|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 23, 2009, 01:49 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by sweet1028
I don't think that Obama knows how to explain to the people what this health care plan really is. When asked about who will pay for it, he simply babbles on and on and you never get a straight answer.
I was watching one of his news conferences last night and he said that 2/3 of it would be paid for by this or that, can't really figure out what he was talkin about; and then the other 1/3 would be coming from the deductions of the people who are making over 100,000 a year? Quote me if I'm wrong, I don't have the best of memories.
He also said that if congress proposed that the money be taken from deductions of the middle class people that he would be opposed to that. Because he thinks there is a better way of doing than taking from the middle class families that are already struggling in the economy today.
He also said that this healthcare plan would be able to let doctors take care of the patient for the real cause of their sickness. He used the example of someone coming in with a sore throat and knowing that they could get more money if they had them come back in to get their tonsils removed that they would do that instead of running some tests to see if the patient just had allergies.
After awhile of babbling, he mentioned something about people could still have the choice of different insurance companies if that's what they wanted. That insurance premiums kept rising and blah blah blah and that in the end people would end up having the money taken out of their own pockets.
Could someone please explain to me what this healthcare thing really is about because I'm still not sure if I understand it...
You hit on an interesting point here, Sweet.
Obama said he was going to tax the "rich" to pay for this stuff.
But he is now defining "rich" as anyone making $100K. Which means most 2-income middle class families.
Before he was elected, Obama said that he was only going to raise taxes on anyone or any business earning $250K or more... which would mean most small businesses, which is bad enough.
Then he changed that to anyone earning $180K ore more. Then it became $150K.
Now it's $100K.
This is the point I was making to you the other day when you ripped into me. Obama SAYS he's going to tax the rich to pay for it. But his intent is to tax US, you and me. Middle Class people. Because those in the middle class have more than the poor, and therefore are defined as "rich".
Why should I, a middle class guy, pay for other people to have health care, just because Obama says that I should be defined as "rich"?
You have awakened yourself to the truth at last.
Elliot
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 23, 2009, 05:45 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by 450donn
Lets face it, Congress does not want REAL health care reform. It is not in their best interest. Now, if those dolts in Congress were forced onto the same system that they are trying to shove down out throats it would for sure never happen. They as the elite few get exceptional and free to them coverage for life.
There is only one real way to reform health care. Enact tort reform laws that will hamper the lawyers. When a doctor has to pay over $100K a year for malpractice insurance there is something drastically wrong with the system. Start with the lawyers and the crooks and health costs would come down drastically.
Um... Congress pays for it's healthcare. They just have a stellar package. Comes out of their paycheck just like everyone else. :rolleyes:
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 23, 2009, 09:09 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What percentage of your insurance was covered by your employer?
Generally speaking, when I have employer-provided health insurance, my out of pocket cost was about $300-400 per month too. But I was talking about the cost of the insurance if we had to pay for all of it ourselves, without any employer assistance. That averages about $1500/month or so.
Is that with or without an employer contribution.
Also, I don't know what everage salaries are in the various parts of Australia. Nor do I know the current currency conversion rate between the US$ and the AU$. So I don't know how something that costs two thirds less in Canada actually compares in relatavistic terms. I also don't know what services your high-end insurance covers and how it compares to ours.
So a cost comparison between the USA and Australia is a bit premature. I'm not saying your insurance isn't cheaper than ours. I'm saying I don't have enough facts to compare.
But my point to Jennie was that nationalized health insurace is actually more expensive than private health insurance by nearly 2-1. And that assumes that the CBO wasn't underestimating the costs of the program, which is something they have done in the past. It could be more like 3.5- or 4-1, if the Heritage Foundation numbers are accurate.
Elliot
We don't have employer contribution.
Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.
1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD
1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD
On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.
Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.
Which on the face of it seems true.
The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But I'm sure it is open to debate.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 07:48 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by Skell
We don't have employer contribution.
Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.
