Oho... you don't like WND, so it automatically doesn't count.

I get it.

The picture "looks incredibly doctored". Where did you get your degree in forensic picture analysis?

As for the third picture, you say it is "indexed" as belonginf to the date "April 2009". Really? Do you know that website's storage protocals enough to know that hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pk-stand-in-the-gap.jpg?w=366&h=493 indicates that 2009/04 means the date "April 2004"? Could it be the 4th picture in that particular set of photos, which is stored in the sub-file for the year 2009? You are ASSUMING that this picture is from April 2009. It MIGHT be, but you don't know that.

Do you know of any event that occurred in April 2009 that would have drawn those types of crowds? Maybe there was one. It might have been a Tea Party event on Capital Hill... y'know, the ones that took place in April that "nobody attended" according to the MSM.

Or not.

Point is that you are ASSUMING that WorldPress.com stores its pictures by date... and only by month, not by day... rather than by story name.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The picture "looks incredibly doctored". Where did you get your degree in forensic picture analysis?

---

Years of working in the industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

As for the third picture, you say it is "indexed" as belonginf to the date "April 2009". Really? Do you know that website's storage protocals enough to know that hiscrivener.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pk-stand-in-the-gap.jpg?w=366&h=493 indicates that 2009/04 means the date "April 2004"? Could it be the 4th picture in that particular set of photos, which is stored in the sub-file for the year 2009? You are ASSUMING that this picture is from April 2009. It MIGHT be, but you don't know that.

---

Yea I do, here's where it's from: Promise Keepers breaking one off for the ladies The Writing on the Wall it has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/12 event. <sigh>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Years of working in the industry.

---

Is that anything like your years of work in Canadian healthcare? Cause you calim to be an expert on that too... and yet everything you say is directly contrary to what the real experts say.

Quote:

---

yea I do, here's where it's from: Promise Keepers breaking one off for the ladies The Writing on the Wall it has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/12 event. <sigh>

---

Then what is the source of the photo? Cause it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story in the blog either.

Elliot

You are an argumentative little thing aren't you? I'm off for a while, kids, supper, hockey etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You are an argumentative little thing aren't you?

---

You just figured that out NOW?!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Then what is the source of the photo? Cause it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story in the blog either.

Elliot

---

Here's the answer: PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event

Quote:

---

But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.

---

Why is there such a need to lie and misrepresents things?

It has been confirmed at a number of sites that the photo posted was of a different event.
A 'tea party' protest photo turns out to be fake | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

It has been taken down from the web page I found it on with a correction.

Absolutely pathetic to try to pass a 12 year old photo as one from an event you try to pimp.

Just to interject something. This poll says 73&#37; of doctors favor a public option, including 10% who favor public option only (i.e. single payer).

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option : NPR

Depends on which polls you are looking at I guess. That's why I don't cite them too often

Here's one that says doctors have a much different view... that 45&#37; would consider quitting their profession if Obamacare was passed.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

depends on which polls you are looking at I guess. that's why I don't cite them too often

---

But you'll cite one from a very pro-conservative mag. Look at their headlines: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily It's all the stuff you say here.
Here's my favorite: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/PollsAbout.aspx
"An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed TIPP was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season, coming within three-tenths of a percentage point of Bush's actual margin of victory. "
Hmmm... wasn't there another election after that? LOL!

Why would an NPR poll be any less weighted towards an agenda ? Like I said ;I don't put much stock in polling data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But you'll cite one from a very pro-conservative mag. Look at their headlines: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily It's all the stuff you say here.
Here's my favorite: IBDeditorials.com: IBD/TIPP Economic, Presidential Election, and Political Polls
"An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed TIPP was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season, coming within three-tenths of a percentage point of Bush’s actual margin of victory. "
Hmmm....wasn't there another election after that? LOL!

---

So... Internet Business Daily, which makes its money through the free market, is more biased than NPR, which receives its money from the Federal government and is therefore beholding to the government's (meaning Obama's) position?

Some interesting facts about the IBD story:

1) 65% of doctors are against a government expansion plan. The President is quick to point out that the AMA backs his plan, but he ignores the fact that AMA membership is only 18% of all doctors... which would NOT indicate that he has majority support among doctors.

