 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / March 2008cruel Canadian health care system
We've heard the stories before, telling of long waits and rigid bureaucracy keeping Canadians from getting the care they need. I was sent a link to http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php, which has a 5:36 video about a particular case, with a man with brain cancer having to cross into the U.S. to get timely care. If you have broadband, this is worth checking out. One of the people in the video complains about efforts to get the U.S. to emulate the single-payer system of Canada, saying it would leave him with nowhere to send his (Canadian) clients to get proper care. I'm sure the socialists here will be offended and come up with good reasons why people like the patient in the video should just be left to die waiting for care (e.g. it would save taxpayer dollars), but to me, it's another clear warning against letting the government make all of your health care decisions for you. The U.S. health care system has many problems, and needs repair, but we should be very careful not to make it worse. If I'd had to wade through Canadian government red tape, and wait months to get care after my diagnosis, I wouldn't be here to type this. --- CSM On Feb 25, 10:54 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > We've heard the stories before, telling of long waits and rigid > bureaucracy keeping Canadians from getting the care they need. I was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > --- > CSM Unbelievable, didnt realise it was that bad! ----------------------------------------- http://mesothelioma.mypressonline.com/index.html - Information and advice on Mesothelioma cancer > On Feb 25, 10:54 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: >> We've heard the stories before, telling of long waits and rigid [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Unbelievable, didnt realise it was that bad! It isn't. Don't you recognize a political, posturing anecdote when you see one? > <new...@googlemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > It isn't. Don't you recognize a political, posturing anecdote when you see > one? To you it's just an anecdote. To the patient involved, it was a brutal disregard for his health. To me, it was a scary reminder of what socialized medicine can be. Although many patients can survive the process, such a wait isn't good for any of them. --- CSM > To you it's just an anecdote. To the patient involved, it was a > brutal disregard for his health. To me, it was a scary reminder of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > --- > CSM Political posturing is just that. Michael Moore's "Sicko" gives a different view. >> <new...@googlemail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > what socialized medicine can be. Although many patients can survive > the process, such a wait isn't good for any of them. Well, I'm one of the living examples of a one-payer system and both it's benefits and it's down-sides. The down-sides: The waits can be interminable. I knew I had a tumour growing in my head for one year before surgery was booked. It took eight months to get an MRI (finally) done and even then, only after we called to ask them to send a requisition to a private MRI clinic in Québec because we wanted answers. Originally told surgery wouldn't happen till early '08, then suddenly (December 4th), got a call saying surgery was on the 18th. Australian ENT was observing during the operation, came in to see me after I woke up: I will always remember his comment (and his accent - it was cool :) )" It boggles my mind why they waited so long to operate on something so serious as what you've gone through, Marc" - He squeezed my hand and wished me luck. Nice guy. Positive side: I can't even begin to imagine how I would have paid for everything I've gone through, not to mention cancer treatment I *still* have to go through. I'm self-employed, so it's certainly not like I have employer-funded health insurance and, now that I have cancer, *getting* additional health insurance is out of the question, so in this case, I'm glad as heck I'm Canadian. There are definitely major pros and cons to both system. Only a fool, however, would say that one is superior to the other, because neither is even close to a happy medium.  SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. On Feb 27, 2:28 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote: > csm7...@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the > result:news:657fce00-39bb-4eb6-a41d-4b6f1f9525da@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > however, would say that one is superior to the other, because neither is > even close to a happy medium. That's why I pointed out that there are problems with the U.S. system---it's far from perfect. I've talked to people under other systems, that seem to remedy some of the deficits, but I don't know if those remedies cause other problems. I can't even be sure where the happy medium is, but the single-payer system hurts a lot of people. There was another video at that same site comparing two "women" in Canada. One was born male, and got a lot of support from the system to get a sex change. The other had serious, painful, bladder problem and couldn't get any help. The cases aren't really comparable, but it does give an idea of the senselessness of the priorities involved. I don't want to see our system corrupted to the point where politicians decide who lives and dies, who gets tax dollars for elective cosmetic surgery and who gets left to rot. I'd like to see an approach where basic health care is available to all, without having to go to the Emergency room for everything. Just don't take away all my options. It's bad enough that insurance companies make so many medical decisions. At least we can get health care without permission from Big Brother and the Insurance Company---we just have to pay for it out of pocket sometimes. I welcome intelligent, reasoned suggestions for bettering our system. I oppose throwing out the baby with