Let's look at some facts

[Douger]

a 10 minute visit with the Doctor cost me and my insurance over $200. No test were run. Routine blood test for PSA, cholostral and something else was $1500. A root canal & crown $2,600. We are being had. That is why those that can aford are going off shore for health care it is cheaper and better.

LOL.
Dra. Adriana Munera Dental Clinic O.C.I. - Cosmetic Dentist in Tamarindo - WhatClinic.com

 

[PratchettFan]

As I have said, I am more than willing to use another metric if someone can come up with one. I disagree that longevity has no relation to overall healthcare and I don't think there are enough gun shot deaths to have any impact on the stats.

If we don't apply some kind of measurement, how do you know what you are getting? We know it is the most expensive by far, but just insisting it is the best is pointless. What are we using to determine that? From why I have heard, we are using pride. It's our system so it must be the best system. I don't think that is a valid approach.

The best way to compare healthcare would be to take several common procedures (such as knee replacements, appendectomies, etc) and compare the success/ death rates. When the goal is the same and the situation is the same, it's easy to see which medical system is best. Now, I don't have that info, but I bet it could be found. I do know that over 90% of heart surgeries (disregarding ER heart attack surgeries) are successful. That's not bad. Worth the money.

Fair enough. Let's use bypass surgery and see where it takes us.

I found this article which states the mortality rate in europe for bypass surgery is 2.4%

BBC News - Wales tops European heart surgery survival rate survey

This article indicates the mortality rate for the same surgery in the US is 4.3%.

Mortality Statistics On Bypass Surgery And Angioplasty

However, the second article is far more comprehensive and you could pull quite a few different conclusions from it. The 4.3% category begins at age 65, and I expect the other article is far more generic. I didn't find anything more comprehensive for europe, though I expect it is available. So I don't think this indicates the european results are actually superior.

What I don't see from this is that the american numbers are any better than the european numbers. Perhaps someone can provide more information.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're also the only country in the world where Big Business (insurance companies) decides who gets treatment and who does not.

They are the real "death panels" in the US.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its one thing to read all this. Its nothing we all don't already know. But the real education for me was needing emergency care in Brussels. The night before I was to fly home, I developed severe ear pain which turned out to be an infection.

In one week, I went to the emergency room, urgent care twice, lab tests, two scrips and two otc drugs. Total cost was less that $150US, no waiting, excellent care. All in a foreign country where I don't speak the language.

Try that in the US. Just try getting in to see a doctor with an urgent problem. IF you can get in, the first visit will cost you at least $250 and that's before any labs or drugs or other treatments.

BTW, the second time I had to see the doctor was because the airline wouldn't let me fly without a letter from him. And, actually, that pain was so bad, I wasn't looking forward to being at 30K feet when I found out the ear was okay.

We were standing on the street when I got the call from the airline. I called the doctor at his office at 7.10pm. He answered the phone, asked how fast we could get to his office because he was giving a paper on the other side of Brussels at 8pm.

We got a cab and got there about 7.30. He opened the door for us, took us into his exam room, we all talked while he examined me, wrote the letter and wrote the second scrip. We mentioned we wanted to eat Indian that night. He called the cab from his office phone.

Interesting is that if a cab is called from a doctor's office, there's a special signal that the cab company sees and that call automatically goes to the top of any waiting calls. Also interesting is that the pharmacies take turns staying open 24 hours.

The doctor walked us out to the street, told the cabby where the open pharmacy was AND gave him the address of an excellent Indian restaurant.

And then he went to his medical convention to give his paper.

IOW, by the luck of the draw, I got one of the best doctors in Brussels. And the flight home was pain-free.

 

[Rozman]

I know Sean Penn raved over Cuba's Health Care
and you wanna be Hollywood Libs here probably agree.
I for one don't have any complaints about our HC.