2) 45% of doctors say they would leave the practice of medicine if Congress passed the plan that the White House is pushing. With over 800,000 doctors working in 2006, that would mean that 360,000 of them would consider leaving the practice of medicine if we get Obamacare. Which means we would be facing the same shortage of medical professionals that other countries with nationalized health care face. This would result in rationing of care.

3) 71% of doctors say that they do not believe the President when he says that nationalized health care can expand the pool of insured by 46 million and it will cost less and provide better service. Apparently doctors can do math.

Interesting findings. Ones that seem to agree with the poll results of Americans in general. Doctors don't seem to be any more in favor of nationalized health care than the rest of the American public.

Elliot

If we don't get universal health care it won't be for a loack of Obama's efforts. In addition to his visiting 5 morning shows yesterday (all but the most popular channel, Fox of course, maybe because Chris Matthews called the Obama White House “the biggest bunch of crybabies” he’s seen in 30 years of reporting), he'll be visiting Letterman tonight I believe.

The all Obama all the time media is bad enough, but how many laws did he break for engaging the National Endowment for the Arts as his propaganda mouthpiece?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

maybe because Chris Matthews ...

---

You make fun of the guy, even call him a dolt and now you'll take his word for something? LOL! Flip-flopper!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You make fun of the guy, even call him a dolt and now you'll take his word for something? LOL! Flip-flopper!!!!!!!

---

Excuse, me NK, that dolt is still a dolt. Chris Wallace, not Chris Matthews called the administration crybabies. I knew who I was referring to even though I typed the wrong last name. If you had actually looked at the Youtube site you might have noticed my typo yourself, but you tend to get too giddy over the possibility of making one of us look foolish to use your brain.

Now can you address the substance of the post and why our president is using the NEA to promote his agenda?

Interesting USA Today-Gallup poll today...

Interesting: 60% living paycheck to paycheck - Smart Spending Blog - MSN Money

Quote:

---

As the economic downturn trudges on, many workers are struggling with household budgets. About six in 10 workers -- 61&#37; -- report they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet, compared with 49% last year and 43% in 2007, according to a new nationwide survey of more than 4,400 workers by CareerBuilder.
Thirty percent of workers with salaries of $100,000 or more report that they too live paycheck to paycheck, versus 21% in 2008.

---

Interestin indeed.

From the Gallup poll that Speechless cites:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...ekapp3zmuw.gif





80% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care?

And 61% are even satisfied with the COST of their health care?





And then there's this:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...crgqnimxbq.gif

According to this, the biggest problem that most Americans see with their health care is the cost.

Not accessibility.

Not being dropped because of pre-existing conditions.

Not the number of uninsured.

Not even insurance company greed.

Cost... this is single biggest problem with health insurance in America by a larger than 2:1 margin over every other problem that people see in health care.

So, what's Obama's solution to dealing with health care reform? He chooses the single option most likely to drive UP costs... having the government, the single most inefficient group in the world, take it over.

Of course some people here will talk about how the poll is skewed.

Others will argue that we ought to have government take over anyway because those greedy insurance companies are the ones driving up the costs, and anyway profit is evil.

But it seems to me based on this and other polls that MOST Americans see the real issues and understand what the real solutions are... or at least what they AREN'T.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Cost... this is single biggest problem with health insurance in America by a larger than 2:1 margin over every other problem that people see in health care.

So, what's Obama's solution to dealing with health care reform? He chooses the single option most likely to drive UP costs...

---

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

---

Actually, according to the CBO, the cost of administration of health care by the government would be anywhere from 3-5 times the cost under private health insurance. (The Heritage Foundation says that's a low estimate, but we'll use it anyway.)

Furthermore, the government actually pays 35% more for health care than private insurance companies do.

Add the costs of eliminating competition, shortages of equipment and service providers, the number of doctors LEAVING the practice of medicine, longer waiting times, longer times out of work while you wait to be treated, etc. and your costs are now over 500% higher than in private health care.

Sorry, NK, but your statement is incorrect.

