Abort this thread.

Do universal medicare with a low premium and high deductable. that's what i have. fuck you got mine.

Actually, abolish the AMA and remove all regulations before I die like everyone in Canada, in the name of freedom and Ron Paul.

11/16/2009 11:59:27 PM

Quote :

"Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies. The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress. Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html

Yay for lobbyists...

11/17/2009 12:46:36 AM

Quote :

"Various private insurance plans currently cover abortions. If enacted, this new bill would pressure them to drop coverage if they want to participate in the exchange. That's the biggest fear, that all companies involved in the exchange would drop coverage. Going beyond this issue, I don't see why should abortion be treated so differently from other medical procedures."

Wait, you're saying giving the federal government overreaching power to dictate what every insurance company in the country will or wont cover could lead to people not being able to get the treatment they need or want covered by their insurance company. And coverage of procedures would be based on politics not science or necessity? And that these regulations will have far reaching affects into our daily lives beyond merely affecting the government plan?

Where have I heard that before? I could swear it sounds familiar.

Quote :

"Do universal medicare with a low premium and high deductable. that's what i have. fuck you got mine. "

You know what I would prefer? Not needing to have insurance just to see a family doctor. Being able to get a broken arm set and not having to take out a car loan to do it. Fuck the cost of insurance, why are none of our politicians talking about the cost of actual medical services? There's plenty of outrage when big evil insurance denies a claim, but strangely little outrage about the greedy ass doctor who refused to treat the patient anyway. Yes I'm using hyperbole, the point is, "healthcare reform" as it stands is treating the wrong problem.

^ Well of course. The fact that anyone actually believes that the government is enacting this "healthcare reform" for the good of the people is just evidence of how blind people are.

11/17/2009 1:26:53 PM

Quote :

" the greedy ass doctor who refused to treat the patient anyway."

I dont think any doctor would refuse treatment on an emergent case, like a broken arm. Now cancer treatment/surgery is a different story. Usually the hospital admin makes that call and it cost a lot of money.

And providers jack up our BILLING rate to hedge against further cuts. Ever looked at an EOB and see what was billed vs actually paid? If you are paying cash you will usually get billed/charged a MUCH lower amount than what is billed to insurance companies and govt. Its all a game to them.

11/17/2009 2:29:57 PM

I posted this in another thread, but it is a pretty good take on why expecting increased tax revenues through rate increases won't necessarily materialize. This won't impact the Democratic Party's push to pass health care but it could effect all of us:

Quote :

"Dollar’s Demise Traces Roots to U.S. Tax Trap: Kevin Hassett Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar has tanked this year, though the drop has been fairly steady and orderly. That may be about to change. The history of financial markets suggests that crashes are painfully common. Steady bad news very often leads to a rout. Sadly, the scenario that turns the dollar’s bear market into a crash is beginning to look like a sure thing. If a dollar crash were to occur, it might happen because foreign investors decide that the U.S. has fallen into a so- called tax trap. A tax trap occurs when a nation finds itself unable to increase revenue by lifting tax rates. Such a circumstance, if paired with mounting deficits, can lead to wholesale flight from a nation’s assets. The Chinese will only lend money if they think we will pay it back. If doubt about the latter deepens, all bets are off. Why might the U.S. be in a tax trap? The problem is that the U.S. income tax, a primary source of federal revenue, is very progressive, and has high rates. When rates are already high, it becomes harder and harder to raise money by lifting them more. This is, of course, the observation that made economist Arthur Laffer famous, and for the U.S. it is a real concern. "

http://ow.ly/CKoU

11/17/2009 6:22:13 PM

^^ Oh I know that. But that problem won't go away until we stop using insurance like a maintenance plan. I mean, it thoroughly fascinates me how many people will tell you not to buy an extended warranty for a product, or those stupid service plans for cars, or any of these other pay upfront for preventive care plans you can buy for any number of appliances and machines because except in extreme cases it won't be worth the money. Yet these same people can't see how that same idea applies to health care.

11/17/2009 6:47:38 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/16/health/main5673511.shtml?tag=stack

Government health = more breast cancer deaths.

Quote :

"The American Cancer Society rejects the new guidelines - arguing any lives saved by mammography are worth the expense, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton. It will continue to recommend annual screening for all women beginning at 40."

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:01:48 AM

call me cynical, but i can't imagine why the american cancer society would want this expense to be paid by more women.

but i'm no expert on this. i don't know enough to judge either side's claim. but medical procedures carry risks in them selves.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:06:30 AM

^I think this is a bad idea. As someone stated on packpride, Kay Yow was cancer diagnosed with cancer at age 45.

