Given the weight that health care reform plays in the current presidential campaign, I wanted to address what I humbly believe are the most significant issues in our current system.

Any student of economics has learned that prices contain invaluable information that helps allocate scarce resources. One of the central caveats of our current health care system is the absence of price transparency. This is primarily driven by the existence of a third-party payer that finances the majority of health care costs.

Such a system distorts both the supply and demand for health care. Given consumers do not pay the majority of costs, there are few incentives to cut back demand vis-à-vis rising prices, which leads to the overconsumption of health care goods and services. This also has severe implications for the supply-side of the health care sector as, in the absence of demand destruction, there are few incentives to focus on costs and efficiency, leading to an upward price spiral that is largely accommodated by consumers.

Unfortunately, simply providing insurance for all Americans does little to address the above. Rather than cure the symptoms, we should focus more on the disease.

The only way to incentivize consumers to respond to increasing prices is to have the majority of those prices paid by consumers. We have grown accustomed to the notion that the purpose of insurance is to pay our every routine health expense. On the contrary, the primary purpose is to provide financial assistance to low probability events, not for every doctor visit. (The emergence of high-deductible HSA plans is a huge step in the right direction)

The government plays a very significant role in the supply of health care via overly-strict licensure laws (ever wonder why NCSU, among other qualified schools, does not have a med school?) and excessive regulation on insurance providers. To the second point, each state has its own laundry-list of mandates for insurance companies and their plans. On most states' lists are mandates that require inclusion of often-unneeded services, such as in-vitro fertilization, alcohol abuse counseling, chiropractic care and others that raise the marginal cost of insurance. This is like the government mandating all car companies include leather and AC in their cars, only to later complain that something must be done about rising car prices.

Making matters worse, state governments restrict its citizens from purchasing insurance from out-of-state providers. This limits consumer choice and competition amongst providers, leading to higher prices than could be obtained in a free market.

The federal government also has played a role in our insurance system. By structuring the tax code in a way that incentivizes insurance to be provided by employers, insurance is now predominantly employer-provided, which further limits the consumer’s choice of insurance provider and plan. This also has the ill effect of leading to a less flexible labor market, as employees may be reluctant to switch jobs or pursue further education if it means they lose their existing coverage. (this also leads to job-lock among seniors)

Long, long story short, there are many, significant ways the government plays a role in our health care system. Expanding that role does little to address the above-mentioned problems. Before supporting either presidential candidate’s plan, I urge you to consider the often unrealized side effects government intervention imposes.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 7:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 7:55:25 PM

waaaaaayyy to loquacious to be humble.

6/25/2008 8:00:01 PM

i whistled for a cab and when it came near

6/25/2008 8:01:24 PM

Somebody move this to TSB, where it can be properly mocked and flamed.

6/25/2008 8:15:12 PM

yeah here in the lounge... we're serious and we care what you have to say

but we're not that serious and we don't care that much what you have to say

6/25/2008 8:18:07 PM

good summary hunt.

HSA and the govt stepping out of healthcare is the answer. imo

6/25/2008 8:28:49 PM

1) the US is virtually the only industrialized country without a national healthcare system
2) Americans pay more for healthcare than any other country in the world
3) adverse selection causes private insurance to be disproportionately expensive
---
4) the US should adopt a national healthcare system
QED

6/25/2008 9:11:52 PM

^^^ oops, no idea how this landed in the lounge

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:12:41 PM

operator error

6/25/2008 9:15:25 PM

Quote :

"1) the US is virtually the only industrialized country without a national healthcare system 2) Americans pay more for healthcare than any other country in the world 3) adverse selection causes private insurance to be disproportionately expensive --- 4) the US should adopt a national healthcare system QED "

This has about the same logical bearing as:

1) Collect Underpants
2) ?
3) Profit!

Seriously, try harder.

6/25/2008 9:18:21 PM

as opposed to responding to a legitimate (albeit abbreviated) argument with "try harder"?

6/25/2008 9:21:08 PM

Your logic is based upon faulty premises, a complete disregard for alternatives, and capped with a non-sequitur conclusion. I thought my allusion to the Underpants Gnomes made that quite clear - apparently not.