Now that will probably change once this Obamacare
disaster kicks in fully.
For those that never had HC good for them.
But this will probably screw up HC for those who didn't really need
anything to be "fixed"...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Speaking of facts ...

Just read this. From what I've read on various web sites, this is all true.

Affordable Care Act

1. Have insurance, keep the plan.
2. Insurers cannot deny coverage for Pre-existing Conditions.
3. Ins Companies can no longer Cap benefits.
4. Limits out of pocket expenses.
5. Health Insurers must do prevention and routine check ups at no or low cost.
6. Requires treating women equally to men in coverage and prices. Women used to pay more.
7. Public Option still being debated, like Medicare but for everyone competing with Insurance Companies. THIS WOULD BE A GOOD ELEMENT.
8. Ability to compare drugs and procedure so your doctor can use less expensive.
9. Students stay on parents plan until age 26.
10. Up until now you already have taxes deducted from your salary for Healthcare. Nothing new in taxes.
11. Monthly payments are less.
12. Health Insurers would benefit by new clients
13. 80% of premiums on health care-, 20% on admin costs. Keep focus on providing care, not getting rich.
14. Parents and Grandparents pay less for prescriptions.

And…
Will reduce the deficit.
Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket.
Millions of jobs will be created.
It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care.

Fact Check lies:
Lie 1. Abortions to be paid for by Tax money.
Lie 2. Government decide when to pull the plug on your sick grandmother.
Lie 3. Help illegal aliens get access to Health Care.
Lie 4. Government will have access to your bank account.
Lie 5. A plot to bankrupt Health Insurance Companies.

 

[Full-Auto]

We're also the only country in the world where Big Business (insurance companies) decides who gets treatment and who does not.

They are the real "death panels" in the US.

Wrong dip shit...........

The insurance commissioners decide what the rules are. If you look the strong majority of them are democrat.

Why are you guys ignoring the job, letting cronies do these types of things.

 

[PratchettFan]

We're also the only country in the world where Big Business (insurance companies) decides who gets treatment and who does not.

They are the real "death panels" in the US.

Wrong dip shit...........

The insurance commissioners decide what the rules are. If you look the strong majority of them are democrat.

Why are you guys ignoring the job, letting cronies do these types of things.

Perhaps you can present some actual information to support your claim.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're also the only country in the world where Big Business (insurance companies) decides who gets treatment and who does not.

They are the real "death panels" in the US.

Wrong dip shit...........

The insurance commissioners decide what the rules are. If you look the strong majority of them are democrat.

Why are you guys ignoring the job, letting cronies do these types of things.

Perhaps you can present some actual information to support your claim.

Actually he's right. What he ignores is that the insurance commissions are made up of reps from insurance companies.

Its all about the bottom line and insurance companies are like all business in that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They DO control who gets treatment and its based on their bottom line.

 

[PratchettFan]

Wrong dip shit...........

The insurance commissioners decide what the rules are. If you look the strong majority of them are democrat.

Why are you guys ignoring the job, letting cronies do these types of things.

Perhaps you can present some actual information to support your claim.

Actually he's right. What he ignores is that the insurance commissions are made up of reps from insurance companies.

Its all about the bottom line and insurance companies are like all business in that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They DO control who gets treatment and its based on their bottom line.

Actually, he's wrong. And so are you. The majority of insurance commissioners are either republicans or are appointed by republicans. While most of them probably do have an insurance background (would you want a medical director with no medical experience?), none of them are insurance company reps. That would constitute a conflict of interest.

Insurance Commissioner - Ballotpedia

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Perhaps you can present some actual information to support your claim.

Actually he's right. What he ignores is that the insurance commissions are made up of reps from insurance companies.

Its all about the bottom line and insurance companies are like all business in that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They DO control who gets treatment and its based on their bottom line.

Actually, he's wrong. And so are you. The majority of insurance commissioners are either republicans or are appointed by republicans. While most of them probably do have an insurance background (would you want a medical director with no medical experience?), none of them are insurance company reps. That would constitute a conflict of interest.

