snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02 October 2007, 07:54 PM
lynnejanet's Avatar
lynnejanet lynnejanet is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,465
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
This was sent from Canada to a friend in the States.

First of all:

1) The health care plan in Canada is not free. We pay a premium every month of $96. for Shirley and I to be covered. Sounds great eh. What they don't tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat. I am personally in the 55% tax bracket. Yes 55% of my earnings go to taxes. A large portion of that and I am not sure of the exact amount goes directly to health care our #1 expense.
Not all of the provinces have a "premium". The new Ontario premium varies, but it's around $100 a year, I think. And it's disingenuous to quote the 55% figure, and allege that it mostly goes to health care. That 55% includes municipal taxes, gas taxes, education taxes, etc. etc.

Quote:
2) I would not classify what we have as health care plan, it is more like a health diagnosis system. You can get into to see a doctor quick enough so he can tell you "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but now the challenge becomes getting treated or operated on. We have waiting lists out the ying yang some as much as 2 years down the road.
Not all waiting lists are that long, and if your situation is critical, you can usually be seen right away. I recently had a necessary but non-emergency surgery, and had to wait a total of 6 months from time of referral by my family doctor, to surgery. Non-surgical treatments are often much faster, because they are handled by privatized providers (eg. physiotherapists).

Quote:
3) Rather than fix what is wrong with you the usual tactic in Canada is to prescribe drugs. Have a pain here is a drug to take - not what is causing the pain and why. No time for checking you out because it is more important to move as many patients thru as possible each hour for Government re-imbursement
That's just nonsense, in my opinion. I'll acknowledge that pharmaceuticals are big business (as they are in the US) and there are more and more drug treatments becoming available, but they are not treated as a panacea. I've never encountered a doctor here that isn't willing to take the time for proper diagnosis.

Quote:
4) Many Canadians do not have a family Doctor.
True. And?

Should the government invest more of those hard-won health care dollars to somehow regulate the number and distribution of physicians? I don't think so.

Quote:
5) Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the emergency room waiting for treatment.
Especially when you go in with a bloody nose, a headache, obscure abdominal pain, or a broken bone. Walk in with chest pain, anaphylaxis, or even kidney stones (renal colic) and you're going to be seen instantly.

Quote:
6) Shirley's dad cut his hand on a power saw a few weeks back and it required that his hand be put in a splint - to our surprise we had to pay $125. for a splint because it is not covered under health care plus we have to pay $60. for each visit for him to check it out each week.
So this guy want more items subsidized, so that he can pay even more for health care? Medical appliances, and prescription drugs, are not covered by the province, but are covered if you have a private health plan. And I call BS on the $60 charge. Follow-up appointments are covered.

Quote:
7) Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage. Put on a waiting list . Died before he could get treatment.
I feel badly for Shirley's cousin, but that might have happened anyway. Medical doctors are not miracle workers.

Quote:
8) Government allots so many operations per year. When that is done no more operations, unless you go to your local newspaper and plead your case and embarrass the government then money suddenly appears.
Pure BS. That is utter nonsense. I would love to know what makes the letter writer think this is happening.

Quote:
9) The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are increasing the funding for health care but waiting lists never get shorter. Government just keeps throwing money at the problem but it never goes away. But they are good at finding new ways to tax us, but they don't call it a tax anymore it is now a user fee.
At least they are acknowledging that wait times are a problem, and trying to do something about it.

Quote:
10) A friend needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she is a smoker they will not do it. Despite paying into the health care system all these years. My friend is 65 years old. Now there is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in Canada is a health care system for healthy people only. That should reduce our health care costs.
Again, I call BS. I have never, ever heard of people being denied health care because of their lifestyle choices. The friend in question might have been told that her surgery is riskier because she is a smoker. And there is NO serious discussion of denying medical treatment to the obese.

That's not to say that in individual doctor may have some warped views about treating high-risk patients, or patients with unhealthy habits. But there is NO systemic discrimination against smokers or the obese.

Quote:
11) Forget getting a second opinion, what you see is what you get.
BS. Second opinions are readily available, if you are willing to do the homework to find another physician, make the contact, or ask for the referral, and wait a while.