The way to lower health care costs is not to nationalize it, but rather to open up COMPETITION by allowing portability. Instead of having a choice between 2 or 3 insurance companies in a state, there will be roughly 1600 insurance companies competing for your business in EVERY state.

The way to lower health care costs is to make the costs pre-tax... thuse creating an immediate savings of 30% or more.

The way to lower health care costs is to have tort reform similar to what we have seen with the "medical malpractice panels" in Texas. These panels review every medical malpractice suit filed in the state of Texas. If they determine that the case has merit it moves forward. If they determine that the case has NO merit and is frivolous, the case is rejected. This system has lowered malpractice insurance costs by something like 60%, decreased the number of cases in the court system, decreased the amount of "defensive medicine" being practiced and increased the number of practicing medical doctors in Texas by 7500 in two years. Due to the lower medical malpractice insurance costs, malpractice premiums have decreased, resulting in lower overhead for doctors. This has resulted in medical costs for individuals dropping as well, due to fewer defensive medicine tests and lower fees charged by doctors. Also, competition between doctors has increased with the influx of new practitioners. There has been an across-the-board decrease in medical costs of something like 20% - 30% in the past two years in Texas. Medical costs are lower, the doctors have a more inviting environment in which to practice with lower overhead and fewer malpractice hassles, and the people are getting a better deal for their dollar and a bigger choice of health care providers.

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurrence is way too rare.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

THAT is how you lower medical costs. Not by nationalizing it. It's called the Free Market, and it works every time its tried. Unfortunately, that occurence is way too rare.

Elliot

---

You had me nodding my head until this.

Please--the ONLY places that a TRULY free market, with no government oversight have EVER worked is in developing countries, in the 70s and 80s---and ONLY under a government of terror.

And the ONLY people it benefitted, in the long run, were those that were ALREADY wealthy. Do some research into the Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friendman--and into their involvement in South America in the 60s and 70s. A COMPLETELY free market isn't the answer--all that does is make the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and eliminate the middle class.

I have no problem with government interference in the system to either make it more affordable, or to make it more humane (required coverage by insurance companies, for example, even with a pre-existing condition). What I have a problem with is that our government has proven itself to be inept at running ANYTHING in the last oh... 40 years.

As far as costs being lowered for medical insurance--even living paycheck to paycheck, that's taken out of my check before I even see it. I also have REALLY good coverage for about $10 a paycheck. Granted, that's subsidized by my employer, but with no "pensions" anymore, that's where companies can make themselves more appealing to prospective employees. I know more than one person who chose between jobs based on the benefits package.

Someone posting before me also posted stats about people who are living paycheck to paycheck. The FOLLOW UP question to that is "How many perks and unnecessary toys have you eliminated from your budget?" Bet most of those people living paycheck to paycheck still have cable, a cell phone, a new-ish car, broadband internet, and eat lunch out at least once a week.

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt. Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already? The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

I do want you to prove the "500&#37;" number though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Actually with single payer an individual would keep more of their money. Their taxes would see a slight bump but their basic medical needs are then cared for without worrying about being denied or being charged excessively plus no deductible. The large fees they were paying monthly for medical insurance is no longer an expense. They of course have the option for supplemental insurance if they wish.

---

What are the income tax rates in Canada?

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

What are the income tax rates in Canada?

Is your total tax federal PLUS provincial?

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?


G&P

---

I think we would all like to know that. And by the way we pay much less than Americans in Australia and we have universal health care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I'd be interested as to how much Canadians actually pay for healthcare in the form of taxes and out of pocket expense VS in the USA?

---

Actually I'm not sure I'd know how to break that down. But one thing I can tell you is that Canadians still seem to contribute to their rRSPs, take vacations, have a savings account and aren't all over this forum asking questions about being in serious credit trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.

---

I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.

Quote:

---

Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

---

Doctors won't leave the practice? Isn't Canada having a boom in private clinics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't want ANY facet of my health care centralized under the feds.

---

I don't want my health being decided on by the free market. Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

What's the difference?? Oh, I know what the Wolverine says, but it makes no sense.. He says they'll pay a LOT of money because they want to keep their customer happy so they can sell more insurance...