Insurance Commissioner - Ballotpedia

I stand corrected and thank you for the info. I was going by what I knew some years ago. Obviously, that has changed.

But, there is still a conflict of interest.

 

[PratchettFan]

Actually he's right. What he ignores is that the insurance commissions are made up of reps from insurance companies.

Its all about the bottom line and insurance companies are like all business in that they need to make a profit in order to stay in business. They DO control who gets treatment and its based on their bottom line.

Actually, he's wrong. And so are you. The majority of insurance commissioners are either republicans or are appointed by republicans. While most of them probably do have an insurance background (would you want a medical director with no medical experience?), none of them are insurance company reps. That would constitute a conflict of interest.

Insurance Commissioner - Ballotpedia

I stand corrected and thank you for the info. I was going by what I knew some years ago. Obviously, that has changed.

But, there is still a conflict of interest.

No. There is not a conflict of interest. If there were, that would be grounds for dismissal or recall. The job of the insurance commissioner is to establish rates and determine those carrier licensend to do business in the state meet the qualifications set down by statute. They are there to regulate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have heard repeatedly that the United States has the best health care in the world. I think it can be shown without any difficulty we have the most expensive health care - but "best" is a relative term.

In terms of expense, we have the highest cost of health care per capita - hands down. No one is even close to us. We are 50% higher than the runner up - Norway. But how do you determine overall quality? Difficult, but I would offer that one method would be life expectancy. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years
Italy: $2,870 per capita LE - 81.86 years
Spain: $2,902 per capita LE - 81.27 years
U.K.: $3,129 per capita LE - 80.17 years
Austrailia: $3,353 per capita LE - 81.9 years
Sweden: $3,470 per capita LE - 81.18 years
Belgium: $3,677 per capita LE - 79.65 years
France: $3,696 per capita LE - 81.46 years
Germany: $3,737 per capita LE - 80.19 years
Austria: $3,970 per capita LE - 79.91 years
Netherlands: $4,063 per capita LE - 80.91 years
Canada: $4,079 per capita LE - 81.48 years
Switzerland: $4,627 per capita LE - 81.17 years
Norway: $5,003 per capital LE - 80.32 years
United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.

For those of you who wish to see for yourselves:

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, let us take it as a given that by using actual information I am, by definition, a godless communist or whatever perjorative you wish to use in lieu of an argument. Does anyone have any actual facts to dispute this? I would love to see them.

Ohmigod, I am SO GLAD that a brand-new leftist retard has shown up to start an entire new thread based on ideas that have been debunked approximately 10 million times, but which he thinks are SO CLEVER and SO ORIGINAL.

Next time, Tard Boy, try looking around the message board a little first to find out if your "brilliant" contribution has already been hashed over and regurgitated long before you showed up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dude, all you ever hear is how America is NOT the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy has to do with lifestyle not healthcare.

Actually, all I ever hear is how it IS the best. You could argue that life expectancy is affected by lifestyle, but it will take some hard evidence to convince me healthcare has nothing to do with it. But I am more than willing to use some other method, if you care to offer one.

You really, REALLY don't deserve this much respect for your mindless parroting - not to mention your lack of research on whether the topic has already been addressed ad nauseam before you ever opened your piehole - but it's Sunday, so consider this my Christian work for the week.

Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.

Cancer survival rates qualify under the first criterion, since diagnosis and treatment of cancer require health care professionals. Deaths in auto accidents, on the other hand, do not qualify under that criterion, since health care professionals are not necessary for identifying car accidents (and most people who die in them do so long before any health care professional could be summoned).

Furthermore, sometimes interaction with health care professionals is assumed, but actually measure something health care cannot affect. Cancer incidence rates would be one example. You can go to all the doctors you want, as often as you want, and it's not going to do a damn thing to stop you from GETTING cancer. So cancer incidence would be an example of something the health care system cannot affect. Obesity is another, since it is due to lifestyle and genetics, not to health care quality.

