So does that mean that they are about 50% of what they were 5 years ago?

So does that mean that they are about 50% of what they were 5 years ago?

....personal debt is at a all time high and personal savings at a all-time low.

That can also be attributed to stupidity!

Or unaffordable housing prices. I pitty any middle class Joe (or Josephine) who didn't get in on the front side of the bubble. If I were to buy a house today I couldn't afford it. The appraiser just left 5 min. ago. and the value of my house increased 100% over the last two years. Good investment, but it also means my taxes keep going up on what our republican legislature wants to essentially be a fixed income.
We don't own a plasma TV. No pool, no jacuzzi, no boat, 20 year old stereo.... I drive a 16 year old car. My daughter wears her cousin's hand-me-downs. Our bed still sits on the floor because I can't afford the lumber to build the frame (OK, OK...so I want quarter sawn oak...) Hey, my wife's a college prof and I'm an ecologist....we should be doing better.
I hear Ken Ley's not doing well, either.

That can also be attributed to stupidity!

Or unaffordable housing prices. I pitty any middle class Joe (or Josephine) who didn't get in on the front side of the bubble. If I were to buy a house today I couldn't afford it. The appraiser just left 5 min. ago. and the value of my house increased 100% over the last two years. Good investment, but it also means my taxes keep going up on what our republican legislature wants to essentially be a fixed income.
We don't own a plasma TV. No pool, no jacuzzi, no boat, 20 year old stereo.... I drive a 16 year old car. My daughter wears her cousin's hand-me-downs. Our bed still sits on the floor because I can't afford the lumber to build the frame (OK, OK...so I want quarter sawn oak...) Hey, my wife's a college prof and I'm an ecologist....we should be doing better.
I hear Ken Ley's not doing well, either.

So how does that help the average American?

Maybe the companies and investors making money on the stock market will help pay-off the huge debt (personal and federal) that is facing this country? :o

From MW Hodges: But, in the last several decades total debt has zoomed up, up and away - - growing much faster than national income. It has now reached $40.1 Trillion ($30.8 trillion private household/business/financial sector debt PLUS $9.3 trillion federal, state and local government debt). Here's some highlights:

Last year's total debt of $40.1 Trillion was 9 times higher than the $4.6 Trillion debt in 1957 (both measured in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars).
Last year's total debt increased $3 trillion (up 8.2%). Federal government debt (incl. added debt owed trust funds) increased $595 billion (8.5%), household debt increased $1.03 Trillion (up 11.2%), business debt increased $421 billion (6%), state & local government debt increased $116 billion (up 7.4%), domestic financial sector debt increased $714 billion (7.3%), and other foreign debt was up 10%.
Last year's total debt per person was $136,479 (up $7,900 over last year's $128,560); this compares to $27,084 in 1957 (both measured in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars). That's a debt excess of $109,395 per man, woman and child.

If you can take your blinders off you might see that America is still the land of opportunity. It's what you make of it.

Them's some big ol' numbers you got there, Bob. Do you have any idea what they mean?

Pretty easy to understand, even for you. I see by using "big ol" you are showing your social background.

I travel outside of the country a fair amount and tend to think more global than most people on this site...especially the right-wingers who think "the world revolves America".

America is sinking in a lot of ways.... lack of national health care system.... and an almost unpayable debt (personal and federal) will be the downfall of this nation.

How would a national health care system affect federal costs?

I am not a victim or do I feel like one. I have a great family and live the life I want to live. I travel outside of the country a fair amount and tend to think more global than most people on this site...especially the right-wingers who think "the world revolves America". America is sinking in a lot of ways. Our failing education system, lack of national health care system, the huge separation of the classes and an almost unpayable debt (personal and federal) will be the downfall of this nation.

You don't want National Healthcare, trust me. It's not working for anyone else,

It's working pretty well for britain, reno.

Do you think it could be implemented today?

It's working pretty well for britain, reno.

S'pose it depends on your point of view, tradman. I'm friends with three paramedics, three nurses, and a couple of physicians who work or have worked in GB and the USA.

To a person, they voice the same concerns: Things that would get done in a day, maybe two, here take much longer... sometimes MONTHS... in the UK.