6/25/2008 9:23:50 PM

^^^^^^

1) Not sure this is necessarily a good reason to adopt a new system.
2) How does a national healthcare system address this other than shifting the burden. (On a side note, we also spend more on higher education. Additionally, we have higher disposable incomes, so it makes sense we would spend more on something we value so highly)
3) This could be addressed with specifically targeted subsidies for pre-existing conditions without having to resort to scrapping the entire system as a whole
4) Again, a nationalized health care system does not address the cost issue addressed in my original post

6/25/2008 9:27:31 PM

^^uh, the premises are all true, and saying the argument is non sequitur and showing that it is, are quite different

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ^now this is a constructive response]

6/25/2008 9:27:54 PM

^^it sounds like what you want to do is somewhat like the singaporean system (http://tinyurl.com/2tyxll) and i don't necessarily think that's a bad way to go, depending on how it's implemented--although i'd like to see something a little closer to the canadian model

6/25/2008 9:43:24 PM

1) Is utterly irrelevant. It may be true but has no logical relation to any of the other premises or the conclusion. Furthermore, it omits relevant information, such as, "The US also grossly subsidizes the national defense of every other industrialized nation of the world, thereby allowing them to avoid difficult and expensive decisions about budgetary priorities by placing them squarely on the backs of U.S. taxpayers."

2) Fails to account for issues like an unhealthy American lifestyle, disposable incomes (as well as entitlement subsidies) which allow us to spend disproportionately more on end-of-life care, or a flawed incentive structure which emphasized remedial rather than preventative care. It is, in fact, an oft-repeated canard which neglects to compare apples-to-apples.

3) Is given completely without evidence, and, taken to be true, only indicates that the problem is with the status quo, not that we should adopt your proposed system whole cloth. Plenty of "national healthcare" systems in industrialized countries are a complete flop - one need look no further than the NHS in the UK for evidence of this.

It therefore in no way follows that, "the US should adopt a national healthcare system".

Which, incidentally, is the very definition of a non-sequitur argument. Thanks for playing.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:45:26 PM

^^ You have to actually make an argument before you can complain about people not accepting it.

Listing premises and then a conclusion is not an argument. It is a literal non-sequitor.

6/25/2008 9:47:35 PM

Quote :

"The only way to incentivize consumers to respond to increasing prices is to have the majority of those prices paid by consumers."

LMAO; I guess when u catch that stray bullet or get cancer the average American is fucked since they likely will not be able to pay the 100K+ hospital bills. That is why we have a cool thing call insurance. Most people don't make enough or are not responsible enough in order to have enough reserve cash to cover medical expenses especially the big ticket items. I am not for UHC. I do support McCain's plan to give every family a tax credit to allocate to health insurance costs and medical expenses. This would allow me to choose my own health insurance and not get stuck with whatever provider my employer uses.

Quote :

"nsurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium. An insurer is a company selling the insurance. The insurance rate is a factor used to determine the amount, called the premium, to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage. Risk management, the practice of appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of study and practice."

As much as i hate paying car insurance; I would prefer us having it then not. When some dumb red neck hits me at 60 mph driving drunk in his F-250 at least i know his insurance will pay my bills. No law suit would get the money; last time i checked trailor homes aren't worth much.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:59 PM. Reason : l]

6/25/2008 9:57:15 PM

Quote :

"1) Is utterly irrelevant. It may be true but has no logical relation to any of the other premises or the conclusion. Furthermore, it omits relevant information, such as, "The US also grossly subsidizes the national defense of every other industrialized nation of the world, thereby allowing them to avoid difficult and expensive decisions about budgetary priorities by placing them squarely on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.""

this makes no sense

Quote :

"2) Fails to account for issues like an unhealthy American lifestyle, disposable incomes (as well as entitlement subsidies) which allow us to spend disproportionately more on end-of-life care"

the american lifestyle isn't all that different from the canadians or australians

Quote :

"3) Is given completely without evidence, and, taken to be true, only indicates that the problem is with the status quo, not that we should adopt your proposed system whole cloth"

it shouldn't be hard to see that in a system without universal coverage, the people that seek out private insurance are likely to use it disproportionately

^^it wasn't meant to be a fundamental argument, it was intended to spur discussion, but some people can't see the forest for the trees...