Quote:
12) I can spend what money I have left after taxes on booze, cigarettes, junk food and anything else that could kill me but I am not allowed by law to spend my money on getting an operation I need because that would be jumping the queue. I must wait my turn except if I am a hockey player or athlete then I can get looked at right away. Go figger. Where else in the world can you spend money to kill yourself but not allowed to spend money to get healthy.
The only bit of the OP with a glimmer of truth.

Note, though, that you certainly are allowed to spend your money here to get healthy by eating properly, joining a fitness facility, and visiting any number of complementary care providers (such as chiropractors, dentists, physiotherapists, massage therapists, etc.).

Quote:
13) Oh did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.
Why shouldn't legal immigrants have access to the health care system. My children have never contributed a dollar to the system. Should they have to pay, too?

Quote:
14) Oh yeh we now give free needles to drug users to try and keep them healthy. Wouldn't want a sickly druggie breaking into your house and stealing your things. But people with diabetes who pay into the health care system have to pay for their needles because it is not covered but the health care system.
Studies show that needle exchange programs reduce the overall demand on the health care system, by reducing rates of infection. It's a good economic move. Diabetic needles are not covered, because they fall into the same category as drugs and appliances. Again, does this guy really want to increase his taxes to subsidize the cost of diabetics' needles? I doubt it.

Quote:
I send this out not looking for sympathy but as the election looms in the states you will be hearing more and more about universal health care down there and the advocates will be pointing to Canada. I just want to make sure that you hear the truth about health care up here and have some food for thought and informed questions to ask when broached with this subject.

Step wisely and don't make the same mistakes we have.
There's not much truth in the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02 October 2007, 07:56 PM
lynnejanet's Avatar
lynnejanet lynnejanet is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
The health care itself, as described in the OP, still sound worse to me. Quotas for surgery, no surgery for smokers, etc.
Those parts aren't true. I have never, ever heard of quotas for surgery, or surgery being denied to otherwise healthy smokers.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02 October 2007, 08:20 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Gloucester, ON
Posts: 6,947
Default My 2 cents for healthcare

About immigrants:
Quote:
Oh did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.
When I was posted back to Canada from the UK, I was the only person with medical coverage. How did I find out? My wife took ill. I was posted from Manitoba to the UK in 2001, and back to New Brunswick in 2002. When we arrived, my wife was not covered by Manitoba health (90 days coverage after leaving the province), nor was she covered by NB health (no coverage for the first 90 days upon arrival). So when she went to the hospital, I ended up with an almost $8000 hospital bill to pay off. Luckily, calmer heads prevailed in the discussions about payment and I did not get stuck with the bill.

To go along with the point above, most university students have not contributed to the healthcare system, yet they are covered. Unemployed people don't contribute. The working poor don't contribute. Those on social assistance don't contribute. It's not like these are "illegal immigrants" this guy is complaining about. It's "people not paying their fair share".

Quote:
A friend needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she is a smoker they will not do it. Despite paying into the health care system all these years. My friend is 65 years old. Now there is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in Canada is a health care system for healthy people only. That should reduce our health care costs.
Hmmm. 65. Smoker. Could it be less the smoker status, and more the weakened health of the patient? Doctors have their mantra, first of all, do no harm (or something like that) and at 65 and possibly a lifetime smoker, it may be that having the operation would do more to hurt quality and length of life than not doing it.

Quote:
Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the emergency room waiting for treatment.
In all instances of my sitting in the waiting room, things have been professional. Sure it is frustrating to be the next to go, then have an ambulance load of vehicle crash vicitims show up
taking your spot. Bastards should wait their turn in line.

Quote:
Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage. Put on a waiting list . Died before he could get treatment.
I have my issues with this one. My first question is, what was the cause of death? My Mom was diagnosed with a heart problem one morning last spring, shipped by air ambulance to the best surgeon around, operated on that evening, in ICU for seven days and then shipped by surface ambulance to her local hospital over 200 kms to be near her family. Cost to us was nothing. However, had she died, it would not have been for lack of care for her heart.

I'd better stop before I need a hospital visit.

