Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:08 PM
fedman fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Render View Post
Actually, a lot of it is a lack of mechanisms leading to doing unnecessary stuff. The US has 600 000 people working in health care insurance at good wages. It has people doing gatekeeping, liaising with insurance, credit-checking, billing, etc. Countries with what is known as Beveridge systems (NHS style, used in Scandinavia, the British Isles, Iberia etc) mostly don't see the point in these jobs. There are some of them in the private sector where billing happens but mostly, these huge areas of activity are just irrelevant.

Also, in the US large procedures tend to be very profitable. It is probably not a coincidence that the US tends to do more of them with no real improvement in outcomes.



And the current US setup costs far more than any other system, and yields very poor results without managing even something as basic as covering everyone. And yes, by first world standards that is basic. I don't think what you are doing is working out for you.

It is working out much like the branch of economics known as Health Economics predicts it should.



Thats not actually correct. Swedens system, as I understand it, is devolved to areas analogous to states, and its hard to recruit health care personnel to remote and rural areas. The longest waiting times are in Västerbotten, and its 271 days. However, prostrate cancer is very slow growing cancer. Far more people die with it than from it. In many cases surgery would impact the patients quality of life more than just leaving it. "Watchful waiting" is very common with low-risk cancers and/or men of an advanced age.

I've worked in health care in Norway for close to twenty years, and I've never heard of any crisis of scarcity on Sweden. I believe they are not as fond of letting patients choose their own hospitals as we are, so there may be local bottlenecks. In general, saying that "this is happening everywhere" is fantasy land, especially from a US perspective. While the US do well in access to specialists, wait times for access to a family physician is, I believe, poor.

And, of course, millions of poor Americans will never see an oncologist if they get cancer. Emergency rooms do not do oncology as far as I know. That is what we call a crisis of scarcity.



Nonsense. America produces no more new inventions that its population would indicate. A touch less per head than the UK, which has single payer. America spends far more money per head on biomedical research, but America spends more money on every aspect of healthcare than other nations without any improved results to show for it. There is no reason to expect research should be an exception.



Interestingly, here in Norway, one of the most expensive nations in the world, a hip replacement costs about 17 000 $. And lots of people find medicine lucrative.



It is a right for me. And obviously most people in the developed world. It is not for you. It is what is known as a claim right for me, similar to the right to a lawyer or an education. You have a similar right to a lawyer, and to a basic education, but no right to a higher education or health care.



Quite the opposite. It is provided by every first world society except yours. It is not realistic to say that it cannot be in one of the most wealthy ones.



LASIK has something known in economics as price elasticity. That means that a customer can refuse the product if the price is too high. This is not the case for many areas of healthcare, and there is a vast asymmetry of information that means many purchasers are badly equipped to determine what they actually need. Similarly, liposuction works pretty well in a market. Cancer treatments do not.

We have single payer, NHS style universal healthcare here, and a lot of it is setting up regulated markets that work.



Thats just you. In the rest of the developed world the indisputable fact is that it is a right like a basic education, and beyond official complaining to get a bigger budget, its not really a problem. I mean, Berlusconis Italy did it, you can't pretend its some kind of impossibility.



Actually, Beveridge style single payer delivers the greatest quality healthcare per dollar spent. To everyone, but every system does that. The fact that you'd even add "to the greatest number of people" like it was acceptable not to deliver healthcare to some people sounds medieval to me.



Actually, I do have a right to food and shelter from the elements at least. I think most nations in the developed world provide that if needed again.



There is an entire filed of economics that says that that will lead to soaring prices, inefficient delivery and people going without healthcare while you spend massive amounts of money on it. It is generally supported by real-world experience.

Tl,dr:
You say you care about access to quality healthcare at a reasonable price while championing the approach that leads to low quality at the highest prices in the world. No, other nations do not have a scarcity crisis, while you have millions of people uninsured or under-insured. No, you do not produce more research per head than other large nations. Beveridge style single payer is the most cost effective delivery system. It is not the only one if you want to prioritize other things than cost and are willing to pay for it. But they are all vastly better than what you got currently.
actually, the supreme court has ruled there is no "right" to education
  #502  
Old 09-30-2018, 07:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
It's not just Trump; there are also significant flaws in Obamacare--for example the penalties for not joining were probably not strong enough.
I thought the best method for that should have been that the penalty for not joining was that you were automatically enrolled, and the premiums come out of your taxes. The penalty for not being able to afford the premiums really just annoyed people.
  #503  
Old 10-01-2018, 02:08 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
So what. It's still a service that requires money to perform. Doctors and Nurses don't work for free. Pharmaceuticals aren't generated out of thin air. Hospital beds aren't created by snapping a finger. So, whether we call healthcare a commodity or not doesn't really matter, does it?
You can call it what you like but it doesn't make it so.