Things like surgical removal of tumors, PTCA (angioplasty) for coronary artery blockages, vascular bypass grafts for vascular insufficiency, prescription eyeglasses, medications, etc.

I've not worked in GB's healthcare system, so I've no reason to dispute these claims.

I'm also friends with several paramedics, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, etc in Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Israel, etc. Similar systems, similar stories.

Are you trying to prove my point with that chart??

I'll spell it out so even you can grasp the significance of these charts.

Other major countries provide public health care for the entire population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care.

The US provides public health care for 25% of the population. Approximately 6.5% of their GDPs is spent on public health care.

Here's the tricky part. Try to keep up. If all of the US provided public health care for everyone, the number of people treated would quadruple. Using simple logic, it's fair to assume costs would also quadruple. Ergo, the cost of public health care would account for 26% of the GDP.

And you think this is a good thing?

And you think things work better here. My son when to the E-room. Got two advil, got looked at by a nurse and then got a bill for $1,300. My mother is on medi-care and still pays out the ass for some of her prescriptions. Not very fair to a woman who works her whole life and is now on a fixed income.

That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger.

I also find it interesting that people always claim that the quality of healthcare in the US would go down if we adopt a socialized medical plan. Why is it then that several of those countries with universal government health plans have statistically better medical outcome rates than the US does? Something to think about.

Curt

That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we?

Thorne just thinks he so cool with his little charts and links.

Anyone with half-a-brain would realize that the current way of doing business is broken and needs a major overhaul.

That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger.

Let me spell it out to you. On a federal level, we spend more and give less. The system needs to be fixed. The cost of health care in this country is way too high. Any honest doctor, nurse etc... will tell you that this system is hurting and needs a major overhaul.

Because we don't protect our medical providers from stupid lawsuits like other countries do.

Thorne read this. We spend 14-per-cent of GDP on health care, we only cover 28 per-cent of the population.

And you see the other countries system as bad??

Nobody saying otherwise, Bob, but let me spell this out for you:

Socialized medicine ain't the solution. Any honest doctor, nurse, etc. will tell you that.

And I could go on for years on why the costs are so high... the biggest two being (1) increased median age of the population; and (2) a country full of pussies who can't take a little discomfort.

Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care.

Why can't we do this.

Do you have any evidence that we could.... based on how our government works.

Again Reno thanks for proving my point.

Other countries spend 6.5 per-cent of thier GDP on health care and almost 100-per-cent of the population have access to health care.

Let hit Tres Peidas near Taos. May be a little cooler.

Do you have any evidence that we could.... based on how our government works.

I stated a number of times that our system need major help.
It is up to the elected officials to improve the quality of life for all Americans. They have dumbed down the people so low that they are happy with a President when he completed a sentence and a American Idol shows up on boob-tube once a week.


I know quite a few 5.13 climbers. This has absolutely no bearing on the prospect of me ever climbing at that level.

Elected the officials that can make it happen and get rid of rift-raft. Raise our expectations of those officials and hold them accountable! What ever happened to "Contract for America' and term limits???

This god-damm America man. We used to be good at things. We invested in great minds and we made things happen.

And again, the term "access" is a huge issue. Life saving treatments that get performed within minutes of the condition here in the US will take WEEKS in a socialized medicine industry.

Lemme ask you this: What will happen when, say, a woman needs an abortion because of rape, and the socialized system says "Sure, we can do that... in 5 months." ??

What do you think will happen when an elderly person with chest pain goes to the hospital, and the administroatrs say "Well, sorry, but you're too old for us to treat this, so you'll have to suffer." ??

These are not far-fetched scenarios... they will be reality if we get socialized medicine. Why do you support the idea of the Federal Government making your healthcare decisions for you?

Hey Bob! Quit bogartin' that joint.

Why?

That extrapolation is, of course, absurd. If other "major countries" can provide universal health care for all of their citizens for 6.5% of their GDP, why cant we? After all, we have more people, but our GDP is also much larger.

I also find it interesting that people always claim that the quality of healthcare in the US would go down if we adopt a socialized medical plan. Why is it then that several of those countries with universal government health plans have statistically better medical outcome rates than the US does? Something to think about.

