They want to tax soda to help pay for the health care system. But why stop at soda lets tax that scary clown, BK, Wendy's, etc... Cause lets be honest these are unhealthy products. If we are going to tax the hell out of cigarettes these so called foods (and I use the word food loosely) are just as damaging as cigarettes. Will it deter anyone from eating it, probably not because it is a person right to be a fat unhealthy slob. So I say tax the hell out of it put it towards health care because the people who eat that garbage are going to need that health care.

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care - WSJ.com

Or... we could instead choose to not nationalize health care, and leave people's money in their pockets instead.

That's an option too, you know.

What about taxing orange juice? Did you know that there's as much sugar and carbs in a cup of OJ as there is in a cup of Coca Cola?

How about pasta? The carb and sugar content in a bowl of pasta is off the scale... similar to a bowl of ice cream.

Where do we draw the line, spitevenom? Who decides what foods are "healthy" and which are not? And why is it the government's job to regulate how I eat?

Oh, sure, if the government becomes the sole body running health care in this country, that MAKES them in charge of how we eat. That's a huge part of why I'm against nationalized health care... it gives them the excuse to regulate ANYTHING in our lives in order to "promote good health" and "prevent wasteful spending on health care".

You've touched on another very good reason NOT to nationalize health care, spitevenom. Good for you.

Elliot

I saw this on another website and thought it was a valid point

Quote:

---

I did not ask for national health care. However, if we are going to add yet another entitlement for the masses, then at least the people that use it the most should pay their fair share. Smoking, obesity and other self-indulgent behavior increases the cost of healthcare to everyone regardless of other cost multipliers such as pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. Cost saving are obviously important, but immaterial to this discussion of the control of the costly public behavior. Basically, if the public wants the freedom to indulge and the healthcare to care for it, then they need to pay for it. Their freedom to indulge should end at my pocketbook.

When your 62 yo father with emphysema needs oxygen to breathe or heart bypass for a life of cigarette use and your 57 yo mother needs new knees because she just cannot stop consuming Krispy Kremes, it becomes difficult to deny them life-prolonging health care. This is why Obama is discussing the ‘need’ for healthcare in the first place. So, if the self-indulgent behavior is curbed, then fewer dollars are needed. If the behavior continues, then at least it is paid for ahead of time.

To set the various taxes, start with the annual costs of healthcare. The fraction that is attributed to any given self-indulgent behavior must be offset by the tax. So, if healthcare costs $1.2 trillion and 35% is related to cigarettes, then the cigarette tax per pack must equal $420 billion. If consumption diminishes, then the costs associated with cigarettes diminish as well. One can then apply this same formula to any and all behavior that results in higher healthcare costs such as food (tax based on total calories rather than singling out soda sales), bullets, driving, etc. Eliminating the cost of preventable healthcare would result in MUCH lower premiums, since only truly random diseases (leukemia, birth defects and trauma) would need to be covered by the new premiums. Remember that the people who do not overindulge are still paying these taxes, but because of their low rate of behavior, the tax would be low and would be easily offset by the savings that they see in their healthcare premiums.

Obviously this is a pragmatic approach which flies in the face of Washington politics, so I think Obama will just stick with his standard rhetoric and raise taxes further on people making more than $250K.

---

I know that in Russia where they have health care for their citizens (and visiting tourists but NOT illegal aliens) they DO tax such things as chocolate, candy and soda. They tax things that are not good for a person. Sure, you can buy a candy bar but expect to pay more than you did years ago for it as it is taxed accordingly. Seems to cut down the number of tubbies and obesity over there.

I like the idea of taxing "junk" food. I like that idea a lot. And as for the pretend "food" that is served at McDonalds (home of the hamburger and bun that never deteriorates or molds), Wendys, Burger King, et al. I think that there should be a tax on top of the sales tax imposed as you take your meal and leave the premises hence it is taxed. If McDonalds actually served for real meat instead of the mish mash made up "mystery meat" that is imported from South America they couldn't sell a burger for $1.00. Nope. Never happen. They would have to charge at least $3-4 a burger if it was for real meat instead of flavored sawdust.

As for pizza. Well, I'm all for taxing the crap out of Pizza Hut, Dominos, Papa John's, et al. as well. All that is is GM dough with about 50 cents worth of toppings yet those rip off artists charge at least $10 for a large pie (if not more). HA! Now that's a really good mark up. Fifty cents worth of toppings on about 30 cents worth of dough. Gee, what fool is going to pay $10? I know. It's the box that costs the $9. Duh. Should have given that more thought. I say tax them out of this world.