the dishes, as a famous politician once put it. --- CSM > On Feb 27, 2:28 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > bettering our system. I oppose throwing out the baby with the dishes, > as a famous politician once put it. From my perspective, which admittedly has no expertise in this sort of thing, I would think the best system for Canadian doctors to follow would be to allow Canadian doctors to practice for profit *but* they must also put in a minimum of X hours per week into the public system. I mentioned this to my friend who recently had a massive stroke and he disagreed with me that there are wait time problems in Canada. I pointed out to him that with his issue, it was immediately life-threatening - I.e. if he hadn't been treated *right there*, he would have died - For that, the Canadian system is quite good - I.e. if I get into a car-crash and have a steering column poking out of my gut, chances are I'll get excellent care. Unfortunately, it's the long-term health care issues that Canadians run into a lot of problems with. My own situation, for example, needed imaging in order to determine the true extent of the tumour; CT and X-ray just didn't give the detail required. As a matter of fact, the surgeon said once they got inside my head, the tumour was even more extensive than they had seen in the MRI (which took over a year to get). Similar stories can be heard with heart patients, as well: You're not having a heart attack *now*, so we'll treat you *later*. Of course, *later* ends up being a 911 call that begins with "My husband is having a heart attack...". The one single problem with a for-pay medical system is the obvious: You get health care if you can pay for it. That immediately poses the question: Is a rich person's life worth more than a poor person's ? Or, more realistically, given the costs of medical care: Is a rich person's life worth more than a middle class person's or the working poor's ? I've seen reports, however, of other countries with universal health care that spend much more than Canada *up front* - i.e. they have more doctors, nurses and long and short-term beds per capita than Canada does, but spend far, far less overall because their citizenry are generally better taken care of medically. That is to say, the chances of having to pay for long-term post heart attack care is much lower because the average citizen gets diagnosed - and cared for - far before they actually get to the heart attack stage. SignatureMarc Bissonnette Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com Largest ISP comparison site across Canada. On Feb 27, 3:26 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote: > csm7...@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the > result:news:cea9a860-7bce-4b09-96c6-50df3cd71b6f@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > and have a steering column poking out of my gut, chances are I'll get > excellent care. Same here in the U.S. Even if you're poor, with no insurance, emergency care is provided. In fact, even if you're in the middle of a crime when you suddenly need emergency care, you'll get it. This is actually part of the problem---that emergency care is provided for those who can't get basic care. Poor people often leave medical problems until they become emergencies. That wait not only leads to worse problems for the patient, but costs more as well (for the taxpayers, not the patient). If everyone had access to basic care, this would be avoided. Of course, for this to work, there couldn't be long waits for the basic care. > Unfortunately, it's the long-term health care issues that Canadians run > into a lot of problems with. My own situation, for example, needed > imaging in order to determine the true extent of the tumour; CT and X-ray > just didn't give the detail required. As a matter of fact, the surgeon > said once they got inside my head, the tumour was even more extensive > than they had seen in the MRI (which took over a year to get). Keep in mind that all of your problems are just anecdotal, and will be dismissed by those who ignore individual cases in favor of a statistics-only view. I see the value in stats, but think individuals are important too. > Similar stories can be heard with heart patients, as well: You're not > having a heart attack *now*, so we'll treat you *later*. Of course, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more realistically, given the costs of medical care: Is a rich person's > life worth more than a middle class person's or the working poor's ? Here I disagree. There are many problems with (at least our) for-pay systems. For instance, the insurance companies provide a degree of bureaucracy that can be amazing, and they can cause delays in care for those dependent on them. I don't know how to solve this, but some forced simplification might be the answer. If the insurance company had to spell out up front what general kinds of care is covered, and then have no ability to decline coverage of those kinds of care when recommended by a doctor, a lot of delays and frustration could be avoided. But then the problem would likely be doctors who prescribed expensive tests with trivial reasons, or something like that. > I've seen reports, however, of other countries with universal health care > that spend much more than Canada *up front* - i.e. they have more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > average citizen gets diagnosed - and cared for - far before they actually > get to the heart attack stage. That approach should work with for-pay systems as well. The insurance company would save money by encouraging the customers to keep in good health and have minor problems treated. This was the original sales pitch for HMOs, but they quickly devolved into just another way to spend the least while getting the highest premiums. Again, I don't know the answer, but the Canadian single-payer system isn't what I want for the U.S. Too many people have been hurt by it, with the officials not seeming to care in the least. I don't trust our politicians and bureaucrats to be any more