Curt

I look forward to bob's reply saying "You proved my point". :roll:

thorne wrote:
I look forward to bob's reply saying "You proved my point".


I'll beat him to it:

Hey Bob, I proved your point! You're welcome!

Thorne/Bumblie and Reno...separated at birth.

I am glad you two found each other again. :D

You seem to be side stepping one major aspect of this. Namely, government funded health care in the US is significantly more costly than our private health.


Why?

I think you know the anwser. Accepting the status-quo will get us no where. Demand that our officials fixed that broken system now.

We obviously need change, but universal health care is not the solution.

I disagree.

Again, I ask: Name one thing the government does that resembles cost-efficient.

....It's a point of simple fact: Under the US laws, socialized medicine won't work and save money. Can the government provide medical care? Yes, but it'll cost money. Can the government provide care to everyone cheaply? Sure, but you won't get the same level of care you can get now. Can the government do BOTH, provide highest level of care AND do so cost effectively? Not a chance.

I don't see why not, except for all the well-heeled special interest money that would oppose it. You continue to ignore the fact that has now been stated several times: The US does not have the world's best medical outcome record, and in fact, many countries with socialized medicine do better than we do in that regard. Based on that, one could argue that the overall level of medical care in the US could actually improve by adopting such a system.

Curt

1) Public schooling of our children.
2) Public highway and road infrastructure.
3) Water distribution.

Would you like a few more?

I don't see why not, except for all the well-heeled special interest money that would oppose it. You continue to ignore the fact that has now been stated several times: The US does not have the world's best medical outcome record, and in fact, many countries with socialized medicine do better than we do in that regard.

....It's a point of simple fact: Under the US laws, socialized medicine won't work and save money. Can the government provide medical care? Yes, but it'll cost money. Can the government provide care to everyone cheaply? Sure, but you won't get the same level of care you can get now. Can the government do BOTH, provide highest level of care AND do so cost effectively? Not a chance.

This is an EASY problem to solve. We already pay more for less. GOD, if only someone would let me take a crack at that one and split the difference of the savings with me! Are we really so stupid that we can’t figure out how to do this at least as good, if not better, than the Europeans? Oh wait, I can answer that myself. Apparently, 51% of voters ARE too stupid to figure this out.

Curt, you commie, pinko bastard.

Peter- like I said before...you can't use logic on these two. It just won't work. :lol:

I am meeting Reno for some climbing near Taos on Monday. Are you in? We can knock some sense into the boy.

1) Public schooling of our children.
2) Public highway and road infrastructure.
3) Water distribution.

I'll play.

4) Delivering mail from anywhere to anywhere in a matter of days (Postal Service is one of my clients right now, heh heh).
5) Aviation infrastructure and safety.
6) National (actually, world) defense.
7) Management of our electrical power infrastructure.
8) Assurance of our food supply, both quantity and safety.
9) Science and technology R&D (did you know the vast majority of drug patents are based on government funded research?)

You claim that our educational system is cost efficient, yet we constantly hear of how poorly educated our children are. Nice.

I don't think the highway system is cost efficient.

I'll give you water, but only because it's run by sub-contracted agencies (Public Utility Model) and not the federal government... I pay my water bill to the city of Scottsdale now, but when I was in Denver, I paid the city of Denver. I'd hardly call that a federal system.

Nice try, though.

You said "the government" not our federal system. Nice try, though. :wink: Also, please explain exactly how you think our highway system would be more cost efficient if privately owned. Thanks.

You said "the government" not our federal system. Nice try, though. :wink: Also, please explain exactly how you think our highway system would be more cost efficient if privately owned. Thanks.

Curt

1. According to the 2000 NAEP assessments, only 32 percent of 4th graders are proficient in reading
2. Only 26 percent are proficient in mathematics
3. Only 29 percent are proficient in science
4. Only 18 percent are proficient in history
5. Proficiency rates decline by the 12th grade in most subjects. Over half of all poor students fail to reach the basic level on NAEP assessments in most subjects.
6. Internationally comparisons conclude that despite higher than average per-pupil expenditures, American 8th graders ranked 19th out of 38 countries on the most recent international mathematics comparison, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat (TIMSS-R) of 1999. American students scored 18th out of 38 countries in science.
7. On the TIMSS 1995 study, which tested 12th graders, American students were ranked 19th out of 21 countries in both math and science general knowledge.