I liked your article Sgt. Hardkore at lot. Glad you included it. Why should everyone pay for a few self indulgent people frittering their health away and then when they get too ill to continue with their horrendous habits cry help me help me I don't want to die! I tend not to have too much sympathy for them in the end as no one held a gun to their head and made them eat all that junk or made them smoke all those cigarettes or drink all that alcohol.

It's all about control control control...

God this country is out of control...

I mean where is it going to stop.

I can see the FBI placing mandatory cameras in everyone's bedroom to verify we all only have sex in the missionary position.

Wouldn't want to throw out a hip doing it any other way... that would be to costly on health care...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saupuss

It's all about control control control...

God this country is out of control...

I mean where is it going to stop.

I can see the FBI placing mandatory cameras in everyones bedroom to verify we all only have sex in the missionary position.

Wouldn't want to throw out a hip doing it any other way... that would be to costly on health care...

---

I can do the same thing, want to see!! If we had it the Republican way, we would get rid of police officers and the military and have citizens defend their own land. That way their's no government help! :cool:


See how stupid my post sounds? Now look at yours and you will be like wow this is stupid too.

Hello:

If we're smart, we can REDUCE the amount of money we spend on health care and get BETTER results... IT's a win/win.

I'm not sure we should TAX the processed food industry. I think we should eliminate it by MARKET principles, which is what we're doing in the food revolution going on right under our noses... It's happening because people are getting TIRED of processed food. They're becoming better educated about it, and most importantly, the MARKET is responding. There IS locally grown healthy food available in EVERY city these days, even if you have to look for it... It's changing..

Junk food, too is a fad, and we can hasten its passing. I believe that we ARE in the process of doing that very thing. If we did NOTHING more than what is already happening around us, we'll SAVE money on our health care, and live a lot longer.

So, if we insured everybody, we could meet everybody's expectations.

excon

I have no problem with taxes for products that are unnecessary and self-destructive such as smokes, junk food and alcohol. These products cause health problems that cost the health care system billions of dollars. I enjoy a burger and fries, chips and wine sometimes, so I'm not some goody goody. This may be controversial but I don't think that health care should be given to people who have ruined their health with destructive habits. For example, I don't think that an alcoholic should be given a liver transplant, a smoker with lung cancer should not be treated and someone who weighs 300 pounds should be denied diabetes meds. People need to start taking responsibility for their own health and should not expect treatment if they ruin their own health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

I can do the same thing, want to see!?!? If we had it the Republican way, we would get rid of police officers and the military and have citizens defend their own land. That way their's no government help! :cool:


See how stupid my post sounds? Now look at yours and you will be like wow this is stupid too.

---

Uh huh... I see... okay, you have it your way, and I'll have it mine.

Oh wait, you democrats are forcing your way on me.

Looks like I'm screwed.

Just one question. What about FREEDOM? Does that mean anything to anyone anymore?
If little debbie and cocacola is willing to sell me a drink and a snack cake for $1.50, then why hamper my freedom to complete this transation with a hefty tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saupuss

Oh wait, you democrats are forcing your way on me.

---

Hello again, s:

Nahhh. I think its agribusiness that's forcing their way on you - not Democrats. You see, if we were really FREE to choose, NOBODY in their right mind would choose a little debbie snack cake...

No... When monopolies take over any industy, your choices are LIMITED, not expanded... They sell you what they WANT to sell you - not what you want to buy.

Really. Why would you select a little debbie snack cake which is full of preservatives and chemicals that nobody can pronounce, instead of the homemade freshly baked LOCAL snack that you COULD be eating? If you really HAD that choice, little debbie would go bankrupt.

excon

If I get a peon job making food at a hospital, they will pay me 3-5 dollars an hour more than McDonalds. Whyszzat? The food isn't any different.

Big brother is watching you but who is watching big brother? If we adopt national healthcare we are asking for the same mis-managed bull as the social security system. If taxing soda happens, what will they tax next?

Maybe all type A personalities should be forced to pay higher health insurance premiums. Higher car insurance too, but that won't keep them off the roads or out of the cardiac unit.

We're looking at the big picture, but not the whole picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

I have no problem with taxes for products that are unnecessary and self-destructive such as smokes, junk food and alcohol. These products cause health problems that cost the health care system billions of dollars. I enjoy a burger and fries, chips and wine sometimes, so I'm not some goody goody. This may be controversial but I don't think that health care should be given to people who have ruined their health with destructive habits. For example, I don't think that an alcoholic should be given a liver transplant, a smoker with lung cancer should not be treated and someone who weighs 300 pounds should be denied diabetes meds. People need to start taking responsibility for their own health and should not expect treatment if they ruin their own health.