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:58 PM. Reason : ^]

6/25/2008 9:58:40 PM

Quote :

"this makes no sense"

Then you're not trying. Which is evident from your original argument.

Countries which can afford generous entitlement programs generally aren't picking up the tab for other expensive things, like defense. At least to the degree that they would if they did not live under the shadow of the U.S. security umbrella.

Absent that, they'd have to actually make hard choices. Instead, the burden of balancing defense spending to entitlement spending is placed upon U.S. taxpayers. It's pretty easy to be generous with entitlement spending when you don't have to worry about meeting other budgetary obligations.

So, the argument "Everyone else does it!" is not only totally irrelevant to the merits of the proposed solution, it hinges upon another, unspoken premise that such an arrangement only exists because we end up implicitly subsidizing it. It really doesn't get much clearer than this.

Quote :

"the american lifestyle isn't all that different from the canadians or australians"

You may have noticed other factors I pointed out in addition, like the inordinate amount spent on end-of-life care, spending incentives, or disposable income. Or not.

Quote :

"it shouldn't be hard to see that in a system without universal coverage, the people that seek out private insurance are likely to use it disproportionately"

And why would this same incentive structure magically disappear under a universal system? If anything, if we take your logic to be true, this would imply more use of a universal system, therefore inflating costs even higher.

Here's the real problem - we confuse the concept of "insurance" (i.e., protecting against unstated possible future harms) from "healthcare" - i.e., access to and receiving medical treatment for present, current harms.

The reason insurance is so expensive is because we have created a system where insurance is the only way we expect to pay for routine care now. We have an incentive gap - given that you pay a relative fixed amount regardless of the health services you consume, and in particular, health services you consume due to a lack of preventative care, there is a disconnect of incentives - no one has an incentive to wisely use healthcare resources. This means those who have health insurance have no incentive to control costs, leading to one of two outcomes - restricting access (HMOs) or raising premiums.

Seeing as we've also created a system which ties health insurance to employment (an indirect consequence of wage and price controls during WWII and then during Nixon), we now rely on employers to foot the insurance premiums - further insulating costs from consumers and encouraging proper incentives.

It therefore does not somehow immediately follow that universal healthcare is the answer. The problem is that costs are out of control to the point where access is an issue - by and large due to repeated iterations of incentives being hidden from healthcare consumers. Restore those incentives and the costs come back down.

The cry and hue for "universal healthcare" is an intellectual shortcut which ignores all of this and demands a solution without actually looking to see what's causing the problem. In as much, we get logical non-sequitur arguments like yours to justify it.

6/25/2008 10:15:10 PM

Granted this is highly simplified and I haven't thought through most of the problems with it, but I think a good basic universal healthcare plan would basically be that any non-cosmetic surgery (plastic surgery, LASIK, stomach staplings, etc) above $2000 and any necessary medication above say $400 would be covered by government insurance as long as you got a yearly checkup (since preventive medicine is cheaper), and if you really wanted private insurance for the other stuff you could get it. That way it becomes much harder to game the system, and if your kid gets cancer you won't lose your house.

Why am I wrong?

6/25/2008 10:26:14 PM

It's less generous than the current system, and far less generous than proposals on the table, for one.

That being said, who determines what is "necessary?" How do you control inflation of costs? One of the problems of our current hybrid system is doctor reimbursements - Medicare constantly puts the squeeze on how much they'll pay for services to doctors and hospitals. The result is cost-shifting - more costs shifted to private consumers, and fewer doctors accepting Medicare.

One pretty forseeable outcome of universal payer (which is essentially what you propose) is that one of the easiest ways for the government to cut corners is to simply slash reimbursements like they do now. The result is fewer doctors willing to take public clients, and thus longer wait times for service.

6/25/2008 10:32:08 PM

^^It doesn't address some of the fundamental problems that make healthcare so expensive in America.