Ordinarily, the free market DOES work that way... But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes...

I don't know WHY that doesn't scare you. Especially when you pretend that the bureaucrat is going to be a prick, but YOUR insurance adjuster is just a fine fellow... Nope, righty's, it don't make no sense.

excon

And I don't want to be like this guy: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/health...ey-399373.html

I realize that you guys have only known that kind of system and I've only known my system but it certainly makes me understand all the crazy medical questions on this board if I had to worry about a $1500 deductible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Also our feds are a little different than your feds so the comparison is not apples to apples.

---

Then what's your point? If we're to comparing apples to apples it would seem your input on our health care is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sorry mate, your scare tactics have no basis in reality. R&D gets centralized so everyone benefits form developemnt.

---

And nothing actually gets developed.

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.

It ain't a "scare tactic" NK. It's reality.

Quote:

---

Doctors won't leave the practice, don't you have a shortage already?

---

Just because we have a shortage of doctors (which we actually DON'T have... what we have is a shortage of doctors in certain specialties) doesn't mean they won't leave anyway.

And we already posted the poll that SHOWED that 45% of doctors currently practicing medicine would consider quitting their practices and leaving medicine entirely if healthcare is nationalized. So please don't tell me it can't happen... the doctors are ALREADY considering it.

Investors.com - 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Quote:

---

The government doesn't pay more for healthcare, where do you get that erroneous fact? The two think tanks you quote are both conservative and have a vested interest in the status quo.

---

Which two "think tanks" are you talking about. I'm citing the Congressional Budget Office.

And the fact that Medicare is paying roughly 35% more than private insurance comes from two sources. One was the comments by the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf. The other is from the Jeffry Anderson at the Pacific Research Institute.

In fact, according to Anderson, the annual per-patient costs paid by Medicare and Medicaid in the 1970s used to be $344 per patient, compared to $364 in the private sector. That was a $20 savings. Today the Medicare & Medicaid annual per patient cost is $8,955, compared to $7,119 in 2008. That means that the government is paying $1,836 more per patient than private insurance... or 26% more per patient. And that's DIRECT costs... it doesn't take into consideration the INDIRECT costs.

Quote:

---

I do want you to prove the "500%" number though.

---

That's easiest of all... I don't even need to cite a study or poll. It's simple math.

The government doesn't pay for just one workforce. Thanks to union contracts with SEIU (the DNC's single largest contributor, by the way) and AFSCME, the government is required to pay pensions that are nearly full salary for anyone who has worked in government for 20 years or more, regardless of their age, for the rest of their lives. Plus they must also cover their medical insurance and that of their families.

What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300% of what they would be in the non-union private sector.

Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees. This is especially true in the government-employee unions. (Less true in blue-collar unions, but it still happens there too.) The unions see this as a method of increasing or maintaining their membership dues... if the employee stays where they are, they lose nothing. If the employee gets promoted, they see an INCREASE in dues. Ditto if an employee leaves the agency to work elsewhere.

The point is that this results in massive OVER-EMPLOYMENT in government agencies. They always have more people than they actually need to do the work. (Just take a look at your local Department of Motor Vehicles if you don't believe me, and see how many people are sitting around doing nothing or reading their newspaper or playing solitair on their computers while others do the work.)

This causes increased employment costs to the agency... after about a decade, the over-employment costs can rise as high as 100%... meaning twice as many people employed as are actually needed. After two decades, that number will be 200%, because of the pension rules I discussed before.

So... the "immediate" (within 10 years) cost increase of government health care over private insurance would be about 300% (3 sets of salaries) and increasing to 500% thereafter (due to over-employment caused by union contracts).

And none of this even takes into consideration government waste... the fact that the government is just simply an inefficient body that wastes money on $500 hammers and $300 toilet seats. Government contracts ALWAYS overpay compared to the private market. I know this for a fact... I used to work in administration for a government hospital. My brother-in-law does contract law for a government-run hospital. The evidence of overpaying by the government for medical equipment, supplies, services, etc. is massive. A 35% difference doesn't even begin to cover it... it's an overly conservative estimate.