---

So by YOUR reasoning that destructive habits should not be treated those who engage in unprotected sex or high risk sex should not be treated for AIDs or other stds? People who text or talk on the phone while driving and then get into an accident should not be treated? Former athletes that have prematurely worn out their joints and bones should not be treated?
Women who choose to stay with their abuser should not be treated?

Yes, you can REDUCE the COST of HEALTHCARE, when YOU DON'T TREAT the sick and the ill.
Your idea makes health insurance companies, that charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions, look angelic.

Maybe the reason healthcare costs are so high is also that hospitals, doctors, nurses, ems, and all those on the frontline are professionals. They treat THE PERSON, instead of judging them.







G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saupuss

If little debbie and cocacola is willing to sell me a drink and a snack cake for $1.50, then why hamper my freedom to complete this transation with a hefty tax?

---

I am sure your local crack dealer is willing to sell you some crack rocks 2 for $5.00. That is a good deal. Why aren't you jumping all over that? Is it because crack is bad for you?

Quote:

---

What about taxing orange juice? Did you know that there's as much sugar and carbs in a cup of OJ as there is in a cup of Coca Cola?

How about pasta? The carb and sugar content in a bowl of pasta is off the scale... similar to a bowl of ice cream

---

ET Look I am not going to sit here and act like I never drink coke. But I don't drink it multiple times a day everyday. Sure there is a lot of sugar in OJ that is why I have a half a glass in the morning and that's it. And I eat pasta maybe twice a month. And yes it does have a lot of sugar and carbs but if you exercise (another American kryptonite) it gives you a good kick of energy and you can burn it off.

See what you fail to recognize with comparing OJ to soda and pasta to ice cream is there are people who drink multiple soda's everyday and eat ice cream everyday. That is what is making people fat not the glass of OJ in the morning or the pasta someone eats maybe once a week.

You mean you shouldn't eat ice cream every day?

The people on the right can eat ice cream with coca cola as syrup everyday that is fine with me. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

The people on the right can eat ice cream with coca cola as syrup everyday that is fine with me. :p

---

We love you too, Spit :p

Have to keep it a little humorous for you speech!

Not to worry... unless you are one of them 5%ers who make over $250,000 ,the President already promised no new taxes... right ?

A bit of history seems useful here .
On April 5, 1764, Parliament passed a modified version of the Sugar and Molasses Act (1733), which was about to expire. Under the Molasses Act colonial merchants had been required to pay a tax of six pence per gallon on the importation of foreign molasses. But , they mostly evaded the taxes through the black market and undercut the intention of the tax .

This act, and the Currency Act, were the seeds for the revolt at the imposition of the Stamp Act.

I proposed a different approach to governemnt healthcare:

It divides the responsibility between the private insurance companies and the government. They each would have different roles.

Government would be in charge of wellness programs and routine healthcare, catastophic health care and non-proven procedures.

Private insuranace companies would handle everything else.

Let's take government healthcare. They could handle flue shots, communicable diseases such as AIDS and Swine flue.
They would handle all aspects of pregnancy. They would handle losing of a limb, Down's syndrome etc. They would handle transplants. They would handle routine colonosopies and screenings such as PSA.

They would create educational materials for say Asthma, diabetes, so everyon is on the same page. People would get that once they were diagnosed.

They will handle experimental treatments thus footing the bill for research.

Private health care would handle everything else. Sort of like an auto policy and house insurance. You rarely need to use it.
Kid gets bhronchitus, breaks a leg, They would handle Asthma, Diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer except experimental treatments (debateable), bee stings, mastectomy. Emergency room visits.

Let the government make sure we are getting the same quality of care, promote wellness and pay for catastophic care.

You would need both insurances. Fined if you didn't. You'd get a little bit of money back if you did not use your insurance. You'd not get any money back from the Federal insurance. The premium for Federal is based on ability to pay.

Employers would not be allowed to select providers. Insurance companies can operate across state lines.

Your employer could electronicly pay the insurance companies, but that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Have to keep it a little humorous for you speech!

---

Unlike some around here I'm a fan of humor... and I can recognize it, too :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

I saw this on another website and thought it was a valid point

---

Here's one major problem with this approach:

How do you diffrentiate the 57 year old mother who needs new knees because she can't lay off the Krispy Kremes, from the 57 year old mother who needs new knees because she was a 5-mile-a-day runner for 45 years? (Like my mother-in-law)

How do you differentiate the 62 year old guy with emphysema and in need of a tripple-bypass from smoking 2 packs a day from the 62 year old guy with emphysema and in need of a tripple-bypass from working in a chemical plant in Houston, Texas for 40 years who never touched a cigarrette? (Like my father-in-law)

Should those who lived a healthy lifestyle pay as much for health care as those who lived and unhealthy lifestyle? Apparently not. But the government is NOT going to be able to tell which is which. The only thing they are going to be able to look at is AGE. And they will make health decisions for you based on age.