honest, or any less cruel, than those of Canada. --- CSM On Feb 28, 10:48 am, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Feb 27, 3:26 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > --- > CSM Here in my home state, every citizen has to have health insurance. If your income is low the state helps pay the price. Citizens can choose from a variety of products. Now when you file for you tax returns you have to show evidence of coverage or pay a big fine. The law just went into place in January only time will tell if this system will work, but it does encourage all to get basic care. Alex <snip> > Here in my home state, every citizen has to have health insurance. If > your income is low the state helps pay the price. Citizens can choose > from a variety of products. Now when you file for you tax returns you > have to show evidence of coverage or pay a big fine. The law just > went into place in January only time will tell if this system will > work, but it does encourage all to get basic care. That's an interesting approach. I'm sure someone will have some insight into the downside (typical unintended consequences). If everyone has to be insured for at least some basic level of coverage, is there any advantage over having that same level of care provided through taxpayer programs? Without knowing more about it, it's hard to speculate much. I would guess that the ability to choose which company to buy the coverage from is helpful. Some insurance companies are renown for their bad practices, to the point that some providers won't even work with them. The government system is like that---a lot of providers won't take new patients with Medicaid or Medicare. Some people may pay a bit more to get a similar package from a company that is known for handling claims well. Of course, some would want packages that cover more ailments, or procedures like acupuncture, or work better for traveling. What else? Also, how does this system work for the uninsurable? Some people (possibly I'm not the only one in ASC) can't buy health/life/ disability insurance on their own at all anymore. Does the state then provide coverage, as (most?) states do for drivers who have made themselves uninsurable through their own misbehavior? [Hey, there's a whole different thread...if someone causes so many wrecks and gets so many tickets that no company is willing to insure him, the state helps put him back on the road; but if he gets a dread disease through no fault of his own and wants to get health/life/disability insurance, too bad.] --- CSM > That's an interesting approach. I'm sure someone will have some > insight into the downside (typical unintended consequences). If [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > packages that cover more ailments, or procedures like acupuncture, or > work better for traveling. What else? Still a work in progress. The companies that the commomwealth supports are top shelf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute > Also, how does this system work for the uninsurable? Some people > (possibly I'm not the only one in ASC) can't buy health/life/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --- HMO in this state have to accept everyone despite pre existing conditions. > CSM > > That's an interesting approach. I'm sure someone will have some > > insight into the downside (typical unintended consequences). If [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_2006_Health_Reform_Statute Thanks for the link---it has a lot of break-offs, for this issue as it's handled various places. > > Also, how does this system work for the uninsurable? Some people > > (possibly I'm not the only one in ASC) can't buy health/life/ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > HMO in this state have to accept everyone despite pre existing conditions. How does that work? Are they allowed to set a premium based on the increased risk, or exempt benefits related to the preexisting condition, or just have to accept the "bad deal" people like us represent? I'm lucky enough to be covered by an employer-sponsored (group) health plan and have plenty of life insurance, but I can easily imagine not being in such a good position. If they said "yes, we'll insure you, but the premium is $5K/mo.", it would be equivalent to saying "no". If they excluded anything related to the cancer, I'd be taking a big chance. If they were forced to simply accept me as if I hadn't had cancer, they'd have to adjust somehow. I like the third alternative best, with the adjustment being to make rates more general, spreading the risk across the population. Of course, I wouldn't want to share the risk with smokers, or snow-boarders, or sky- divers, etc. who raise their risks & costs through their choices :) --- CSM On Mar 3, 6:56 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > That's an interesting approach. I'm sure someone will have some > > > insight into the downside (typical unintended consequences). If [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > --- > CSM You can learn all about it here - "J" can too! Whole new area of "expertise!" www.mahealthconnector.org > On Mar 3, 6:56 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > www.mahealthconnector.org Wow, thanks! I started clicking around there, and it looks like they use a variant of what I listed as the third alternative. I got quotes based on my age, a zip code (I just chose a town I'd visited), and my industry code. It seems to make no difference that I've had cancer, and therefore am a big risk for future cost. As a consumer, this is great. I could have chosen a plan with high out-of-pocket limits (and low premiums), betting that I wouldn't have any great needs. I'd gone many years without needing much care. Then, after getting sick, I could change to a plan with lower out-of-pocket expenses, paying the higher premiums but saving big on the total cost. Somehow that doesn't seem entirely fair, but life isn't. As Alex said, this system is a work in progress, but it seems like a step in the right direction. I'll have to check to see how