Quote :

"Most women should wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years, a government task force said Monday in a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing recommendation of annual screening starting at 40."

The new guidlines that come with socialized healthcare?



[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:10:27 AM

after reading the article, it sounds less like greed, and more like doctors don't trust statistics. they rely on anecdote instead of numbers. there are lots of other examples of this throughout medicine.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:12:52 AM

^I don't see why the age should be upped to 50 when some women in their 40s have discovered that they have breast cancer.

11/18/2009 12:14:29 AM

because there are risks with medical procedures and the number of people it saves doesn't outweigh the number of people it puts at risk. did you read the article you linked?

11/18/2009 12:15:14 AM

^Yes, but I have met multiple women in my lifetime that have had breast cancer before age 50. I don't see anything wrong with testing at age 40.

11/18/2009 12:17:12 AM

hey look you're doing the same thing.

i didn't see a big hubbub when a similar study about prostate exams came out recently -- it said pretty much the exact same thing. detection at that age isn't that likely -- and even if prostate cancer is found, the chance that detecting it then would improve odds of survival were not shown. but that wasn't about boobs, so no one batted an eye

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:19:05 AM

^

Quote :

"The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies."

[government]We don't want to pay for it![/government]

11/18/2009 12:21:15 AM

of course you couldn't be bothered to quote the next paragraph.

Quote :

"But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department "

11/18/2009 12:23:16 AM

^Obama also said that he isn't going to aprove any plan that adds to the national debt, but every plan that has been pushed by the government so far adds to the debt. Saying something and actually doing it are two different things.

11/18/2009 12:29:09 AM

and the plans which have been shown to reign in the long-term costs of health care reform are apparently far too liberal for congress. the weaker this reform is, the more in debt we're going to be. medicare's costs are going to balloon without any change at all.

11/18/2009 12:32:57 AM

So why is it that other countries can have a good, functioning national healthcare program at a much lower cost than healthcare in the US AND have higher life expectancy than we do?

Because the US government sucks at doing things. That's why. If the US government posted on the wolf web, they would promptly be told they suck at life.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 12:45:15 AM

^Canada and England don't exactly have great healthcare systems. You have to wait in line for a while before you get treated. As for the life expectancey thing I don't know what the stats are for the different nations in the world, but there are probably other factors involved beyond government health like diet, climate, war, etc. Some nations eat healthier than Americans.

11/18/2009 1:03:49 AM

I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that our country is very good at taking tax dollars but very bad at doing things with them. The healthcare system in our country takes up roughly 16% of GDP. Japan has one of the best healthcare systems in the world and it is around 6% GDP.

US is 50th in life expectancy... not too good:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

And while there are lots of factors, the health care system is certainly up there.

As far as "waiting in lines" and all this shit... much overstated points IMO. I wait in lines here. I have participated in other healthcare systems and the wait was no worse. It comes down to how things are budgeted and tradeoffs that are made when setting up a health system.

[Edited on November 18, 2009 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2009 1:07:22 AM

are you really going to trot out the bullshit line about life expectancy, even though that argument has been torn to shred a million times by noting the vastly different lifestyles that Americans have compared to other nations? Really?

11/18/2009 6:32:08 AM

you know what often helps reign people's unhealthy lifestyles in? a regular visit with a doctor. which americans rarely get.

11/18/2009 8:09:36 AM

You're assuming people will go. Are you going to compel that as well?


I hope this bill (which will almost inevitably pass) is swiftly and fully shot down by the Supreme Court.

11/18/2009 8:13:07 AM

Quote :

"I hope this bill (which will almost inevitably pass) is swiftly and fully shot down by the Supreme Court."

The bad thing (in this instance) about the Supreme Court is that you must have an actual case or controversy in order to get it on the docket. Someone must be actually "injured" in order to bring a case, otherwise it would just be an advisory opinion, and SCOTUS can't do that. So, even if it does pass, (which IMHO I think any bill that passes the Senate will be starkly different from the House), it will still be quite some time before it even has the opportunity to go through District Court, Court of Appeals, etc before it even gets to the Supreme Court. So, I'm not banking on that to keep our government immediately in check.