They are (in no particular order):

1. Having the best and highest-paid doctors in the world
2. Paying for the newest and most expensive prescription drugs (in effect, subsidizing world healthcare by paying for the R&D of new drugs in the pipeline)
3. Paying for the most cutting-edge equipment and experimental procedures
4. High costs due to frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits, which causes doctors to overtreat patients and pay for expensive insurance plans to protect themselves
5. A fat, aging, unhealthy population
6. A lack of cost transparency that allows doctors (and insurers) to overbill
7. Licensing laws that restrict competition and supply of medical practicioners as well as adding costs to existing practicioners
8. Abuse of our emergency services by non-citizens as well as the uninsured


There are other reasons that America is somewhat unique in it's healthcare situation. Costs will likely continue to escalate whether we nationalize or not. Hunt has some very good suggestions for alleviating this crisis.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM. Reason : 2]

6/25/2008 10:51:23 PM

Quote :

"Countries which can afford generous entitlement programs generally aren't picking up the tab for other expensive things, like defense. At least to the degree that they would if they did not live under the shadow of the U.S. security umbrella. Absent that, they'd have to actually make hard choices."

you're seriously saying that other countries can only afford a national healthcare system because we provide for their defense?

Quote :

"You may have noticed other factors I pointed out in addition, like the inordinate amount spent on end-of-life care, spending incentives, or disposable income. Or not."

the simple fact is that americans don't have a significantly higher disposable income than other developed countries, and it's an inherent problem of the current system regardless of how you choose to explain it away

Quote :

"And why would this same incentive structure magically disappear under a universal system? If anything, if we take your logic to be true, this would imply more use of a universal system, therefore inflating costs even higher."

low-risk groups who seek independent coverage bear a disproportionate burden, which serves as a disincentive and keeps overall costs for insurance artificially high--it's not that hard

6/25/2008 10:55:36 PM

Quote :

"you're seriously saying that other countries can only afford a national healthcare system because we provide for their defense?"

I'm saying that they can afford to have generous systems without crushing rates of taxation due to a lack of a need to balance priorities. It's not that difficult to do the math, really - any cost that they'd have to pay which is currently being subsidized would either have to come out of new taxes or cuts to social programs.

Strongly subsidizing the security of other industrialized countries blunts the need to actually have to set priorities.

Quote :

"the simple fact is that americans don't have a significantly higher disposable income than other developed countries, and it's an inherent problem of the current system regardless of how you choose to explain it away"

You're right. It's all the eeeeeeevil insurance companies' fault. Not the fact that our spending patterns on healthcare are inherently different than other nations.

Quote :

"low-risk groups who seek independent coverage bear a disproportionate burden, which serves as a disincentive and keeps overall costs for insurance artificially high--it's not that hard"

And this would be different under a universal system... how? Simply by forcing them into the risk pool? Instead of say, addressing the larger issue of a poor incentive structure in consuming healthcare.

6/25/2008 11:04:50 PM

I blame fat people

6/25/2008 11:17:42 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that they can afford to have generous systems without crushing rates of taxation due to a lack of a need to balance priorities. It's not that difficult to do the math, really - any cost that they'd have to pay which is currently being subsidized would either have to come out of new taxes or cuts to social programs. "

most countries in nato could double or triple their military expenditures and still spend less on healthcare + defense than the US spends on healthcare alone (as a % of gdp), so i don't think this argument holds water

Quote :

"You're right. It's all the eeeeeeevil insurance companies' fault. Not the fact that our spending patterns on healthcare are inherently different than other nations."

if it were just american health spending that was higher this might be compelling, but the actual costs are also higher--the extra money either has to go to the doctors or the insurers

Quote :

"And this would be different under a universal system... how? Simply by forcing them into the risk pool? Instead of say, addressing the larger issue of a poor incentive structure in consuming healthcare."

forcing them into the risk pool lowers the cost of the insurance, not the cost of the healthcare

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM. Reason : &]

6/25/2008 11:30:50 PM

Quote :

"most countries in nato could double or triple their military expenditures and still spend less on healthcare + defense than the US spends on healthcare alone (as a % of gdp), so i don't think this argument holds water"

I am extremely skeptical of this statement absent some actual numbers to back this one up, nor does it address my point - it's pretty easy to have generous entitlements when you don't have to actually balance these entitlements against anything.

Quote :

"if it were just american health spending that was higher this might be compelling, but the actual costs are also higher--the extra money either has to go to the doctors or the insurer"

Or - and imagine this - cost shifting. Guess who foots the bill when Canada negotiates price caps on drugs? Certainly not Canadians.