You said "the government" not our federal system. Nice try, though. :wink: Also, please explain exactly how you think our highway system would be more cost efficient if privately owned. Thanks.
Curt

I could go on. Contrary to Republican propaganda, MOST of what the government does it actually does quite well, especially when you consider all the differing constituencies that must be served.

Bob - Don't strain your little brain. Every time I hand you your ass with facts your retort is mockery. So lame.

Keep this kind of s--- up and we will see who ass get handed too them. Can't wait to meet you in person and then you can see how lame I am.

And that is FACT!

See Bob, the thing about hurling out petty insults and lame ass putdowns is you can't get all pissy when the opposition returns fire. Something to ponder.

How'd you reach that conclusion, Einstein?

If you're talking about the chart on page 2, the 14% applies to ALL health care and the 28% has to do with the population receiving PUBLIC health care.


I never said anything of the sort. You seem consistently unable to base your statements in reality.

Them's some big ol' numbers you got there, Bob. Do you have any idea what they mean?

Flaming aside,

You wrote this back on page two. I did not insult you or call you names. You set the tone.

Bush-The-First left a staggering (at that time) 290 billion dolllar debt!!! Clinton along with republicans in power reduced that to a near nothing by 1997.

Delivery of mail... OK, can't argue that one. But let's admit that the USPS got much better at this after competition came into play.

Talk to air traffic controllers, and they'll tell you that we're still using outdated 1950s methodology to manage air traffic.

National/World Defense: So you approve of the way our military spends money?

Electrical Power: Again, this is a PUM, not the federal government per se that runs this.

"Assurance of the food supply" is done by farmers, Pedro. The feds may subsidize, by offering money, loans, etc., but the people who grow the food are not federal gov't. employees, are they?

And finally, funding drug research is hardly the same as DOING the research. I'll grant you that some good data and science comes from places like NIH, Bethesda, Walter Reed, etc., but if you think they do ALL the drug/medical/science research, you're deluding yourself.

And the USPS doesn’t cost the taxpayer 1 frickin cent.

And why would national health coverage be implemented any differently than any of the above models? The government would provide funding and set the standards, private industry would deliver the services.

Reno, the first thing I learned on day 1 in the USPS headquarters is that NOBODY competes with the U.S. Postal Service. They transport mail form the bottom of canyons to the tops of mountains, in a matter of days, and nobody else is in that business, not before, and not now. And the USPS doesn’t cost the taxpayer 1 frickin cent.

I know what they are working with, I’ve worked with the FAA. Their methodologies and processes are solid. It’s their equipment that is in many cases old. And yet thanks to them and the NTSB (yet another highly successful government agency) traveling by air in the U.S. is the safest and most convenient way to go. So they're delivering the highest possible quality while using old, completely paid for and depreciated equipment. Is that not the epitome of efficiency?

And why would national health coverage be implemented any differently than any of the above models? The government would provide funding and set the standards, private industry would deliver the services.

Ending it here sounds good.... if you're willing to own up to the FACT that both your assertions (above) are completely bogus. 8^)

thorne wrote:
thorne wrote:
bobd1953 wrote:
Thorne read this. We spend 14-per-cent of GDP on health care, we only cover 28 per-cent of the population.


How'd you reach that conclusion, Einstein?

If you're talking about the chart on page 2, the 14% applies to ALL health care and the 28% has to do with the population receiving PUBLIC health care.

Quote:
And you see the other countries system as bad??


I never said anything of the sort. You seem consistently unable to base your statements in reality.


Ending it here sounds good.... if you're willing to own up to the FACT that both your assertions (above) are completely bogus.


You're a real stand up guy.

Healthcare is a service. Just like anything else: Lawn care, fire suppression, food service, entertainment. And, like all services, you have to make a decision: Do you want the service or not? If you do, it is reasonable to expect you shall have to pay for that service. Nothing is free. Nobody deserves a handout.

And let's not overlook the fact that when I showed that you were completely wrong, you had nothing more than a lame putdown.

I notice you're unwilling to own up to your bullshit assertions on this thread, too.

Some things need repeating.