Besides, I think I might know who wrote this. The examples are too familiar.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02 October 2007, 08:25 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnejanet View Post
Those parts aren't true. I have never, ever heard of quotas for surgery, or surgery being denied to otherwise healthy smokers.
Oh, I know that. I was commenting on what the point of the OP was, not on its truthfulnes.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02 October 2007, 10:19 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Not the people who depend on employer-provided health coverage.

- snopes
I suspect that the percentage of people who pay nothing at all toward their premium is pretty small. Add in co-pays and deductibles, and there's significant saving to be made, assuming this would all go away in a single payer system (as in the UK).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03 October 2007, 01:05 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,700
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
I suspect that the percentage of people who pay nothing at all toward their premium is pretty small. Add in co-pays and deductibles, and there's significant saving to be made, assuming this would all go away in a single payer system (as in the UK).
I suspect the average total contribution is smaller than you think, and probably significantly smaller than the tax increase that would be required to provide national, state-funded health care:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/up...Report-PDF.pdf

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03 October 2007, 07:48 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,700
United States What's wrong with nationalized health care?

Quote:
Canada has a single-payer system that guarantees every Canadian coverage. It's paid for by tax dollars. The government pays all claims, so there is no private insurance industry acting as middleman to administer the system. That's where the big savings come. In Canada, administrative costs are less than 17% of all health spending, compared with 31% in the USA.

But the Canadian system does have one drawback: Its citizens face somewhat longer waits for some care such as seeing specialists, receiving MRIs and non-emergency surgeries than Americans.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/...wrong-wit.html
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03 October 2007, 01:21 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon108

Quote:
But the Canadian system does have one drawback: Its citizens face somewhat longer waits for some care — such as seeing specialists, receiving MRIs and non-emergency surgeries — than Americans.
Even assuming this is true, which the article doesn't back up:

OTOH, I don't have to worry about whether my insurance provider -- should I have one at all -- will cover the procedure.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03 October 2007, 02:02 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Quote:
But the Canadian system does have one drawback: Its citizens face somewhat longer waits for some care such as seeing specialists, receiving MRIs and non-emergency surgeries than Americans.
Good. Sounds like an area that could be improved when we try a similar system here. Maybe add more specialized practices.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03 October 2007, 02:23 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
I suspect the average total contribution is smaller than you think, and probably significantly smaller than the tax increase that would be required to provide national, state-funded health care:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/up...Report-PDF.pdf

- snopes
That assumes, though, that the monies currently paid by employers as benefits would be paid by personal income tax. I don't think that's necessarily true; companies use benefits to attract employees, and I can easily see that some form of corporate funding of the taxes would come into play, or that there would be concomitant wage raises, even if only on the individual employee level. Even if it's not, though, and we all end up paying for healthcare out of personal income tax, the costs of doing business would drop as employers no longer need to supply health insurance, and we would benefit financially from that. Right now, the money that goes into the health insurance business in the US is vastly more than that other countries spend on national healthcare, at least in part because of bureaucracy and profit-making. I have a problem seeing that national healthcare would cost us, personally, more.

I can't find any information on average out-of-pocket health expenditure in the US. It may have been in snopes' link, but there was a vastness of information there.

ETA: This site http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publ...?doc_id=347500 indicates that almost one in six US families spend more than 10% of their income on OOP expenses; one in four if we include premiums. I can't imagine that any tax increase that increased taxes by 10% of one's income would fly.

Last edited by Chloe; 03 October 2007 at 02:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03 October 2007, 02:36 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
I have a problem seeing that national healthcare would cost us, personally, more.
Oh I am sure it would cost us more. All those people who now don't have coverage (and can't afford it) would have to be covered somehow. That extra cost will come out of my pocket. It will be as if I am paying for my family's coverage and one other family.

Not that I am against paying more to get everyone covered, I just think it is naive to think this universal care thing is going to cost less than what we are paying now. If nothing else, the start up costs are going to be huge (even if in the long run, costs go down).

Also, there is a major backlog of people needing services that they simply can't afford now. You open up those flood gates and the costs are going to soar. Think of all the people who've posted on this site with lines such as, "Well, I really need to get X looked at, but I don't have health coverage, so I'm hoping it won't get serious...". I also wonder if we have the infrastructure to handle all these new patients. I know my doctor is more or less full (but not overly). A significant increase in his patient load and I will have to wait weeks to see him (rather than 24 hours like I do now).