1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD
1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD
Well the exchange rate accounts for PART of the difference in cost, but certainly not all of it. But I also don't know the differences in services rendered, so I can't really comment on how they compare.
On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.
Interestingly, 85% of Americans are insured. So it is certainly not "just for the rich". 85% of Americans cannot all be considered "rich". So even under a quick review, without even getting into the deeper numbers, I'd say that the perception is a bit off.
Looked at from another angle, however, health INSURANCE may be for those who can afford it (again, that's 85% of us... closer to 90% of you eliminate uninsured illegal aliens), but health CARE is available to everyone who needs it. As has been mentioned before, hospitals are not allowed to turn any patient away, regardless of inability to pay. Free clinics are available. Pharmaceutical companies give away drugs for free to those in need. The care is there and is accessible to everyone.
So on that basis, the statement that in the USA health care can only be afforded by the wealthy is untrue as well.
Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.
Which on the face of it seems true.
Yes, care is expensive. It is also available regardless of insurance coverage, as I have pointed out.
The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But I'm sure it is open to debate.
With respect, I would debate that strongly.
First of all, there is quite a bit of evidence that our lifespans are actually longer than yours, despite the 2000 census data on which your numbers are based. But I don't have that data available right now, so I can't really make a cogent argument that will stand up under scrutiny. But I would argue that that is a difference in LIFESTYLE not medical care. You guys just eat better than we do and you live generally more physical lifestyles and thus get more excersize.
Second, for the chronically ill, medical outcomes in the USA are better than for any other country in the world. Cancer is a perfect example. Cancer survival rates at 5 years in the USA are 66% for males and 63% for females. Whereas only three European countries (Sweden Belgium and Switzerland) have cancer survival rates that reach 60% for females and only one country (Sweden) reaches 60% for males. This data comes from a Lancet Oncology study from 2007 data.
That's just one study dealing with cancer survival rates. There have been similar studies done with lots of other maladies... heart care outcomes, for instance... that also put the USA ahead of its counterparts in other countries.
So I would argue that in terms of HEALTH CARE, defined as medical outcomes for patients (as opposed to lifestyle, where you guys have us beat hands down), we are actually well ahead of the rest of the world.
By the way, I think that the lifestyle issue is important. But the truth is I love my greasy burgers and fries. Even if I lived in Australia, I'd likely keep my American eating habbits. (I kept them while I was in Israel for a year 20 years ago.)
Now... imagine this... what if the medical outcomes of the USA could be duplicated in Australia, where the lifestyle is generally healthier to begin with.
I predict one of two things... or possibly both at once.
1) A massive jump in both population and lifespan,
2) Massive famine due to the production of food not keeping up with the increase in population.
Perhaps the tradeoff is a necessary one... you have longer lifespans, but we have the better medical outcomes, and that way neither of us grows our population too quickly.
Just a thought.
Elliot
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 07:49 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by Skell
We dont have employer contribution.
Your other questions are valid. I would think average salaries would be similar, but can check.
1.00 USD = 1.22848 AUD
1.00 AUD = 0.814014 USD
On the face of it, it appears that US Private health cover is indeed expensive in comparison to ours. Which I must say is how it is perceived down here. It is a common political line and the general consensus that 'we do not want to go down the path of US health care, where predominantly it can only be afforded by the wealthy'. Im not saying this is true, but it is the perception none the less.
Australia's understanding of your health system is that unless one is insured it is extremely expensive. However, insurance is expensive to obtain anyway.
Which on the face of it seems true.
The question would be is do you get more (i.e. better care) for your dollar? Considering we generally live longer and are healthier I think the answer could conceivably be no! But im sure it is open to debate.
Your perception is absolutely correct. I've said it before, why can't we look at all the systems around the world, see what works, what doesn't, and devise a system based on that. Seems so obvious and logical to me.:rolleyes:
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 08:20 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by cozyk
I've said it before, why can't we look at all the systems around the world, see what works, what doesn't, and devise a system based on that. Seems so obvious and logical to me.:rolleyes:
Hello c:
If you're interest IS in getting the best health care system we possibly can, then you WOULD do that... But, if you're HEAVILY invested in the status quo, you're going to look out for YOUR interests and not the country's...