the costs compare to my current insurance--it looks like a comparable plan in MA is much more expensive, but maybe not. --- CSM >> www.mahealthconnector.org > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > --- > CSM Part of the health reform act is that I got a letter citing how much my employer pays ( about $14K) this does not include the $7800 I pay each year. This is over $21K per year, and this is an HMO which I have a limits which doctors I see. Considering last year my personal medical bills where around $19k( had 2 surgerys) is worth it . The only wonderful change for me is that my daughter was going to be dropped at age 25 this has been changed to age 26 which will cover her through medical school. The only bad thing is she has to come home from NYC to get routine care. It is a work in progress like I said, we could have opted for my husband's plan which is nation wide but even more expensive. Think of healthcare costs equal to housing costs, CSM I don't know where you live but I know places like CA, NY, and MA have an overall higher cost of living which equals higher health care costs. Alex > >>www.mahealthconnector.org > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Alex I just checked, and we pay a lot more than I'd thought. It works out to about $5k/yr., not including any company contribution. I'm in CO, which has a moderate cost of living. With the company portion (not sure how to find that one out without applying for COBRA), I'd bet the total premiums are right in line with what they'd be under the MA system. Do you know how the taxpayer cost of the system compares to taxpayer costs of supporting health care in other states? The MA system is looking better and better, though I'd still like to hear from others about any problems it has. It certainly sounds like a better model than the Canadian one, but of course that's an opinion based on far too little information at this point. Do you mean your out-of-pocket costs for the surgeries? If so, ouch! I only had one major surgery, and while the bill for it was >$50K, my cost was just $300. If you're talking about the bill, then paying nearly $22K to cover $19K doesn't sound so good, though my typical year before cancer of paying $5K plus the company portion to cover nothing sounds worse. Then again, I'd rather pay the same but not need the care---with insurance, you're generally best off with a bad deal. --- CSM > I just checked, and we pay a lot more than I'd thought. It works out > to about $5k/yr., not including any company contribution. I'm in CO, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > --- > CSM 22k is for a family of 5.... my costs out of my paycheck is $7800 the rest paid by my employer. My surgerys was just for myself, my husband had surgery too. I believe my daugher had an MRI so if we are comparing dollar for dollar the insurance company lost out. Hopefully this year we won't need those services this year. We pay nothing for the surgerys no copay. You have to remember is the American Healthcare system the private insurance pays a higher fee to compensate for medicare and people with no insurance. As a resident, this law has had no impact on me personally other than allowing my daughter to be on my policy an extra year which is a big savings to her. Otherwise she would have to pay for one of the plans which is cheaper for young adults. As I said this is a work in progress, the jury is out. Last night on the news they said, 300K signup for health insurance last year through the state and the number of people in the free care pool is down. Alex > > I just checked, and we pay a lot more than I'd thought. It works out > > to about $5k/yr., not including any company contribution. I'm in CO, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Alex I get the "work in progress" bit, and would add that it's also a kind of test case. It's a good idea to try out an idea with a small (but not too small) portion of the whole and get the kinks out before applying to the whole. The MA plan looks like it combines guaranteed care with choice of coverage, forces deadbeats to pay their share, and (as far as I can tell) keeps the government out of actual health care decisions. I still haven't seen anything from detractors (I'd welcome opinions of what's wrong with the system), so I may have to play Devil's Advocate. This could well serve as a model for the nation. I wonder why Kennedy didn't get this through in MA many years ago, when he was first pushing for universal coverage. A successful program in MA would have been excellent support for his plans for the U.S. --- CSM On Mar 6, 9:51 am, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I just checked, and we pay a lot more than I'd thought. It works out > > > to about $5k/yr., not including any company contribution. I'm in CO, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > --- > CSM I get the on line edition of the Boston Globe. Seems like this program is costing more than anticipated and they do not have 100% signed up. Waiting to hear the squeaks when the penalty is taken out of tax returns! I would gather that is MASS state tax. I got into this to sign up for my grandson on line. He has since gotten a full time job with benefits and no longer qualifies. He would have paid $154 a month under the Youth program. And that includs medical. No prescriptions and no dental. And although many many provider HMOs were listed, the majority were "not accepting new patients." And the HMOs that were accepting new providers, then you had to scroll through all the participating MD's and again, the majority were "not accepting new patients." > I get the on line edition of the Boston Globe. Seems like this > program is costing more than anticipated and they do not have 100% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > all the participating MD's and again, the majority were "not accepting > new patients." I plugged in my zip code and my kids birthdate, the only 2 plan that don't accept new patients are plans that are either in a different part of the state or in the inner city. The