I can call the police force a "commodity" or the armed forces, or the roads, education or the fire services. It doesn't mean that they actually are a commodity or can realistically be treated like one for all the reasons I stated in my original post.
  #504  
Old 10-01-2018, 02:10 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
actually, the supreme court has ruled there is no "right" to education
really....do you have a cite for that?
  #505  
Old 10-01-2018, 04:00 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
You can call it what you like but it doesn't make it so.

I can call the police force a "commodity" or the armed forces, or the roads, education or the fire services. It doesn't mean that they actually are a commodity or can realistically be treated like one for all the reasons I stated in my original post.
The issue is not whether or not you call medical care a commodity or something else, it's what is the most efficient and effective way of making it available to as wide a number of people as possible, as conveniently as possible, at the point they need it.

Pooling resources, whether through insurance or taxes, is the route most societies have gone down: but the question is whether you get the best results from treating that pooling through insurance as an open-market commodity, with the end user free (which for many would actually mean "compelled by circumstances") to decide what sort of pool to buy into or whether to buy at all - bearing in mind the imbalance of information between purchaser and provider, and the imponderables necessarily involved.
  #506  
Old 10-01-2018, 07:20 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
The issue is not whether or not you call medical care a commodity or something else, it's what is the most efficient and effective way of making it available to as wide a number of people as possible, as conveniently as possible, at the point they need it.

Pooling resources, whether through insurance or taxes, is the route most societies have gone down: but the question is whether you get the best results from treating that pooling through insurance as an open-market commodity, with the end user free (which for many would actually mean "compelled by circumstances") to decide what sort of pool to buy into or whether to buy at all - bearing in mind the imbalance of information between purchaser and provider, and the imponderables necessarily involved.
If I'm buying food or a car then I'm buying a commodity and treating those items as a commodity works perfectly well.

The same cannot be said for healthcare. The number of people who need a Ferrari are far outnumbered by those who merely want one. This situation is reversed when considering a kidney and in only one of these scenarios is a person's life in danger through not getting what they want or need.

And anyway, there is no such thing as not allowing people to buy-in at all, not unless you are prepared to leave car-crash victims dying in their wrecks because they have foregone health insurance. Ultimately everyone will need medical attention whether they've paid for it or not.

(Unfortunately, even as write this I get the feeling that an uncomfortably large, vocal minority would be happy to deny any sort of treatment for the uninsured)
  #507  
Old 10-01-2018, 08:09 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
so there's no fraud elseware?
Well, in Spain we do have medical-services-related fraud, but it's mainly in the form of "private insurers using the public system and trying to bill as if they'd provided the services themselves".

Other issues linked to whether certain uses of the system are kosher or not include:
1.- people living abroad (i.e., not contributing into the system) using our services.
1a.- people living in other countries which are part of European Social Security. BEEP, error, these people are contributing to the system! Not directly, but through the exchange set up between all contributing countries, so while one may complain about details of access, these people are contributing.
1b.- people who come to visit their immigrant relative, and who go to the doctor under their immigrant relative's access. How is this different from my maternal grandmother never paying a penny into the system and getting full access? Oh, for her it's ok because she had a local accent? Fuck that.
1c.- healthcare level differentials. That happens internally as well, the solution goes through a better use of the exchange and a better harmonization of services.
1d.- fucking stupid tourists doing fucking stupid things and breaking their fucking stupid skulls, but sadly not so much we're not required to heal them. The Brits are already telling their own people "dammit guys stop making the whole country look bad", but they're not the only ones sending that kind of people, just the ones with the reputation.