Collecting consistently across nations SOUNDS easy, but really isn't. It's been proven that the United States collects data on infant mortality, for example, very differently than other nations do. Many other countries do not count children who die right after birth as "infant mortality", counting them instead as stillborns. Some countries will not count a child as alive for as much as a year after birth if he or she is born with an illness or defect likely to cause death within that first year.

Now then, to life expectancy.

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

The bolded part includes, of course, those who are murdered, and we all know the United States has a high rate of murders.

Life expectancy also largely violates the second criterion - a health care system has, at most, minimal impact on longevity. One way to see this is to reexamine the table constructed by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The interpretation that the Center for Economic and Policy Research wants readers to derive from Table 1 is that the United States would be better off with a system of universal health care. However, a careful examination of that table yields a more accurate interpretation: There is no relationship between life expectancy and spending on health care. Greece, the country that spends the least per capita on health care, has higher life expectancy than seven other countries, including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Spain, which spends the second least per capita on health care, has higher life expectancy than ten other countries that spend more.

More robust statistical analysis confirms that health care spending is not related to life expectancy. Studies of multiple countries using regression analysis found no significant relationship between life expectancy and the number of physicians and hospital beds per 100,000 population or health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Rather, life expectancy was associated with factors such as sanitation, clean water, income, and literacy rate.8 A recent study examined cross-national data from 1980 to 1998. Although the regression model used initially found an association between health care expenditure and life expectancy, that association was no longer significant when gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was added to the model.9 Indeed, GDP per capita is one of the more consistent predictors of life expectancy.

Yet the United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world, so why does it have a life expectancy lower than most of the industrialized world? The primary reason is that the U.S. is ethnically a far more diverse nation than most other industrialized nations. Factors associated with different ethnic backgrounds - culture, diet, etc. - can have a substantial impact on life expectancy. Comparisons of distinct ethnic populations in the U.S. with their country of origin find similar rates of life expectancy. For example, Japanese-Americans have an average life expectancy similar to that of Japanese.10

A good deal of the lower life expectancy rate in the U.S. is accounted for by the difference in life expectancy of African-Americans versus other populations in the United States. Life expectancy for African-Americans is about 72.3 years, while for whites it is about 77.7 years.11 What accounts for the difference? Numerous scholars have investigated this question.12 The most prevalent explanations are differences in income and personal risk factors. One study found that about one-third of the difference between white and African-American life expectancies in the United States was accounted for by income; another third was accounted for by personal risk factors such as obesity, blood pressure, alcohol intake, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and smoking and the final third was due to unexplained factors.13 Another study found that much of the disparity was due to higher rates of HIV, diabetes and hypertension among African Americans.14 Even studies that suggest the health care system may have some effect on the disparity still emphasize the importance of factors such as income, education, and social environment.15

A plethora of factors influence life expectancy, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, income and educational levels. A health care system has, at best, minimal impact. Thus, life expectancy is not a statistic that should be used to inform the public policy debate on health care.

All italicized sections are courtesy of Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others, and all footnote references can be found there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have heard repeatedly that the United States has the best health care in the world. I think it can be shown without any difficulty we have the most expensive health care - but "best" is a relative term.

In terms of expense, we have the highest cost of health care per capita - hands down. No one is even close to us. We are 50% higher than the runner up - Norway. But how do you determine overall quality? Difficult, but I would offer that one method would be life expectancy. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years
Italy: $2,870 per capita LE - 81.86 years
Spain: $2,902 per capita LE - 81.27 years
U.K.: $3,129 per capita LE - 80.17 years
Austrailia: $3,353 per capita LE - 81.9 years
Sweden: $3,470 per capita LE - 81.18 years
Belgium: $3,677 per capita LE - 79.65 years
France: $3,696 per capita LE - 81.46 years
Germany: $3,737 per capita LE - 80.19 years
Austria: $3,970 per capita LE - 79.91 years
Netherlands: $4,063 per capita LE - 80.91 years
Canada: $4,079 per capita LE - 81.48 years
Switzerland: $4,627 per capita LE - 81.17 years
Norway: $5,003 per capital LE - 80.32 years
United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.