And before you say, "We just need to implement our own price caps!", I beg you to for once actually consider what the unintended consequences of such an action would be. I somehow doubt the result will somehow just be to "slash the advertising budget."

Meanwhile, as I've already pointed out before a couple times - "costs" paid from Medicare aren't nearly what those paid by private consumers are. Which means those "costs" paid by private consumers, which you measure in isolation (rather than taken in consideration with the below-market rates paid by the government) get shifted over onto anyone with insurance. And so the circle of life continues.

Quote :

"forcing them into the risk pool lowers the cost of the insurance, not the cost of the healthcare"

Which doesn't solve the problem. The problem is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of getting care. Pushing everyone into a risk pool does nothing to reduce the actual cost of care.

6/25/2008 11:45:13 PM

Quote :

"Which means those "costs" paid by private consumers, which you measure in isolation (rather than taken in consideration with the below-market rates paid by the government) get shifted over onto anyone with insurance. And so the circle of life continues."

Quote :

"The problem is not the cost of insurance, it's the cost of getting care. Pushing everyone into a risk pool does nothing to reduce the actual cost of care."

6/25/2008 11:58:23 PM

Yes, I mistyped. I'd meant to say "costs incurred by medicare" shifted onto anyone with insurance, or more correctly, anyone not under cost caps.

So, we have two problems. The first being that if, somehow as you insist, the costs of healthcare in America are uniquely high, rather than simply the costs bourne by consumers due to cost-shifting, then putting universal healthcare in place isn't going to solve anything.

Meanwhile, we have a consumption problem. It is not a contradiction in terms to point out costs being higher for private consumers due to cost-shifting and meanwhile point out an incentive problem overall which occurs through any third-payer system which insulates consumption from cost. I know you feel oh-so-clever for pointing that out instead of making a substantial rebuttal (aren't intellectual shortcuts just so much easier), but this is not a contradiction. Costs can be shifted, inflating the cost on a class of consumers due to such, and costs can be inflated through a lack of incentives to wisely use healthcare.

In other words - in case you don't feel like skimming through everything above - you can't get something for nothing. Medicare scrapes by through shifting costs onto consumers - a shell game. You don't get to do this in universal healthcare, at least without essentially introducing price controls, which as Econ 101 teaches us, leads to shortages. Which means no magical "cost savings" associated with universal healthcare.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 12:15:14 AM

the point of (1), which you were so quick to dismiss, is that national healthcare systems can work; if it didn't work, the rest of the world would be crying "privatization" instead of the US discussing "reform." if the US consumes more healthcare services than other countries, so what? so long as americans are willing to pay for the extra services, which apparently many are, there's no disconnnect.

the question then becomes: is a single payer system the best way to provide coverage?

well, if there's one payer and one risk pool, there's nowhere to shift the costs--if nothing else, this should lead to greater transparency. no, this doesn't necessarily reduce the consumption of healthcare services, but it doesn't necessarily increase them either. the french system, for example, starts out rather modestly, but pays more the sicker you are. note, i'm not advocating a government-sponsored HMO, but universal health insurance.

you're right, universal healthcare can be a form of price control. but, that would only lead to shortages if the reimbursement rate was too far below the market rate and it can be counteracted by things like incentives for greater patient-loads. either way, doctors aren't going to stop practicing if they make $120,000pa instead of $140,000

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 1:38 AM. Reason : &]

6/26/2008 1:34:49 AM

Many countries have been crying "privatization" due to the shortcomings of a socialized system. Canada for one.

6/26/2008 1:42:50 AM

when canadians talk about privatization they usually mean something different

6/26/2008 2:02:25 AM

Quote :

"the point of (1), which you were so quick to dismiss, is that national healthcare systems can work; if it didn't work, the rest of the world would be crying "privatization" instead of the US discussing "reform." if the US consumes more healthcare services than other countries, so what? so long as americans are willing to pay for the extra services, which apparently many are, there's no disconnnect."

I dismissed at is being meaningless as to why one should adopt universal healthcare, as it does not follow. Simply because plenty of countries do does not mean we should. It simply does not follow.