Here's an example... The righty's have been quoting the Lewin Group.
To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."
The problem is, the Lewin Group is OWNED by United Health Care - the BIGGEST of the health insurance companies...
excon
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 08:23 AM
|
|
Correct excon.
More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.
In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.
More here: washingtonpost.com
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 10:30 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You hit on an interesting point here, Sweet.
Obama said he was going to tax the "rich" to pay for this stuff.
But he is now defining "rich" as anyone making $100K. Which means most 2-income middle class families.
Before he was elected, Obama said that he was only going to raise taxes on anyone or any business earning $250K or more... which would mean most small businesses, which is bad enough.
Then he changed that to anyone earning $180K ore more. Then it became $150K.
Now it's $100K.
This is the point I was making to you the other day when you ripped into me. Obama SAYS he's going to tax the rich to pay for it. But his intent is to tax US, you and me. Middle Class people. Because those in the middle class have more than the poor, and therefore are defined as "rich".
Why should I, a middle class guy, pay for other people to have health care, just because Obama says that I should be defined as "rich"?
You have awakened yourself to the truth at last.
Elliot
Yes I've finally realized that Obama wasn't really talking about the millionaires and I'm sorry for being so out there in that post the last time.
It seems like Obama is trying to get this through by lying as much as possible. He babbles on and on covering up the real question that was asked and people are still trying to figure out what this plan is really going to do to the future of the U.S.
Another thing, Obama was asked during the news conference if him as well as congress would be willing to have the same health care plan as everyone else. From what I understood of it, he said that congress would be happy to go with the plan. The guy asking the question said yes but would you be willing to. He said well as being the president I have a doctor following me around all the time and I have the best health care in the world as I am president.
If you will watch some of his news conferences the questions he gets asked has a lot of 'uhms' 'uhs' and breaks in his answer. I think he is trying to come up with as much bull as he can to make the answer sound convincing. I'm not really sure what the future will hold with this president in office.
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 12:53 PM
|
|
Did Obama really say that? Hahahahaha if he did. I was heavily a McCain supporter during the election, but I have to say, of every person who ran Hilary Clinton seemed to have the best ideas for health care reform. I'm not a big fan of the lady, but when it comes to health care, and what will and will not be acceptable to the american people in the long run, she actually seemed to know. Heck, her health care plan was mainly to open the plan congress had to the american public and let that be an option. This administration saddens me, but I look for some kind of silver lining.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 12:59 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Chey5782
Did Obama really say that? hahahahaha if he did. I was heavily a McCain supporter during the election, but i have to say, of every person who ran Hilary Clinton seemed to have the best ideas for health care reform. I'm not a big fan of the lady, but when it comes to health care, and what will and will not be acceptable to the american people in the long run, she actually seemed to know. heck, her health care plan was mainly to open the plan congress had to the american public and let that be an option. This administration saddens me, but I look for some kind of silver lining.
Hillary Clinton has a long history dealing with health care issues. She introduced what became known as "Hillarycare" during her Husband's aministration, and it bombed, nearly derailing his entire Presidency. She knows it's a hot-button topic, so she peddaled softly on the issue during her campaign. She was definitely smart in how she handled the issue. Whether her policies are the same as they were back in 1993, I don't know. She kept her stance very neutral on this issue during her campaign.
Elliot
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:04 PM
|
|
I went to a couple of her speeches she gave in Texas when I lived there and she hit on it pretty clearly. She's also one of those nice fluid politicians who change their policy if it doesn't fit into what will work. (That was a dig just as much as a compliment.) She learned a lot from that "bomb." I do thin it was a good idea though, if they want health care so badly, let us have the option of purchasing the same health care congress has available, and at a cost people can actually afford.