It's going to be a major cost hit (maybe just at first, but still a major bow wave cost). To attempt to "fool" the country into thinking it won't will almost guarantee that the next Congress (in 2010) will vote to have the whole noble experiment (or boondoggle, depending on your POV) scrapped.

Of course, that is why I am for the "go it slow" approach so that the bow wave effect is minimized and we nickel and dime everyone into the system over some number of years (10?).

Of course, for many, it seems it must be everything or nothing.

Last edited by Doug4.7; 03 October 2007 at 02:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03 October 2007, 02:39 PM
queen of the caramels's Avatar
queen of the caramels queen of the caramels is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Quebec
Posts: 4,228
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
About immigrants:When I was posted back to Canada from the UK, I was the only person with medical coverage. How did I find out? My wife took ill. I was posted from Manitoba to the UK in 2001, and back to New Brunswick in 2002. When we arrived, my wife was not covered by Manitoba health (90 days coverage after leaving the province), nor was she covered by NB health (no coverage for the first 90 days upon arrival). So when she went to the hospital, I ended up with an almost $8000 hospital bill to pay off. Luckily, calmer heads prevailed in the discussions about payment and I did not get stuck with the bill.
We had to wait either 60 or 90 days for federal health-care when we arrived.


Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
To go along with the point above, most university students have not contributed to the healthcare system, yet they are covered. Unemployed people don't contribute. The working poor don't contribute. Those on social assistance don't contribute. It's not like these are "illegal immigrants" this guy is complaining about. It's "people not paying their fair share".
No, its definetly us immigrants. Taking your jobs, gettting hand-outs from the government, popping kids out like animals.....
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:14 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
Oh I am sure it would cost us more. All those people who now don't have coverage (and can't afford it) would have to be covered somehow. That extra cost will come out of my pocket. It will be as if I am paying for my family's coverage and one other family.
But what about the costs we will save because people with health insurance are healthier and less likely to rely on emergency room care? What about the costs we will save on paperwork? What about the enormous profits made every year by health care corporations that we will save?

Quote:
Not that I am against paying more to get everyone covered,
It certainly sounds as if you are.
Quote:
I just think it is naive to think this universal care thing is going to cost less than what we are paying now.
It costs less in all the other countries in which it exists.
Quote:
If nothing else, the start up costs are going to be huge (even if in the long run, costs go down).
True.

Quote:
Also, there is a major backlog of people needing services that they simply can't afford now. You open up those flood gates and the costs are going to soar. Think of all the people who've posted on this site with lines such as, "Well, I really need to get X looked at, but I don't have health coverage, so I'm hoping it won't get serious...". I also wonder if we have the infrastructure to handle all these new patients. I know my doctor is more or less full (but not overly). A significant increase in his patient load and I will have to wait weeks to see him (rather than 24 hours like I do now).
It certainly *sounds* as if you're valuing how Doug will be affected over how the other people hoping their problem isn't serious are going to be affected.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:25 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
But what about the costs we will save because people with health insurance are healthier and less likely to rely on emergency room care? What about the costs we will save on paperwork? What about the enormous profits made every year by health care corporations that we will save?
That will be long term savings, not short term. Again, it might cost less over the long run, but the first few years, those savings are not going to show up.
Quote:
It certainly sounds as if you are.
Well, guess what, you are wrong.
Quote:
It costs less in all the other countries in which it exists.
Two things, 1) start up costs will be high, 2) US != the rest of the world.
Quote:
It certainly *sounds* as if you're valuing how Doug will be affected over how the other people hoping their problem isn't serious are going to be affected.
Why do you always do this? Why do you always try to make this about me? Why do you make these "assumptions" about my posts? You know what they say about "assume", don't you?