Secondly, my counterpoint to 1) was that this premise exists in an artificial cost environment - if someone's subsidizing the rent, throwing a kegger every weekend suddenly gets a lot easier. (Note that I am not comparing universal healthcare to a kegger, but simply pointing out a cost issue - if basic costs, like defense, are being subsidized, this allows one to avoid hard choices about budget priorities - ergo, an artificial cost environment.)

Quote :

"the question then becomes: is a single payer system the best way to provide coverage?"

This is why I took issue with your original logic - this was an assumed, unspoken premise. In as much, you were pretty much begging the question with no consideration given to alternatives.

Quote :

"well, if there's one payer and one risk pool, there's nowhere to shift the costs--if nothing else, this should lead to greater transparency. no, this doesn't necessarily reduce the consumption of healthcare services, but it doesn't necessarily increase them either."

This is the problem, though - already we have a consumption problem. Certain services, like emergency rooms, are overused in comparison to preventative services. Now we remove the main barrier to consumption, by further insulating consumers from costs of services. Do you honestly expect consumption to go unchanged? (Note: much of the over-consumption occurs through people already not footing the bill directly. So you can see where this is going.)

Quote :

"you're right, universal healthcare can be a form of price control. but, that would only lead to shortages if the reimbursement rate was too far below the market rate and it can be counteracted by things like incentives for greater patient-loads. either way, doctors aren't going to stop practicing if they make $120,000pa instead of $140,000"

Pay less for a good and the market will give you less of it. This is pretty much an iron law of economics.

Meanwhile, if the government is squeezing costs right now on Medicare reimbursements, what do you think will happen when they start paying for 300 million claims? (This is the same government, after all, that can't even manage to balance its own checkbook - skimping hardly seems out of the question.)

6/26/2008 2:08:02 AM

-I think reform needs to be undertaken to reduce the cost of prescription drugs

- I think we need to end the frivolous excessive medical tort awards that drive up malpractice insurance; much of which is passed onto the consumer.

- I think i major initiative needs to be undertaken to encourage people to stop eating like hogs and get some fucking exercise.

- I think health insurance should be affordable to every american family whose bread winner is working a full time job. Rather it be required to be provided by the employer or through the use of a "health insurance" tax credit, i don't really care.

Nonetheless I am fully against a gov't run universal health care system. Seeing how wonderfully other gov't programs are run and the bureaucracy to get shit done, i think it is stupid to turn health care into the same bloated form. I also do not approve of subsidizing through my taxes the lazy, fat, unproductive lifestyles of others. This includes those w/o health insurance b.c they choose not to have a job or those that continuously make unhealthful decisions b.c afterall why would health costs matter to them when the tax payer pays for them.

6/26/2008 2:13:36 AM

Quote :

"-I think reform needs to be undertaken to reduce the cost of prescription drugs"

We can start by reducing lawsuits, cutting back the fees and time for the FDA trials, and stop subsidizing the meds for other countries.

Quote :

"- I think i major initiative needs to be undertaken to encourage people to stop eating like hogs and get some fucking exercise."

We used to have that when people would pay more for thier premiums, healthcare, and medicine.

Quote :

"Rather it be required to be provided by the employer "

That is part of the problem. When our good ole govt let ins. purchased through an employer to have a tax advantage, vs when purchased individually people had LESS control over what they are buying. The ignorance of what insurance they have and what it covers is really the main problem. imo

Quote :

"I also do not approve of subsidizing through my taxes the lazy, fat, unproductive lifestyles of others. "

You do this every day you work already. Its called medicaid. Youll just be covering more under a universal healthcare.

The rules with govt are simple. If you want less of something.. tax it. If you want more subsidize it. Taxing the responsible and rewarding the irresponsible is never a good strategy for long term growth... but it buys a shitload of votes these days.

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 9:23 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2008 9:23:24 AM

I am a fan of Social Darwinism

6/26/2008 12:36:52 PM

me too. I feel very strongly that charities and donations would do a better job and is more fair than taking your money and giving it to someone else.

6/26/2008 12:38:36 PM

nm

[Edited on June 26, 2008 at 12:39 PM. Reason : double post]

6/26/2008 12:38:57 PM