They don't know if you smoke, drink, do drugs, or are an avid runner, a health nut, and committed to a healthy lifestyle. How can they?

But they can tell if you're old. And they can make decisions on that basis.

That's scary.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You mean you shouldn't eat ice cream every day?

---

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

---

I had no doubt where you stood, Elliot. I was just messin' with Spit. We have this thing here called Blue Bell ice cream and it would be a sin NOT to eat as much of it as you could. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I had no doubt where you stood, Elliot. I was just messin' with Spit. We have this thing here called Blue Bell ice cream and it would be a sin NOT to eat as much of it as you could. :)

---

I've actually had Blue Bell. As I've mentioned, my wife is a TX girl, so I get down there every so often. Believe it or not, Blue Bell's Kosher ("Triangle K" certification I think). They've got some friggin' good ice cream. Their French Vanilla is kick-a$$. You're right about it being a sin to forego.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I've actually had Blue Bell. As I've mentioned, my wife is a TX girl, so I get down there every so often. Believe it or not, Blue Bell's Kosher ("Triangle K" certification I think). They've got some friggin' good ice cream. Their French Vanilla is kick-a$$. You're right about it being a sin to forego.

---

That's right, so you know about Blue Bell. Their Homemade Vanilla is the vanilla I like but man, if you're a fan of chocolate their Triple Chocolate is unbelievable. So is the chocolate chip. Pardon me while I run to the store... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

They don't know if you smoke, drink, do drugs, or are an avid runner, a health nut, and committed to a healthy lifestyle. How can they?

---

Hello El:

How can they?? They can hire investigators. That shouldn't be such a foreign concept to a right winger.. How does the insurance company know you suffered from acne when you were a kid?? THEY hire investigators... What?? You think they GUESS about that stuff... Dude!

excon

Ex, I pay for the investigators with my taxes. The investigators tell big brother, who also takes my tax money, if I'm okay or not whether it's true or not. Then, more of my taxes pay for health insurance that I did not get to choose. This is not freedom.

What is it? What government system is it most similar to? Does that system work?

Hello s:

The Wolverine was suggesting that such and such couldn't happen because how would the government find out stuff? I simply suggested that the government COULD hire investigators... I didn't say the government WOULD hire investigators...

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

They want to tax soda to help pay for the health care system. But why stop at soda lets tax that scary clown, BK, Wendy's, etc... Cause lets be honest these are unhealthy products. If we are going to tax the hell out of cigarettes these so called foods (and I use the word food loosely) are just as damaging as cigarettes. Will it deter anyone from eating it, probably not because it is a person right to be a fat unhealthy slob. So I say tax the hell out of it put it towards health care because the people who eat that garbage are going to need that health care.

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care - WSJ.com

---

Why stop there? There are many unhealthy substances, do not stop at the unhealthy drink but get right to the source of these unhealthy substances,

Sugar
Salt
Nicotine
Caffine
Starch
Gluten
Fat
Alcohol

So what have we determined, the whole food industry is at fault because these are the ingredients in Food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

Elliot

---

I actually have aproblem with the concept of a free country, If by free you think we should be free to do whatever we want, sure, it seems like a great idea, but if by free you mean that we should be able to engage in any self destructive behaviour and expect someoneesle to pay for it, no, that's not a great idea.

Why does your beloved President want to reform health care? It is really because of all the people engaged in self destructive behaviour who are making the system too expensive. So a little behavioural modification appears in order, and that might mean the loss of few cherished freedoms, such as the freedom to beome a bloated consumer of health services along with a few cherished pounds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

---

That's a mighty big hope. NSA, FBI, IRS, SS? Medicare is already anal, imagine how anal the health care bureaucracy will get when they hold all the marbles.

Hello again, Steve:

Anal?? How about the health INSURANCE INDUSTRY? They INVESTIGATE their charges... THEY want to find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?

So, for MY part, I don't care WHO is snooping into my past - the INSURANCE COMPANY or the government...

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

excon

Sure, just what we need in these economic times, more taxes... NOT! Government needs to be focusing on cutting taxes, not increasing them. Probably won't happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Anal?? How about the health INSURANCE INDUSTRY? They INVESTIGATE their charges... THEY want to find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?