Are you really that naive to think that the majority of Americans who vote and contribute to politicians will gladly assume a significantly larger tax burden so that all Americans will be covered? And don't cite "polls" where a majority think that all Americans should have healthcare. None of them add the, "And are you willing to pay $400 more a month in taxes to get that coverage?".
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:25 PM
Christie Christie is offline
 
Join Date: 28 November 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30,909
Default

Quote:
I know my doctor is more or less full (but not overly). A significant increase in his patient load and I will have to wait weeks to see him (rather than 24 hours like I do now).
We often don't even have to wait 24 hours. My daughter phoned our family doctor Monday morning and was able to get in to see him Monday afternoon. Of course this doesn't make for sexy "oh the horrors of socialized medicine" headlines.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:29 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christie View Post
We often don't even have to wait 24 hours. My daughter phoned our family doctor Monday morning and was able to get in to see him Monday afternoon. Of course this doesn't make for sexy "oh the horrors of socialized medicine" headlines.
Great. You have now provided one datapoint, just like mine.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:32 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
That will be long term savings, not short term. Again, it might cost less over the long run, but the first few years, those savings are not going to show up.
Why wouldn't they start right away? Every time a child visits a pediatrician about a cough rather than an emergency room with bronchitis or pneumonia, there is a savings.
Quote:
Two things, 1) start up costs will be high,
I already accepted that.
Quote:
2) US != the rest of the world.
So what exactly is it about the US that will make state-run health care cost more when everywhere else, it costs less? Be specific.

Quote:
Why do you always do this? Make these "assumptions" about my posts? You know what they say about "assume", don't you?
I am not reading into your post, I am reading it. You brought up the likelihood that other people (including other snopesters) would be able to get medical care they cannot currently afford not as a good thing, but as a problem, because it would hypothetically affect how long you personally had to wait to see your doctor. Please explain how that is *not* valuing the impact on you higher than the impact on others.

Quote:
Are you really that naive to think that the majority of Americans who vote and contribute to politicians will gladly assume a significantly larger tax burden so that all Americans will be covered?
Can you show that the tax burden to the majority of Americans would be significantly higher than they currently pay in premiums, co-pays, and deductions? One in four families pays more than 10% of their income for this.

Quote:
And don't cite "polls" where a majority think that all Americans should have healthcare. None of them add the, "And are you willing to pay $400 more a month in taxes to get that coverage?".
Cite that this is what it would cost, please.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:35 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christie View Post
We often don't even have to wait 24 hours. My daughter phoned our family doctor Monday morning and was able to get in to see him Monday afternoon. Of course this doesn't make for sexy "oh the horrors of socialized medicine" headlines.
My dad called the doctor on Monday afternoon and saw him at 6:30 the same day. Oh, and before my mother was hospitalized last month, they called the doctor, and he came to the house. NHS.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:37 PM
Doug4.7
 
Posts: n/a
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Why wouldn't they start right away? Every time a child visits a pediatrician about a cough rather than an emergency room with bronchitis or pneumonia, there is a savings.
Because there will still be those kids who didn't get help before who now need that emergency care. Unless you propose to shut down the current system at midnight on day X and start the new system on day X+1, there will be dual costs for a while. That will cost extra money.
Quote:
So what exactly is it about the US that will make state-run health care cost more when everywhere else, it costs less? Be specific.
I have no idea. All I know is no other country has our mix of size, history, and people.
Quote:
I am not reading into your post,
Yes you are.

Face it, the problem you have is I am not for the exact same method as you are of getting healthcare to all Americans. Because of that, and your simple black/white approach to this issue, that must mean I am against universal care. Wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03 October 2007, 03:46 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug4.7 View Post
Because there will still be those kids who didn't get help before who now need that emergency care. Unless you propose to shut down the current system at midnight on day X and start the new system on day X+1, there will be dual costs for a while. That will cost extra money.
Briefly, perhaps, for the length of time of the incubation period for these diseases. But surely that is compensated for by the idea that fewer children will suffer bronchitis or pneumonia? And later the savings on emergency room costs will be significant. Preventive visit for diabetes: c. $42. Hospital stay for diabetes: c. $6,700. Which would you rather pay?
Quote:
I have no idea. All I know is no other country has our mix of size, history, and people.
Well, what country has France's size, history, and people, other than France? The UK's? Canada's? Some very different countries are making it work. Why not us?

ETA: And re your unmarked edit. I did not say you were against universal care. I said that it seemed, based on your posts on this very page, as if your primary concern would be how it affected you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.