11/18/2009 8:57:02 AM

Quote :

"Medicare And Medicaid Dominate 'Improper Payments' By Feds Here's a sure sign the White House wants to bury some news--hold a 6:45 p.m. conference call for reporters, with an embargo for 11:30 p.m. Where does the money go? (iStockphoto.com) Those were the ground rules last night for the word that the annual accounting of "improper payments" made by the federal government. In fiscal 2009, the payments jumped to $98 billion from $72 billion in FY 2008. Here's a OMB chart breaking down the payments and a fact sheet on the whole mess. Where did the money go? As usual, more than half the improper spending--$54.2 billion--was traced to problems with Medicare and Medicaid. And health-care spending overall remains a key driver of the federal deficit. Now most people read improper payment and think fraud. That's not quite right. The federal term of art covers fraud, but also includes payments that aren't fully accounted for, or, in the case of health spending, may not be medically necessary."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/medicare_and_medicaid_dominate.html

But they'll get it right this time, don't worry.

11/18/2009 9:24:05 AM

It shouldn't be my burden to be forced to pay taxes so someone who can't afford to take care of themselves properly can recieve healthcare.

What's next? Universal life insurance too? Oh yeah, they already started something similar to that. It's called Social Security and that's working out great!

11/18/2009 9:34:25 AM

Quote :

"What's next? Universal life insurance too? Oh yeah, they already started something similar to that. It's called Social Security and that's working out great!"

wow you're an idiot. I don't think I should even have to point out what is so retarded about this statement.

11/18/2009 9:40:29 AM

Yeah, the scam known as Social Security is way worse than universal life insurance.

11/18/2009 9:43:11 AM

social security was put in place to help solve a very real problem with old people dying of hunger or literally working until they died.

11/18/2009 7:34:34 PM

I am for single payer and the end of for profit healthcare. Too many people die as a result of not being able to afford coverage and insurance companies getting between them and their doctor. These are not just people mooching off the system but working people with families etc. Medical bankruptcy is another serious problem as a result of our crap system.

11/18/2009 7:49:45 PM

Quote :

"you know what often helps reign people's unhealthy lifestyles in? a regular visit with a doctor. which americans rarely get."

Doesn't seem to work for the fairly wealthy people today who have access to doctors, does it? Hell, people on medicaid practically prove you wrong, dude.

Quote :

"social security was put in place to help solve a very real problem with old people dying of hunger or literally working until they died."

that's what we were told. but it's not really the actual purpose of SS. It was little more than a wealth redistribution scheme.

Quote :

"Too many people die as a result of not being able to afford coverage and insurance companies getting between them and their doctor."

And you think the gov't won't get between people and their doctors? REALLY?

11/18/2009 8:32:36 PM

Pretty good breakdown by NPR on the bill(s(ish)) as they stand right now: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120068329&ft=1&f=1014

11/18/2009 10:19:18 PM

http://tinyurl.com/yaxaftb good article discussing the taxes the currently proposed bills will impose.

11/20/2009 9:32:51 PM

Floor debate is on C-SPAN 2 if anyone is interested.

11/21/2009 2:23:31 PM

Did you hear the good news? The new health care system is out, and its not gonna have any of the problems that our last health care system had. Trust me.

11/23/2009 9:52:38 PM

Some of you may be very interested in this exchange:

Transcript: Health Care Debate
"This Week with George Stephanopoulos" with Sens. Nelson, Coburn, Reps. Wasserman Schultz and Blackburn
Nov. 22, 2009

Quote :

"[Rep. Marsha] BLACKBURN: Well, actually, it is not. And the guidelines that came out this week by the Preventive Services Task Force have a direct link to what would be offered if the House and the Senate bills were to go into law, if they were to be put into law. And, George [Stephanopoulos], this is exactly how it happens. If you go to page 1,296 of the House bill, the engrossed copy, and you began to read in title three of that bill, on preventive and wellness services, and you get down to section 2301, this is what happens. In section 3131 of that bill, it changes the Preventive Services Task Force to the Clinical Preventive Services Task Force. Then, you go back and you see that that task force on preventive clinical services is tasked with rating A, B, C, D, or I all preventive services. Then you go back into section 222 of the bill... (CROSSTALK) BLACKBURN: Yes, I have read this bill. And that indicates what would be paid or covered. And this is where the actual link comes, and I'll read it for you. In section 2301, it says, 'All recommendations of the Preventive Services Task Force' -- that's the group that did the mammograms -- 'and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, as in existence on the day before the date of the enactment of this act, shall be considered to be recommendations of the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services.' STEPHANOPOULOS: So the guidelines -- the point is that the guidelines then... BLACKBURN: They becomes the law. STEPHANOPOULOS: ... would -- would become... BLACKBURN: They become the law, the mandate. STEPHANOPOULOS: ... would become controlling. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, they would not be. BLACKBURN: Yes, they do. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And what's unfortunate is that the Republicans, and Ms. Blackburn, have for the first time politicized breast cancer. BLACKBURN: That is incorrect. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That is -- no, it is not. And I'm a breast cancer... BLACKBURN: No, it is incorrect. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: As you know, as a breast cancer survivor, Marsha... BLACKBURN: That is incorrect. It's in the bill, Debbie. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Excuse me. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let her finish her point. BLACKBURN: I have a great respect -- yes. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: As a breast cancer survivor, I came out against these -- these recommendations. Every major cancer organization has come out against these recommendations. The task force language in that bill actually makes sure that prevention -- preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and other cancer screenings would be free. The task force recommendations -- the language in the bill... (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Debbie, let me -- let me clarify this... (CROSSTALK) WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: ... that even more women would get access to... (CROSSTALK) STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me for a second. That -- that is true. But let me clarify a little bit, because under the -- the bill -- and we have -- we have the language, as well. It says that a group health plan and health insurance issuer offering the group (ph) shall provide coverage, but only under -- if the Preventive Services Task Force rates it as an A or B. BLACKBURN: That's right. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, actually, under the -- under the task force, they said that these mammograms for women 40 to 50 is rated C. So they actually wouldn't be covered. So you have a great expansion for a broad part of the population, but actually, these guidelines would be controlling for ages 40 or 50."