So, for MY part, I don't care WHO is snooping into my past - the INSURANCE COMPANY or the government...

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

Excon

---

Perhaps they do after the fact ;but I've been on an employer provided plan for a long time and neither was I denied disclosing preexisiting condition ;nor was may family denied care at the point of service. At the most on occasion I have had to negotiate when they denied coverage ,and perhaps chipped in a couple of bucks... but never was my family denied over preexisting conditions.

There are about 500 families at the place I work (maybe more because we've expanded more than once.) and have yet to hear a case where someone was ill and did not get treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There are about 500 families at the place I work (maybe more because we've expanded more than once.) and have yet to hear a case where someone was ill and did not get treatment.

---

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go. Tom has never heard of anyone being refused treatment - therefore it doesn't happen... Well, I'VE heard it does - ergo it DOES happen.

Yes, my retort was silly... But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

No, you're NOT saying that, because you KNOW that coverage is DENIED to SOME people, even if they don't happen to be employed where you are. If you're saying that NOBODY goes up before the insurance company "death panels", you are still being disingenuous.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

excon

---

There's only one way to make sure they don't. And that is to make sure they don't have the power to do it.

Or... you could give them the power and HOPE they don't abuse it. Just like you HOPE that they don't use your Social Security money for other purposes. But you know they will.

I know which choice I make.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

---

I never said that and you're distracting from your 'hope' that the feds won't go down that slippery slope (funny to see you worried about a slippery slope these days)... but they did, they do and they will. You're kidding yourself if you don't think they will hire investigators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go. Tom has never heard of anyone being refused treatment - therefore it doesn't happen... Well, I'VE heard it does - ergo it DOES happen.

---

NK claims that there are no problems with the Canadian system because he hasn't heard of anyone being refused threatment either. And you DEFEND HIM when he uses that argument.

What makes Tom's position any different?

Quote:

---

Yes, my retort was silly... But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

---

Nope. But neither will the government. And if you are on a single payer system and the government says "no" you're screwed. If you are on private insurance and they say "no" you can go out and buy the service out of pocket anyway. That is the difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Quote:

---

No, you're NOT saying that, because you KNOW that coverage is DENIED to SOME people, even if they don't happen to be employed where you are. If you're saying that NOBODY goes up before the insurance company "death panels", you are still being disingenuous.

Excon

---

Again, the difference is in what happens AFTER you have been denied. If you are denied by your insurance, you go and buy the service out of pocket anyway. If the government decides to say no, there is no other option.

Elliot

Quote:

---

But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

---

Reading comprehension are good.
At the most on occasion I have had to negotiate when they denied coverage ,and perhaps chipped in a couple of bucks .... but never was my family denied over preexisting conditions.

Are there people denied .I'm sure there are . Fraud is a huge problem that drives up costs for one ;and I'm sure there are people denied the ability to obtain insurance also . Your examples of insurance company death panels are exaggerations and you know it (THEY wanna find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?)

Why shouldn't I engage in embellishments when that's the argument forwarded .I'd say my example is closer to the truth . Maybe because I share in the cost with my employer we are getting one of them cadillac deals ?

Maybe instead I should just sign on that gold plated Medicaid system. It's 2+years and counting since my mother in law applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Again, the difference is in what happens AFTER you have been denied. If you are denied by your insurance, you go and buy the service out of pocket anyway. If the government decides to say no, there is no other option.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

You're wrong again, as usual... You don't really think the black market would let such a valuable service as GALL BLADDER TRANSPLANTS, and the like, go unserved, do you?? Don't you pay attention to ANYTHING related to economic activity?? You're, what - a BANKER?? Dude!

If the government outlaws surgery, then surgery will be available in your back alley. I can here 'em now, as you pass by... The guy whispers... Colonoscopy?? Pap smear?? Right here. Got a dime bag a colonoscopy's and your pap smears - right here

But, back to reality... Out here in the real world, where ordinary people live, when your insurance company turns you down for services, you don't buy ANYTHING out of pocket... You're BROKE!! Therefore, you DIE! Of, if they were to take your earlier advice, they could wheel themselves, with their oxygen tanks, and their IV's right down to their local church, and BEG for money. Maybe they could stand (sorry - sit) on a freeway interchange with a sign...

Now, you're probably going to retort that you could PAY for your hair transplant yourself, as though that's what we're talking about here - but it ISN'T. I don't think you'll address the issue head on because you do better when you deflect...

It's OK. That's why I'M here - to catchy you slippery righty's.

excon