Sure, but that's a pay for use system... if I don't use the system, I don't pay for it (unless the USPS gets a subsidy out of the federal budget... I don't know if they do or not, so I'll withold further comment until I do.)

Different than the concept of universal socialized medicine: In that system, EVERYONE that pays taxes will be contributing to the system, even if you never need it.

Which brings me to a third, not yet mentioned point: The healthcare system is overworked. Hospitals are packed full, with lines to get in (the hospital at which I work has 280 beds. On any given day, even in the summer, all 280 of those are full. We put people in beds in the hallway, back corners, closets, etc.... anywhere you can find space.) If you make healthcare free to everyone no matter what, it is not unreasonable to expect that to get worse.

People who now make a judgement call ("Gee, I feel kinda sick, runny nose, congestion, all that. Should I go to the ER, or should I just tough it out for a day or two, see if it breaks on it's own? Well, the ER will cost me some money, and times are tight... maybe I'll just drink my OJ, eat some chicken soup, and sack up.") will then be saying "Hell, I pay for it, might as well go."

Healthcare is a service. Just like anything else: Lawn care, fire suppression, food service, entertainment. And, like all services, you have to make a decision: Do you want the service or not? If you do, it is reasonable to expect you shall have to pay for that service. Nothing is free. Nobody deserves a handout.

I think this fundamental concept is where you and I differ, Pedro. I see your view... that healthcare is a "right" and should be provided. But food is a basic right, too, and you're certainly not advocating that the government should give out free food to everyone, are you? Shelter is a right.... should the gov't. give everyone a free house?

Even if that person can pay for it? Why should Oprah Winfrey be given a free house, free food, etc., when she can pay for it?

Think of how much more efficient they could be if they had modern stuff.

How's that different than what we have now? The gov't funds healthcare for people who can't afford it, through programs like Medicaid and Medicare. If you want to argue that those programs need revamped and revised to be more efficient, I'm right there with you, because they do.

[Side]
Did you know that right now, Medicare decides how much an ambulance can get paid for any given case? If I pick up a patient in the ambulance, provde them care worth, say, $500, that they NEED, my ambulance service will send that bill to Medicare. The HCFA will review it, with all the clarity afforded by the retrospectroscope, and decide.... post hoc... that $200 of that care wasn't really needed. So they pay $300 of $500 (60%.) It is illegal for the service to then come back and bill the patient for the balance.

So, how do you think an ambulance service can stay in business when they only get paid 60% of what they spend? If a hotel gave 40% of their rooms away every night, would they stay in business long? Would a diner? Would a clothier's shop?
[/side]

I thought we were debating whether government agencies can be efficient? How to fund health care is not relative to that point.

They do receive funding for things like investment in infrastructure, but overall they run in the black. They actually fund other government programs, VA benefits being one.

So, are you saying that because there are issues with the current system (which us progressives are trying to improve) for those who can afford care, that we’d better not provide care for the poorest because that will just make it worse for everyone? In my view that’s a morally dubious position to hold.

I think you know this (and this is also related to the above point) – everyone in this country gets health care. Those who have no ability to pay still get treated.

The problem is that we are delivering care to them at the absolutely highest possible cost, and with the lowest possible benefit. Rather than preventative care (the lowest possible cost with the highest possible long-term benefit), we are treating them after the fact, when late discovery does great damage. I think this is the major reason why we pay far more than other countries (in some cases twice as much), with less benefit.

Boy, that’s an awful long stretch from saying everyone should get health care to saying the government should provide all health care to all peoples. The government does provide free food and shelter to those who need it, we can do the same with health care.

1) It’s a matter of being true to the American values and our founding principles that I cherish. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity. The promise of America is not available to the poorest among us if we fail to provide a modicum of health care to those who cannot afford it. To me it is a huge national failure, and I want my country to be great in every regard possible.

2) It’s a matter of moral principle. How many poor children have no coverage?

We do. The difference is that a socialized system is free to everyone. That's what I have contention with. It provides free care to people who don't need free care, because they can afford to pay for it. What's wrong with that approach?

Wrong Reno...it comes out of their taxes. Ask Marge.

Wrong Reno...it comes out of their taxes. Ask Marge.