2.- companies paying less into SS than they should. This is part of general tax-evasion issues and handled by the same people. Whether they're called IRS, Treasury or Hacienda, pissing off the taxman is never a good idea. Ask Al Capone if you don't believe me.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 10-01-2018 at 08:11 AM.
  #508  
Old 10-01-2018, 08:23 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
So what. It's still a service that requires money to perform. Doctors and Nurses don't work for free. Pharmaceuticals aren't generated out of thin air. Hospital beds aren't created by snapping a finger. So, whether we call healthcare a commodity or not doesn't really matter, does it?
Totally missing the point again, I see. The primary health care debate isn't about the medical services side of it, it's the question of accessibility and therefore a question of how it's funded. Police officers, firemen, and public school teachers don't work for free, either, but we're not called upon to pay out of pocket or via private insurance whenever we need their services. Doctors need not be public employees as in those examples, although some countries have chosen to do that; others simply pay their fees as private practitioners out of public funds.

Thousands of Americans die every year from lack of health care because they can't afford the health care they need and so they don't have access to it. It's not because doctors and hospitals are failing them, but because their government is failing them, and specifically, they are victims of a right-wing ideology that objects on principle to public services, and treats health care as if it were a discretionary commodity. Yet because everyone needs health care, the logical, efficient, and humane way to pay for it is to treat health care coverage for medically necessary services as a public service available to everyone, like police and fire services and public education.
  #509  
Old 10-01-2018, 09:39 AM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Totally missing the point again, I see. The primary health care debate isn't about the medical services side of it, it's the question of accessibility and therefore a question of how it's funded. Police officers, firemen, and public school teachers don't work for free, either, but we're not called upon to pay out of pocket or via private insurance whenever we need their services. Doctors need not be public employees as in those examples, although some countries have chosen to do that; others simply pay their fees as private practitioners out of public funds.

Thousands of Americans die every year from lack of health care because they can't afford the health care they need and so they don't have access to it. It's not because doctors and hospitals are failing them, but because their government is failing them, and specifically, they are victims of a right-wing ideology that objects on principle to public services, and treats health care as if it were a discretionary commodity. Yet because everyone needs health care, the logical, efficient, and humane way to pay for it is to treat health care coverage for medically necessary services as a public service available to everyone, like police and fire services and public education.
No, the people who were arguing about whether or not it's a commodity are the ones missing the point. Having that argument at all allows the hard-right to continue opposing anything and everything that's been done to make healthcare more accessible in the US. You can call it a right or a commodity or even call it "James". It doesn't matter. The fact is that the US has 9% who are uninsured, who could get insurance if we did a few technically easy things with the ACA. We wouldn't have to monkey with the insurance for others that already have it, and we wouldn't destroy our budget.
  #510  
Old 10-01-2018, 11:11 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
No, the people who were arguing about whether or not it's a commodity are the ones missing the point. Having that argument at all allows the hard-right to continue opposing anything and everything that's been done to make healthcare more accessible in the US. You can call it a right or a commodity or even call it "James". It doesn't matter. The fact is that the US has 9% who are uninsured, who could get insurance if we did a few technically easy things with the ACA. We wouldn't have to monkey with the insurance for others that already have it, and we wouldn't destroy our budget.
I'm not arguing about whether it is a commodity, I'm telling you that it isn't. If you treat it as if it is you'll end up creating a bad system because healthcare just doesn't work in the way that true commodities do. Now if you just label it as a commodity and treat it like it isn't then fine, go ahead but I'm afraid I've lost the relevance of what you are saying.

Also, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that being able to tick the box "insured" is a worthy end goal in and of itself.
That's a classic case of the of the metric driving the solution. I can create an insurance policy so cheap and useless that you'll be able to tick that box for everyone and yet still not have moved the quality of healthcare for the poor not one jot.
  #511  
Old 10-01-2018, 01:19 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I'm not arguing about whether it is a commodity, I'm telling you that it isn't. If you treat it as if it is you'll end up creating a bad system because healthcare just doesn't work in the way that true commodities do. Now if you just label it as a commodity and treat it like it isn't then fine, go ahead but I'm afraid I've lost the relevance of what you are saying.

Also, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that being able to tick the box "insured" is a worthy end goal in and of itself.
That's a classic case of the of the metric driving the solution. I can create an insurance policy so cheap and useless that you'll be able to tick that box for everyone and yet still not have moved the quality of healthcare for the poor not one jot.
nd I'm telling you that whether it's a commodity or not is a distraction from the real issue of getting people insured, and making sure that there's healthcare service providers getting paid.