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:13 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by Chey5782
I went to a couple of her speeches she gave in Texas when I lived there and she hit on it pretty clearly.
My wife's a Houston girl. Where were you in TX?
I do thin it was a good idea though, if they want health care so badly, let us have the option of purchasing the same health care congress has available, and at a cost people can actually afford.
The idea is fine until you take cost into consideration. That level of care (and it is a VERY high level of care) costs a lot of money. It can't be done "cheaply". The members of Congress pay a portion of their health care, but the US Treasury covers the rest of it. Who is going to cover that portion for us? How much would your taxes go up in order to cover it?
Also, the administration of a health care system for 535 members of Congress and their families is very different from the administration of 300,000,000 people. Leaving aside the costs, the issues involved in the administration of that many patients is a HUGE undertaking. Who is going to manage it? The body that manages the system for Congress doesn't have the manpower for something that big.
So yes, for 535 people, the system is great. For 300 million people, the system begins to break down quickly.
Elliot
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:19 PM
|
|
Since this has become a health care discussion, I want to weigh in again.
It has been pointed out that we ALREADY have govt. run health care in the form of the VA and Native American care, neither of which is satisfactory.
There is another govt run program, and it is MediCADE. I may not have all the details exact, but there are clinics that the poor can go to. (Actually, you don't have to be on Medicade to go there) But (from first hand reports that I have heard) the way these clinics work is you walk in and sign the register.
Then you wait.
If you have a job, you will certainly lose a day. And if you are a little late, or the minority person behind the glass runs someone elese in before you, you may have to come back the next day and start all over.
In short, it stinks.
If we are serious about improving our health care, here are some suggestions.
Find some Constitutional method of stopping the price gouging. You know, 1,000% mark ups at the pharmacy, $10 per pill asptin in the hospital, etc.
Reign in out of control lawyers. Not sure how, but how about this? A three strikes you're out law for lawyers? The third time a lawyer has a case dismissed as frivilous, he loses his license to practice law.
I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can come up with some real solutions.
But will anyone listen?
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:24 PM
|
|
I am fairly close to agreeing with you Elliot. Good points. Especially if you look at the disbursement of funds for the bail out package(s). It's one of the reasons I fault Obama for wanting to push this reform for health care faster. He already walked into one major screw up and got worse because no one had enough time, now he's purposefully taking time away because," I get letters every day on my desk" and he wants to give the American people what they want. I WANT to have a responsible government who will give me some bang for my buck, not a hastily written and approved reform that leaves our nation in a worse off place. These things are supposed to be written to last for decades, why can't he be a little patient. Believe me, I have a baby coming in November, I could use the extra health care so we don't have to go so deeply into debt, but I am an American who is willing to wait so that it's done right. *fumes*
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:32 PM
|
|
Obama can't wait, Chey. The longer he waits, the more time people have to read and understand the bill. And he knows that once the people understand what he's proposing, support for the bill will drop. Even the politicians who want to support the bill won't be able to because the folks back home won't let them. If they vote for it and the public doesn't agree with them, they'll be voted out of office. So Obama needed this to be passed NOW before anyone had a chance to formulate an opinion.
That's how he passed the stimulus bill, which is pretty much universally accepted to be a failure in actually stimulating the economy. That's how he passed the Omnibus Spending Bill. That's how he ALMOST passed the Cap & Trade bill. And that was the tactic he tried to use here. (BTW, Bush was just as guilty. He passed TARP by claiming it was an emergency and had to be passed "right now!!!" He's just as guilty... and I think Obama learned the technique from Bush.)
But the American people know better now than to accept Obama's "rush, rush, rush" anymore. They're learning that sometimes what Obama says is an "emergency" isn't necessarily such an emergency after all. Sometimes you just need to slow down and take a breath before just reacting. Especially if it's the wrong reaction.
Elliot
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 24, 2009, 01:37 PM
|
|
On that note I COMPLETELY agree! But then again, he is from Chicago. (That was a joke har har) Oh by the way, I lived all over DFW for about 5-6 years.