So... between paying 3 sets of salaries, overemployment by 100-200%, and massive waste, we're easily talking about a 500% increase in administrative costs.

The CBO agrees with this rough estimate. The Heritage Foundation, though, thinks that I'm being too conservative in my numbers and that the actuall increase will be MORE that 500%. Since the CBO has a habbit of underestimating, I think the Heritage Foundation is going to be closer to correct.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, when you're SICK, and NOBODY else will SELL you insurance BECAUSE you're sick, the free market is GONE, and you're stuck with the decision the insurance adjuster makes....

---

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for? If they aren't going to pay claims they're not going to have customers.

Another aspect you guys miss is often the insurance company is our advocate with the provider. Twice this year alone - on claims totally roughly $4,000 - the insurance company is what stood between me and a provider trying to get me to pay a bill the insurance company denied because of the provider's screw-ups. Just last week a doctor's office tried to tell me a claim was applied to our deductible so we needed to pay the balance. Their problem is I actually read the EOB's and I know the policy. If they want their money they're going to have to correct their claim because I know I only owe a $25.00 copay at most for this $764 bill. The insurance company is on my side in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Just exactly how is an insurance company going to stay in business if they don't furnish the services they're in business for?

---

Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying??

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

What was the last medical breakthrough or new drug to make it out of Canada and into mainstream medical practice.

Hasn't been one in decades. Because there's no profit in it in Canada.

So you have this wonderful government-run R&D establishment that isn't researching or developing anything.

---

You can read about Health Canada here is you wish: Health Canada - Home Page

Quote:

---

What that means is that the government is required to pay their CURRENT employees, plus the ones that retired 20 years ago and the ones who retired 40 years ago. That's three full time staffs that they must pay for... which makes their administrative costs 300&#37; of what they would be in the non-union private sector.

---

I don't understand your math here. Pay them what exactly? What changed from the previous administration here?

Quote:

---

Then there's the fact that unions have very strange contracts. Under many union contracts, if a union employee is promoted, he must be replaced with not one, but TWO employees.

---

Can you show me the clause where it says this, that would be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

NK brings up that old argument that you guys NEVER seem to address... Why do you think the insurance adjuster will be any more kind to you than a bureaucrat will? BOTH are deciding your fate. BOTH have to account to a BOSS. BOTH are charged with saving money...

---

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.

I've been to the DMV. I've dealth with insurance adjustors. Guess which ones were easier to deal with. Guess which ones I got a better outcome from.

And I'll bet that you've had the same comparative experience as I had, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

That's why 80% of Americans say that they are satisfied with their current insurance system... because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office. That has been the collective experience of MOST PEOPLE IN THE USA.

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,

Game, set and match.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DIRECT EXPERIENCE... that's what makes me think so.

---

Your experience is irrelevant. Hey that's what you tell me! LOL! Too many people in the US can't get insurance, are paying exhorbitant amounts, have declared bankruptcy, etc for the situation be the as hunky-dory as you say it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

...because it's easier to deal with a private insurance company, even the adjustor, than it is to deal with the DMV or the IRS or the unemployment office.

---

The doctor's office deals with the government health department not the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

By lobbying congress for favors they CAN'T get from the market place.. If the market supplied all the profits they could possibly want, why do they spend BILLIONS of $$$'s and even more BILLIONS on lobbying???

I KNOW why. So do you.

excon

---

So... by that logic, any special interest group that spends money on lobbying is up to something nefarious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

THAT'S how I know it will be easier to deal with the insurance company than it is to deal with the government... because I already do both. And so do you. And you already know which is easier to deal with, whether you have the cajones to admit the truth or not,

---

Hello again, El:

My FIRST experience with making a claim happened when I was a young lad. My father had just died, and I inherited ALL of his clothes. He was IN the haberdashery business in Beverly Hills, Ca, plus he was my dad and was a sharp dresser...

In any case, I put about 25 shirts, that I'm sure my dad paid $50 each for, into the local shirt laundry.. They got stolen.. The insurance company offered me $25 for all of 'em, and I've been getting ripped off by insurance companies ever since...

Yes, I had to wait. But at least I GOT a drivers license at the DMV.

excon