Being insured is necessary without being sufficient, and it is a worthy goal to have everyone insured through either private or public means. The ACA put regulations in place so that insurance could be obtained with specific sets of benefits that are required to be covered, removal of lifetime caps, removal of pre-ex exclusions, community rating, closing of the medicare drug donut hole, etc. We need to get people insured. And the ACA closed up a lot of the loopholes that insurers used in the past. I don't say that getting people insured is the end-all, be-all. But it's the first order of business, because having insurance is better than not having insurance (either private or public). Surely, you don't disagree with that, right? We can get to UHC without single-payer. Other countries have done it, and so can we.

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying all that closely.
  #512  
Old 10-02-2018, 03:18 AM
Novelty Bobble Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 7,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
nd I'm telling you that whether it's a commodity or not is a distraction from the real issue of getting people insured, and making sure that there's healthcare service providers getting paid.
My original rebuke regarding "commodities" was not in response to anything you wrote. Feel free to ignore it but my point stands anyway. You are free to consider it a distraction if you like.

Quote:
Being insured is necessary without being sufficient, and it is a worthy goal to have everyone insured through either private or public means. The ACA put regulations in place so that insurance could be obtained with specific sets of benefits that are required to be covered, removal of lifetime caps, removal of pre-ex exclusions, community rating, closing of the medicare drug donut hole, etc. We need to get people insured. And the ACA closed up a lot of the loopholes that insurers used in the past. I don't say that getting people insured is the end-all, be-all. But it's the first order of business, because having insurance is better than not having insurance (either private or public). Surely, you don't disagree with that, right?
No I don't disagree. Within the framework of your current insurance system what you suggest is making the best of a bad job and is probably the best you can hope for.

Quote:
We can get to UHC without single-payer. Other countries have done it, and so can we.
Sure a classic "single payer" is not the only way of doing it but I think your proposed direction of travel on this, though well-intended, gets you not far enough, not quickly enough, still entails massive political battles every step of the way and sacrifices a greater vision for the short-term tweaks.

Quote:
I don't think you're reading what I'm saying all that closely.
I don't think so, I'm clear on what you are suggesting and why. I just don't agree.
  #513  
Old 10-02-2018, 03:59 PM
Grim Render Grim Render is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedman View Post
so there's no fraud elseware?
Of course there is. But the system you have made, has a very large number of independent entities most with their own procedures and systems. Through those various setups move an immense amount of money each year. More than five times your military budget. There is no price transparency or set prices, charges tend to be negotiable, and there is a large asymmetry of information. It is not at all transparent.

This system is simply a far, far richer ecosystem for fraud than the more clear-cut and transparent setups out there. The issue exists in most setups, but is a far smaller problem in most western nations.

I am sure there is some fraud in the US High School system too, but how does the amount of dollars compare to the fraud in US healthcare?

Last edited by Grim Render; 10-02-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #514  
Old 10-03-2018, 01:23 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
My original rebuke regarding "commodities" was not in response to anything you wrote. Feel free to ignore it but my point stands anyway. You are free to consider it a distraction if you like.

No I don't disagree. Within the framework of your current insurance system what you suggest is making the best of a bad job and is probably the best you can hope for.

Sure a classic "single payer" is not the only way of doing it but I think your proposed direction of travel on this, though well-intended, gets you not far enough, not quickly enough, still entails massive political battles every step of the way and sacrifices a greater vision for the short-term tweaks.

I don't think so, I'm clear on what you are suggesting and why. I just don't agree.
There's about 29 million uninsured in the US. Getting those people enrolled in something is a big step in the right direction, and would improve a lot of lives.

The massive political battles to get single-payer wouldn't be worth the hassle. I don't think we'd ever get it (aside from the fact that I don't want it myself). And if we did, the sabotage from Republicans would be on a grander scale than it is in the current patchwork system.

So, I opt to keep what we have, and make my tweaks. But they're not short-term tweaks. They're for the long-term good, IMO.
  #515  
Old 10-03-2018, 01:59 PM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
There's about 29 million uninsured in the US. Getting those people enrolled in something is a big step in the right direction, and would improve a lot of lives.

The massive political battles to get single-payer wouldn't be worth the hassle. I don't think we'd ever get it (aside from the fact that I don't want it myself). And if we did, the sabotage from Republicans would be on a grander scale than it is in the current patchwork system.
People are self-centered: what's in it for me? If you have good health insurance from your job why care about those people who don't? Thus Republican support to get rid of Obamacare but no plan to get rid of Medicare (because everyone will get Medicare eventually). On the other hand Medicare for All offers something for everyone--for example universal provider coverage. So you are traveling and get in a car accident--and then get a $10,000 copay because the hospital is out of network.