Big three here Tufts, Havard, and Blue Cross, all have access and availability and have the same number of PCP available as any commerical paying person. There is a shortage of PCPs here, I know my husband and I had to switch last year. > > I get the on line edition of the Boston Globe. Seems like this > > program is costing more than anticipated and they do not have 100% [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > available as any commerical paying person. There is a shortage of PCPs here, > I know my husband and I had to switch last year. I guess it depends on where you live. My grandson opted for Tufts and although many showed, calling the various offices we learned that it was very difficult to find a physician taking on new patients. HE is in the Leominster area. That may be the difference. > > > I get the on line edition of the Boston Globe. Seems like this > > > program is costing more than anticipated and they do not have 100% [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > was very difficult to find a physician taking on new patients. HE is > in the Leominster area. That may be the difference. Do you think the physician shortage has anything to do with the new system, or is it just a general problem in parts of the state (and probably other parts of the country) unrelated to the insurance requirement? > You can learn all about it here - "J" can too! Whole new area of > "expertise!" > > www.mahealthconnector.org I havven't been following this thread - (don't have tiime) - just happened to check your post. In 2002, the IOM determined that ~18,000 Americans die annually due to lack of healthcare. Our Province delisted (their coverage of a portion of physiotherapy and chiropractic in 2004) so I guess they are cruel. Keep us alive but won't help when we're in pain. J On Feb 27, 1:48 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Feb 27, 2:28 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But you already have 'thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater (sic)' by refusing to consider even the possibility of an efficient, effective and affordable publicly-funded health care system. As you note 'our' (yours and mine - I'm in Canada) health care systems have their problems but I, for one, am not willing to ignore any type of system (and I could sure point out a lot deficiencies in the U.S. model - 47 million uninsured for one) but I believe that some of the answers to our Canadian problems just might be found within your privately-funded system. And, yes, there are ideologues in Canada who would brand me a heretic for saying that. > On Feb 27, 1:48 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > your privately-funded system. And, yes, there are ideologues in Canada > who would brand me a heretic for saying that. The "dishes" bit was intentional, and you're misusing 'sic', but on to the meat. I don't refuse to consider the possibility of an efficient, etc. system. However, I seriously doubt that the U.S. government can do a better job of the Canadian system than the Canadian government has, and that isn't good enough. The problem of the uninsured in the U.S. has been grossly overstated, but it remains a serious problem, which we need to address soberly and effectively. These people *do* get health care, but are (1) encouraged to leave problems until they become more serious and expensive; and (2) if able to pay, are charged much higher rates in many cases. I (and other taxpayers) are already paying for the health care of the indigent, but we're paying premium rates for them to get substandard care. That's not good for anyone. I'd rather pay for all to get decent, easily accessible care. The problem is having the U.S. follow the Canadian approach, with all of its problems. I'm not defending the U.S. approach (I've ranted about problems with it before), but rather looking for a better way than either. If you have ideas on how to build a better health care system, that would provide basic care for all without sacrificing some, I for one would like to hear it. Or perhaps you know of a system outside North America that's already been doing a better job--- that wouldn't be too surprising, but could provide a model. My ears and eyes are open. --- CSM > [..] > > Unbelievable, didnt realise it was that bad! Delete his posts, everytime he posts. J > We've heard the stories before, telling of long waits and rigid > bureaucracy keeping Canadians from getting the care they need. I was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > had to wade through Canadian government red tape, and wait months to > get care after my diagnosis, I wouldn't be here to type this. They panicked. low-grade astrocytoma http://www.cubanazos.com/health-care-canada-7-29-07.htm < http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/CancerManagementGuidelines/NeuroOncology/Managemen tPolicies/LowGradeAstro.htm J On Feb 25, 5:54 pm, csm7...@hotmail.com wrote: > We've heard the stories before, telling of long waits and rigid > bureaucracy keeping Canadians from getting the care they need. I was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > --- > CSM http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Your%20Turn/2008/02/26/23084/ 71 patients die waiting for heart surgery in Ontario. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5inNSHt4lhRD4Wa-QedvyAD5Omsvg Seems the problem is ongoing. > http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Your%20Turn/2008/02/26/23084/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Seems the problem is ongoing. That's Quebec envying Ontario {g] http://www.pnhp.org/ Physicians for a National Health Program 29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602 The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Click here to learn more about single-payer national health insurance National Health Insurance Bill What You Can Do Click on your specific group to see how you can help in this important cause! Physicians Medical Students Citizen Activists Labor Organizers |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.