There are days when I am proud to be an American. When I used to go greet soldiers coming home form Iraq, when I see the quality of my health care. Things like that. But then I have days when I wish I lived in France. I'd like more vacation time if I worked a high stress job, like most Americans. And I feel that much of the way we do things is based on fear rather than decisions based on need or even want. But I am thankful for those politicians who actually fight for a bill to be looked at more carefully, or veto the hell out of it before it gets further than it needs to. Go team America... ;)
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 30, 2009, 02:23 PM
|
|
A good WSJ journal that asks a lot of the same questions that I did in the original post. Where did this mythical "right" to health care come from?
Dalrymple: There Is No ‘Right’ to Health Care - WSJ.com
Is There a ‘Right’ to Health Care?
In Britain, its recognition has led to substandard care.
By THEODORE DALRYMPLE
If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.
People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.
Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to every American.
Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C. or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?
If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?
When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”
When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.
Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.
The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.
Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.
The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.
Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)
In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.
There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.
Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a British physician. He is a contributing editor to the City Journal.
So... can anybody tell me where the "right" to health care comes from, and why nobody who ever lived before the 20th century was able to notice it, much less recognize this right and fight for it?
Elliot
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 30, 2009, 02:42 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So... can anybody tell me where the "right" to health care comes from, and why nobody who ever lived before the 20th century was able to notice it, much less recognize this right and fight for it?
Hello again, El:
Sure. It's in the Ninth Amendment. That's where all the rights that weren't enumerated in the previous eight amendments can be found. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says that exact thing. Doesn't it?? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said in the Declaration, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness... "
It says that we have a RIGHT to life. That's a term you should be familiar with. If we have a right to life, and you're sick, seems to me you have a right to get better. If it takes a doctor to make that happen, so be it. What do YOU think it means?
Why didn't anybody notice it before now?? Well, it's like the right for gays to get married. Nobody asked about it before.
excon
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 30, 2009, 03:52 PM
|
|
Another tragic example of the quality care provided by government run health care.
The case of the young man who went into the VA hospital for removal of his gall bladder.
He lost both his legs, but still has his gall bladder.
Does that bother any of you who argue for the government to control the how, when, where, and who of our health care?
|
|
|
Full Member
|
|
Jul 30, 2009, 04:00 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:
Sure. It's in the Ninth Amendment. That's where all the rights that weren't enumerated in the previous eight amendments can be found. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says that exact thing. Doesn't it??? What do you think Jefferson meant when he said in the Declaration, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
It says that we have a RIGHT to life. That's a term you should be familiar with. If we have a right to life, and you're sick, seems to me you have a right to get better. If it takes a doctor to make that happen, so be it. What do YOU think it means?
Why didn't anybody notice it before now??? Well, it's like the right for gays to get married. Nobody asked about it before.
excon
What I can't see is why you think that those non-enumerated rights RETAINED by the people (States) should be transferred to federal government administration. If the people of a state decide that there is something they think should be a right, then they should appeal to the state government, not Washington.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Can't open items in OE
[ 1 Answers ]
I am unable to open items in Outlook Express although I can get my browser and open things there. I cannot open a single item in OE, news item, weather, anything.
Can you help.
Thanks.
Yes, the links in OE are the ones I cannot open. I get my IE browser easily and can open links there but...
Installing a Kohler Luxury Shower System
[ 7 Answers ]
I am replacing my old shower that had one head with a new luxury shower from Kohler that will have three body washes(24 holes each), a hand held, and a regular shower head. I have 1/2 inch copper coming into the shower from the slab. Seeing that I have 1/2 ", should I buy a 3/4" or 1/2" master...
You must buy 100 items with $100
[ 1 Answers ]
You must buy 100 items with $100 with $1 you can buy 20 pans with $5 you can buy 1 spoon and with $1 you can buy 1 lid you must buy all three items
View more questions
Search
|