But Medicare for all offers a lot more than universal coverage--it offers cost controls so health care doesn't bankrupt the country.

Did you read the latest news today?
Quote:
Employers and workers are collectively spending nearly $20,000 on average this year for a family health insurance policy in the U.S. — a sum that’s roughly comparable to the cost of a Honda Civic.

That finding from an annual report on employer insurance trends by the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation might command attention, but researchers say it’s arguably less significant than the recent growth in employer health plan deductibles.

While health insurance premiums continue to grow at a rate that’s relatively low at 3 percent for individuals and 5 percent for families, the report finds the general annual deductible for workers has increased eight times as fast as wages since 2008.
http://www.startribune.com/employers...end/495044031/
  #516  
Old 10-04-2018, 01:45 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
People are self-centered: what's in it for me? If you have good health insurance from your job why care about those people who don't? Thus Republican support to get rid of Obamacare but no plan to get rid of Medicare (because everyone will get Medicare eventually). On the other hand Medicare for All offers something for everyone--for example universal provider coverage. So you are traveling and get in a car accident--and then get a $10,000 copay because the hospital is out of network.

But Medicare for all offers a lot more than universal coverage--it offers cost controls so health care doesn't bankrupt the country.

Did you read the latest news today?

http://www.startribune.com/employers...end/495044031/
From here:
Quote:
In 2008, the average employer-sponsored family plan cost a total of $12,680, with employees footing $3,354 of the bill, according to Kaiser data. By 2016, the cost of the average employer family plan was up to $18,142 for the year, with workers picking up $5,277 of the tab.
The ACA requires coverage for care you receive in an emergency room if it's really an emergency. I suspect your car accident with the supposed $10,000 copay will likely be either a real emergency or an incredible lack of judgement on your part.
  #517  
Old 10-04-2018, 05:00 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MemoryLeak View Post
I suspect your car accident with the supposed $10,000 copay will likely be either a real emergency or an incredible lack of judgement on your part.
You are driving through on a green when a drunk flies in and t-bones you hard. Your leg is shattered, requiring traction and pins. Emergency care means stabilizing you, but the surgery on your leg would fall outside the bounds of emergency care because it is not immediately life threatening. You cannot realistically be transported 650 miles to your nearest in-network hospital.

This sort of thing could happen and probably does.
  #518  
Old 10-04-2018, 08:56 PM
MemoryLeak MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
You are driving through on a green when a drunk flies in and t-bones you hard. Your leg is shattered, requiring traction and pins. Emergency care means stabilizing you, but the surgery on your leg would fall outside the bounds of emergency care because it is not immediately life threatening. You cannot realistically be transported 650 miles to your nearest in-network hospital.

This sort of thing could happen and probably does.
Bit of a whoosh, I think. There is no cost difference for emergency care (see here). So the $10,000 copay from the car accident was surely a result of you deciding to take care of a few other things when you conveniently found yourself at a hospital. (Of course, this is also unlikely as you probably exceeded your out-of-pocket max and the insurance company will pick it all up).
  #519  
Old 10-04-2018, 09:02 PM
sisu sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oi, oi, oi
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Thousands of Americans die every year from lack of health care because they can't afford the health care they need and so they don't have access to it.
As an Australian I find this unthinkable.
__________________
My opinions may or may not reflect the truth.........
  #520  
Old 10-06-2018, 12:45 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,377
Why Americans are so angry about health care. And why they’re becoming more open to single payer.

This article is an argument for single payer but since this seems to be the active Healthcare thread, I will post it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Scott in Vox
Let’s talk about a very important chart.

It came out earlier this week as part of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual look at employer-sponsored health insurance. And I think it does a lot to explain why Americans are frustrated with our health care system — and why they’re becoming more open to the idea of moving to single-payer.

This chart shows that, over the past decade, the size our insurance deductibles have skyrocketed. Deductibles have grown by 212 percent since 2008 — eight times faster than wage growth, and 12 times faster than inflation.

<snip>

Just a decade ago, the average American with employer-sponsored coverage had a deductible of $303. Flash forward just one decade, and that number now sits at $1,350.

What this means is that Americans who do need medical care are being asked to spend significantly more to get it. There is a growing number of Americans who have to spend more than $1,000 on medical bills before their health insurance coverage kicks in.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017