The debate started by someone (I think it was Bob,) saying that we needed to have a universal, federally provided healthcare system like GB, Canada, et al. I disagree, as I don't think such a system would be efficient. That's how we got to the concept of government efficiency.

I said the current system is broke. We spend more of our GDP per-centage wise on health care and give less back to the people compare to a number of other first world countries. On the whole the care in those countries is on level and if not better than our.

Things need to change. I pay close to $900 a month for coverage for my family. It is fecking outta hand and it doesn't take a genuis to figure that out.

I also get a fair amount of taxes taken out of my pay. I get taxes on gas, clothes, food, furniture and so on...

I want a good education system that will prepare our childern for success. I want a health care system that is open and available for all Americans.

We do. The difference is that a socialized system is free to everyone. That's what I have contention with. It provides free care to people who don't need free care, because they can afford to pay for it. What's wrong with that approach?


Again, we do provide care to those that can't afford it. And part of the foundation of America is that her people are typically the type who are willing to tighten the belt a notch, roll up the sleeves, and WORK to earn what they get. We've gotten away from that, and we now have a lot of people who feel some sense of entitlement, and that they shouldn't have to work. I think that's a shame, but I digress.


None.

Ok, end of insensitive rant. Here's the deal. I think our obesity problem is largely due to our transportation system. I travel to D.C. a lot, and I always notice how there are very few overweight people riding the Metro, same thing in Europe. People who commute by rail are usually walking at least 1 mile a day.

Conservatives often decry many liberal causes as "social engineering", but construction of our highway system, that has led to suburban sprawl and automobile dependant transportation, is/was social engineering, in my view. It radically altered the course of our society.

Change our transportation system and we can radically alter the course of obesity (not to mention improving our energy and pollution situations).

Obesity situation in Europe worsens
By Elitsa Vucheva
Mar 15, 2005, 17:18


EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The number of overweight schoolchildren in Europe is rising at an alarming rate, adding to an already critical obesity problem, according to figures released on Tuesday (15 March) by the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF).

The survey shows that the number of overweight schoolchildren is rising by 400,000 per year, joining the already 14 million overweight people in the EU.

The EU's health commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, has described the situation as "an obesity epidemic".

Launching the 'EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health' in Brussels, the Commissioner warned that "the situation keeps getting worse".

Although the number of obese people in Europe has been rising for many years, the rate of increase amongst children is especially alarming - with Poland and the UK seeing the sharpest increases.

Levels in the UK are now approaching the levels seen in the US.

Amongst adults in Europe, obesity rates range from 10 -27 percent in men and up to 38 percent in women. The corresponding figures in the US stand at 28 percent for men and 34 percent in women.

But some countries - Finland, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Malta - have already surpassed the overweight rates in the US.

You are about the only one on this site who takes what you say with a grain of salt anyway.

The unemployment rate is the lowest since September 11, 2001, we have seen 25 consecutive months of job gains, and 15 straight quarters of positive GDP growth. Federal tax revenues are growing and the budget deficit is shrinking

Reno, I don't think we are very far apart on this issue.

I want to clarify a term though. We've been talking about care, and how everyone gets it when they need it. Well to me there's a huge difference between treatment and health care. Treatment is what everyone can get today, after the fact. Health care, to me, means regular checkups and preventative care, as well as treatment. I think the biggest problem with our system is that many people, the poorest people, receive only treatment. We can realize tremendous financial and social benefits if we can change this one factor.

Conservatives often decry many liberal causes as "social engineering", but construction of our highway system, that has led to suburban sprawl and automobile dependant transportation, is/was social engineering, in my view. It radically altered the course of our society.

Change our transportation system and we can radically alter the course of obesity (not to mention improving our energy and pollution situations).

BTW, missed ya this weekend at Tres Piedras. My arrival was a bit of an epic, but the climbing was fun with a capital F.

Let me guess.

He took the one on the right.

Pedro said "This is an EASY problem to solve. "

Okay smart guy, let's hear it. How about some realistic and practical solutions.

I'm still waiting. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it incredible that ANYBODY needs this spelled out for them, but ok . . .
.
.
.

The above alone would ensure that all citizens have care, raise the quality of care, and reduce the cost.