that those left out would be able to afford it more than ever AND receive better treatment.
I think Churchill said it best:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
-Sir Winston Churchill
Breaking the back of the insurance and litigation lobby in Washington would constitute the first steps towards creating an environment that can lower costs, in addition to putting limits on absolutely out-of-control liability costs.
Remember, all things being equal under a socialized medical program, liability and current damage statutes wouldn't change. Now we have the bulk of the US population now having to cover legal and malpractice costs that are hidden and redistributed through higher taxes.
No, I don't agree that having socialized medical coverage for all citizens is the way to proceed, given our successes with the private sector. While it may look good on paper and make everyone feel good, I have grave concerns turning something like this over to conservative or liberal politicians...
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Not comparing systems here, but every healthcare system including the best, will generate plenty of individual horror stories. What's the real relevance though in terms of the long-term health of the citizens of a country? IMO you have to look at the big picture to make that comparison. And in that comparison, and in most categories, the U.S. system doesn't seem to fare so well.
ken..if the US system does fair poorly (and it does in a few respects, not most) then here you go..its not all healthcare, government, pharma, or patient faults...its a combination.
The list I posted above..
Quote:
I could go on...but we have
1) Unheathy folks
2) Unsafe lifestyles
3) Overemphasis on expensive care for older, end stage persons
4) Underemphasis on prevention
5) High consumer demand & expectations
6) MDs trained more in procedures than "art" of diagnosis (a big pet peave of mine)
7) Excess litigation costs
8) MD maldistribution (too many here, not enough here)
9) The US pharma industry bears an inordinate % of drug R&D costs..
#1, 2, 5, are ones YOU can work on..
I am already working on #4 & 6.
#3 is for BOTH of us.
#7 is for the gov...TORT REFORM
#8 improves itself when #7 fixed
#9 A little bit gov, a little bit industry, a bit you and me..
You have you assignments..get cracking!
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Dan and JaTo â??? thanks for your insights â??? I respect your positions, but havenâ??t heard anything compelling me to change my own. Good debate, though â??? hope you feel the same. Just a couple of final responses, if I may. Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Right to life was I believe intended to imply that the government would not deprive you of same, not interviene against "natural causes"...
Understood â??? but surely the common good in todayâ??s circumstances requires a 21st century application of the intent.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Life requires more than just heathcare..food, shelter as well. Are we then OBLIGATED for providing food & shelter for all who need it?
If food and shelter become as relatively unattainable by a significant portion of the population, then frankly, I would have to say â??yes.â?
Quote:
I am sorry but I do not accept that the US Constitution is a blueprint for communism.
Providing certain publicy funded social and civil benefits universally within a free market economy is neither new nor anything close to a blueprint for communism, IMO.
Originally posted by JaTo:
And this is what it is precisely about; better healthcare for the MAJORITY of the population instead of marginalizing healthcare for ALL through wholesale socialization to address the needs of a few.
Thanks for your candor - not everyone who beleives as you do would be so open. However, you are obviously in a position to make this philosophy work for you. I sincerely hope that in a time where fewer and fewer Americans have the same access to healthcare that you do, at some point you donâ??t find yourself unavoidably in the other camp.
Originally posted by JaTo:
I don't believe in marginalizing quality to simply bring quantity to the masses, especially when there are better ways to address the need.
IMO universal healthcare does not preclude a two-tiered system that provides the superior level of care that the wealthy can afford â??? and again, respectfully, I see no evidence to suggest that a totally private system can in fact provide a â??better wayâ? to â??bring quantity to the masses.â?
Originally posted by JaTo:
If we take care of the issues that have begun to plague our healthcare industry, I would suggest that we could certainly lower the cost where it would become much more affordable.
Socializing medicine isn't going to solve the issues we need to reform, namely malpractice costs. Medical procedures haven't innately gone up in value; the RISKS associated with performing them in today's legal environment have and the insurance premiums have poked through the roof due to this.
Agreed, 100%.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Why is it in Canada that I've read that wait times for treatment is outrageous in some cases and some Canadian citizens are heading to the US for medical assistance?
With respect, most Americans are grossly misinformed about Canada and things Canadian â??? usually because it is only discussed in the U.S. by one side or another with an ax to grind. Thatâ??s not to say there arenâ??t problems â??? there are, and Canadians want improvements in many areas. What most agree to however, is that universal access to basic healthcare is a right that does not necessarily require any diminishment of a superior level of care for those who can afford it. Additionally, we are convinced that not only is it in the better interest of individual citizens, it is of particular benefit to a country that relies on its citizens to operate a competitive market economy.
As for Canadians traveling to the U.S., they always have, even before our current system was put in place; plus I think youâ??ll find that a significant number of Americans who can afford to, travel to Switzerland and many other countries (including Canada) for some forms of specialized care.
Originally posted by JaTo:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
-Sir Winston Churchill
This is a great quote; Iâ??d forgotten about it. I am quite certain, however, that the context was a discussion about the then current regime in the Soviet Union which you may recall was brutally repressive â??? that was the socialism Churchill spoke of, and IMO doesn't apply to our debate.
And with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I offer you these Churchill gems:
â??The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.â?
â??Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.â?
And perhaps the most appropriate to this post:
â??It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.â?
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
One misperception (at least I think its one) that I would like to correct: Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Thanks for your candor - not everyone who beleives as you do would be so open. However, you are obviously in a position to make this philosophy work for you. I sincerely hope that in a time where fewer and fewer Americans have the same access to healthcare that you do, at some point you donâ??t find yourself unavoidably in the other camp.
By this I DO NOT advocate the apparently assumed position of "tough luck" for underprivelidged or lower-income people. I think that with a fair amount of reform, private healthcare can once again become affordable and fairly open enough to provide what is necessary. It once was for a greater number of people than today; with effort it can become so again.
Furthermore, I was of this belief at a time when I myself had no coverage and paid full price for the sinus medication I have to choke down ever so often. It was an excellent incentive to find a better job, to say the least...
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
This is a great quote; Iâ??d forgotten about it. I am quite certain, however, that the context was a discussion about the then current regime in the Soviet Union which you may recall was brutally repressive â??? that was the socialism Churchill spoke of, and IMO doesn't apply to our debate.
I would like to think that Churchill knew the differences between socialism and communism and to which particular brand of ideology he was speaking to, but I digress.
To further solidify what is boiled down in that quote, I offer one more; one that does refer to communism, but still maintains the foundation of thought in what I believe to be ultimately at stake in socializing so many aspects of our lives:
Capitalism and Communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: "No man should have so much." The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: "All men should have as much."
-Phelps Adams
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
And with tongue planted firmly in cheek, I offer you these Churchill gems:
â??The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter.â?
â??Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.â?
And perhaps the most appropriate to this post:
â??It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.â?
Cheers.
I would fully concur with all of these!
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