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/transcript-health-care-debate/story?id=9147946&page=3

Wasserman Schultz is a liar. Stephanopoulos put up a graphic of the actual printed text in the health-care bill in question and it read just as Blackburn said it did.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM. Reason : And that's called rationing, folks. And people will die as a result of it. ]

11/23/2009 10:29:04 PM

And you think other healthcare providers won't use the same study results from that DHHS panel to limit coverage as well? That's not called rationing, that's called standardization. The healthcare industry has used far flimsier rationales to limit coverage for other issues.

11/23/2009 10:37:36 PM

^ You. . .are. . .a. . .fool.

Former NIH director: ObamaCare an attack on patient choice
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"The bill takes all sorts of choices out of patients’ and doctors’ hands. Even mammograms and prostate-specific antigen tests would be similarly restricted by the government for millions of people, and they actually serve as better examples of what happens more broadly to personal medical decision making in the new system. The ground is being laid already, with the announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-appointed body, of new guidelines for mammograms just days ago. Such a board of experts, composed mainly of primary care, prevention, public health, and epidemiology experts, would recommend the list of preventive services covered in the post-health-reform insurance plan that all would have no choice but to buy. Until now, the government’s task force has been one voice among several medical groups issuing sometimes conflicting prevention guidelines, leaving room for patient-doctor choice. But in an elevated role under health reform, the federal preventive task force’s declarations would carry greater force and have an economic impact on everyone."

Quote :

"But loss of personal choice is not an issue for women only. Look at PSAs. As the pioneering prostate cancer surgeon Patrick Walsh of Johns Hopkins points out, a European randomized trial showed that PSAs saved lives. In the United States, there has been a 40 percent reduction in prostate cancer deaths since testing began in the early 1990s. Yet prostate screening arouses many of the same concerns as does breast cancer screening: too many follow-on studies, too many biopsies, and surgery on slow-growing tumors that may never have harmed the patient. The government task force claims that there’s insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for routine screening of men younger than 75 and is firmly against screening in men older than that. The American Urological Association’s position is the polar opposite: Baseline PSAs should be offered to men at age 40, and the frequency of subsequent testing should be determined by doctor and patient choice."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/23/former-nih-director-obamacare-an-attack-on-patient-choice/

Dr. Bernardine Healy: the first woman to run the National Institute of Health in 1991, has served on two Presidential Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, and served as President of the Red Cross. Healy also survived brain cancer, which gives her a rather complete perspective on the state of American health care, patient choice, and best practices. Now a senior medical editor of US News & World Report.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/23/2009 10:46:27 PM

^ Congrats on quoting something that misses my entire point. I'll wait while you find some Cigna, Wellpoint, BCBS, whatever, execs that will tell you they won't change their plans because of that study.

I'm not disagreeing that those studies conclusions will encourage bad behaviors from patients, but it's going to cause a chain reaction among providers as well. The heathcare bill isn't causing those conclusions, and it's not going to be the reason why patients coverage gets reduced. It may be a contributing factor, but it's not going to be a key factor. Those healthcare providers look for science and dollars and cents to back up why they change coverage levels. That's not going to change here, no matter how badly you want to make a political point. Calling me a fool won't change it either, but I'm glad to see you take at least a little pleasure in pretending that matters.