For those of you who wish to see for yourselves:

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, let us take it as a given that by using actual information I am, by definition, a godless communist or whatever perjorative you wish to use in lieu of an argument. Does anyone have any actual facts to dispute this? I would love to see them.

The reason why we have a lower life expectancy has jack shit to do with our health care, and everything to do with the fact that we are the fattest bunch of fuckers on the planet. If you are gonna bitch, at least get your fucking facts straight.

Idiot.

Study: America Is Officially the Fattest Developed Country in the World | Healthland | TIME.com

Ah yes. I believe I covered the part about insults in lieu of an argument. But thank you for playing.

In other words, "I'll just ignore anyone who doesn't treat my rehashed, regurgitated pap as brilliant, so I never have to defend my assertions."

Just what we needed: a mindless parrot who's also a coward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do those stats include accidental death? The number one cause of death in toddlers is drowning. How many Europeans own pools? Thats not a heathcare issue. The number one cause of death in teens is auto accidents. How many European teens own cars? That also is not a heathcare issue. Those young deaths bring down our number.

Uh oh. Maybe pools and cars will become part of the ACA...

The number is an average, so it includes everything. Again, I am willing to examine using another metric but no one has suggested one. Right now it is an established fact that we are paying far more for medical care than any other industrialized nation. Should we not be interested in whether or not we are getting our money's worth? If you don't want to use life expectancy, what would you use?

Something that actually is related to health care would be favorite. Think you can find something like that?

And by the way, that lame-ass vaguery about "the number is an average" doesn't cut it. The fact is, our life expectancy factors in higher rates of any number of things that Europe's numbers don't have. We have a higher homicide rate. We have a lot more car accidents. As was pointed out, we're a lot more likely to own personal swimming pools. We have a vastly more ethnically-diverse population.

If you can't deal with people responding to and questioning your assertions, I suggest you stop making them.

 

[PratchettFan]

Do those stats include accidental death? The number one cause of death in toddlers is drowning. How many Europeans own pools? Thats not a heathcare issue. The number one cause of death in teens is auto accidents. How many European teens own cars? That also is not a heathcare issue. Those young deaths bring down our number.

Uh oh. Maybe pools and cars will become part of the ACA...

The number is an average, so it includes everything. Again, I am willing to examine using another metric but no one has suggested one. Right now it is an established fact that we are paying far more for medical care than any other industrialized nation. Should we not be interested in whether or not we are getting our money's worth? If you don't want to use life expectancy, what would you use?

Something that actually is related to health care would be favorite. Think you can find something like that?

And by the way, that lame-ass vaguery about "the number is an average" doesn't cut it. The fact is, our life expectancy factors in higher rates of any number of things that Europe's numbers don't have. We have a higher homicide rate. We have a lot more car accidents. As was pointed out, we're a lot more likely to own personal swimming pools. We have a vastly more ethnically-diverse population.

If you can't deal with people responding to and questioning your assertions, I suggest you stop making them.

You made a lot of claims. You provided absolutely nothing to support them. An unsupported claim is worthless.

 

[Full-Auto]

We're also the only country in the world where Big Business (insurance companies) decides who gets treatment and who does not.

They are the real "death panels" in the US.

Wrong dip shit...........

The insurance commissioners decide what the rules are. If you look the strong majority of them are democrat.

Why are you guys ignoring the job, letting cronies do these types of things.

Perhaps you can present some actual information to support your claim.

That is factual information. In fact I challenge you to disprove any portion of it.