11/23/2009 10:59:38 PM

I hate to come with so little, after the amount of words above. but I feel i must ask, because it disturbed me some. so this conservative buddy of mine told me that I won't be able to get the public option. he said if your employer already offers private health insurance you can't sign up for the public option. He said you can only get the public option if your employer does not already offer and insurance program. Is this right??

11/23/2009 11:05:16 PM

He's wrong. There wouldn't be much of a point for a competition-inducing public option if you couldn't get it.

11/23/2009 11:07:32 PM

i sure as hell hope not.

you're telling me i gotta pay for my own healthcare independently, and pay for Jose Illegal, too?

11/23/2009 11:08:03 PM

^ Last I heard, healthcare for illegal immigrants was specifically removed of the Senate bill. That's no longer a concern for you, Mr. Taxpayer.

11/23/2009 11:18:27 PM

^^^thats similar to my thinking. he reasoned that with "the point of health care is to get those that don't have insurance yet covered...not for those that already have it offered through their employer to switch to the gov plan". he seemed so sure he was correct, and i didn't feel like countering enough to press him on it.

11/23/2009 11:28:54 PM

^^ Well, that's the Senate bill.

Providing Health Care for Illegal Immigrants: Understanding the House Health Care Bill
November 23, 2009

Quote :

"The health care bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3692) clearly and directly contradicts the President's declarations and promises. Under H.R. 3692: •Illegal immigrants are clearly permitted to pur­chase health insurance under the government health insurance exchange created by the bill. •Illegal immigrants are permitted to receive cover­age under the 'public health insurance option' created in the bill. •Illegal immigrants are ostensibly barred from receiving taxpayer-funded 'affordability credits' to subsidize their health care, but the verifica­tion procedures used to determine the legal sta­tus of those who receive credits are weak and subject to fraud. •The bill expands the Medicaid program. Illegal immigrants are nominally barred from receiving most Medicaid services, but the verification pro­cedures used to determine the legal status of those who receive credits are also weak and sub­ject to fraud. •All illegal immigrant women who do not have private health insurance and who give birth inside the United States will have the full cost of childbirth paid by the U.S. taxpayers. There will be no effort to have the mother repay any of the cost. Given the fact that nearly 400,000 children are born inside the U.S. each year to illegal immi­grant women, these costs could be quite large. •The bill will provide tax credits to small busi­nesses to subsidize the purchase of health insur­ance for illegal immigrant employees. Under H.R. 3692, small businesses will be given tax credits to encourage them to purchase health coverage for employees; because firms are not required to verify the legal status of subsidized employees, both legal and illegal employees will receive taxpayer support. •Illegal immigrants will continue to receive so-called emergency medical services under the Medicaid program."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2345.cfm

Some Democrats are already calling efforts to limit health coverage for illegals "dehumanizing." If this passes, it's just a matter of time before direct coverage of illegals is added.

11/23/2009 11:47:40 PM

Lou Dobbs 2012!

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM. Reason : hah. typo]

11/23/2009 11:50:33 PM

^^ [shrug] let 'em finish their debate in the Senate, and see what happens during the bill reconciliation process.

^ Lou Dobbs.

[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:51 PM. Reason : s]

11/23/2009 11:51:00 PM

Quote :

"Some Democrats are already calling efforts to limit health coverage for illegals "dehumanizing." If this passes, it's just a matter of time before direct coverage of illegals is added. "

Those democrats are 100% right. Direct coverage will never be added.

11/23/2009 11:59:06 PM

Quote :

"The heathcare bill isn't causing those conclusions, and it's not going to be the reason why patients coverage gets reduced. It may be a contributing factor, but it's not going to be a key factor. Those healthcare providers look for science and dollars and cents to back up why they change coverage levels. That's not going to change here, no matter how badly you want to make a political point. Calling me a fool won't change it either, but I'm glad to see you take at least a little pleasure in pretending that matters."

Actually, a massive government run plan has a lot of potential to direct how healthcare will be provided. All the health insurance companies follow the idea of "usual and customary". If medicare/medicaid and what ever other government run plans start following whatever the policy du jour is from the government, you can bet your ass that the private companies will follow suit, citing the government plans as usual and customary. Not that they don't already do stuff like this, but you can't argue on the one hand that we need this reform to overhaul the system and fix it and at the same time claim it isn't going to overhaul the system and change how things work.

^ I fail to see how denying coverage for illegal aliens is dehumanizing. Are we dehumanizing the people of Africa for not covering all of their ills as well? Yes, our immigration system needs some serious changes, but this isn't the way to do it.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/23/2009 11:59:23 PM