The thing is you wont bother to educate yourself so why should I post something you will obviously ignore.

If you could have refuted a single phrase....you would have.......

 

[Cecilie1200]

The number is an average, so it includes everything. Again, I am willing to examine using another metric but no one has suggested one. Right now it is an established fact that we are paying far more for medical care than any other industrialized nation. Should we not be interested in whether or not we are getting our money's worth? If you don't want to use life expectancy, what would you use?

Something that actually is related to health care would be favorite. Think you can find something like that?

And by the way, that lame-ass vaguery about "the number is an average" doesn't cut it. The fact is, our life expectancy factors in higher rates of any number of things that Europe's numbers don't have. We have a higher homicide rate. We have a lot more car accidents. As was pointed out, we're a lot more likely to own personal swimming pools. We have a vastly more ethnically-diverse population.

If you can't deal with people responding to and questioning your assertions, I suggest you stop making them.

You made a lot of claims. You provided absolutely nothing to support them. An unsupported claim is worthless.

Oh, I see! Someone told you that you get to come in here, spout a lot of nonsense assertions, and then fire off questions and demand evidence while utterly ignoring any comments or questions directed at you.

That person was mistaken, and quite likely as stupid as you are. You have two choices at this point, newbie: either take your chickenshit ass back, find the post of mine which tore your OP apart and which you SO CAREFULLY skipped because you have neither the testicles nor the brain wattage to respond to the points in it, and RESPOND; or admit that you're a worthless poltroon who isn't here to debate or get questions answered, but merely here to shout your opinions into the Internet as facts, with your fingers firmly planted in your ears so that you don't ever have to hear anything that MIGHT suggest that the world isn't the way you've decreed it should be.

And trust me, Sparkles, if you don't do the first one, you WILL have done the second. Although the more you talk, the more I believe you're too stupid to have any shame over being summarily dismissed to the "Dipshit Pile" of the message board.

Should your chickenshit, hypocritical ass actually strap on a pair and decide to answer up like a man, you let me know. I won't hold my breath. Meanwhile, I'm going to find someone to talk to who has some guts and whose brain cells don't have to shout and wave to get each other's attention.

 

[PratchettFan]

Something that actually is related to health care would be favorite. Think you can find something like that?

And by the way, that lame-ass vaguery about "the number is an average" doesn't cut it. The fact is, our life expectancy factors in higher rates of any number of things that Europe's numbers don't have. We have a higher homicide rate. We have a lot more car accidents. As was pointed out, we're a lot more likely to own personal swimming pools. We have a vastly more ethnically-diverse population.

If you can't deal with people responding to and questioning your assertions, I suggest you stop making them.

You made a lot of claims. You provided absolutely nothing to support them. An unsupported claim is worthless.

Oh, I see! Someone told you that you get to come in here, spout a lot of nonsense assertions, and then fire off questions and demand evidence while utterly ignoring any comments or questions directed at you.

That person was mistaken, and quite likely as stupid as you are. You have two choices at this point, newbie: either take your chickenshit ass back, find the post of mine which tore your OP apart and which you SO CAREFULLY skipped because you have neither the testicles nor the brain wattage to respond to the points in it, and RESPOND; or admit that you're a worthless poltroon who isn't here to debate or get questions answered, but merely here to shout your opinions into the Internet as facts, with your fingers firmly planted in your ears so that you don't ever have to hear anything that MIGHT suggest that the world isn't the way you've decreed it should be.

And trust me, Sparkles, if you don't do the first one, you WILL have done the second. Although the more you talk, the more I believe you're too stupid to have any shame over being summarily dismissed to the "Dipshit Pile" of the message board.

Should your chickenshit, hypocritical ass actually strap on a pair and decide to answer up like a man, you let me know. I won't hold my breath. Meanwhile, I'm going to find someone to talk to who has some guts and whose brain cells don't have to shout and wave to get each other's attention.

So you have nothing to support your claims.