The Socialist Paradise of Sweden … Or Not
A nice little diatribe from the Socialist Paradise of Sweden (ranked 4th in healthcare performance by WHO but only 22nd in bang-for-buck due to the cost).
In 1975, for instance, most Swedish doctors averaged nine consultations per day. Today, that number has plummeted to four. Much of this drop is the result of burdensome administrative tasks, as doctors now devote 80 percent of their time to paperwork. Needless to say, this greatly impacts the availability of care.
Doctors and health care staff across Europe also receive far less in pay than U.S. medical staff, as salaries are paid by the state and therefore used as a tool to cut costs. As a result, the United States attracts the world’s most competent doctors.
Further, European governments ration drugs to cut costs. Between 1998 and 2002, for instance, 85 new drugs were introduced in the U.S. market. Meanwhile, there were only 44 new drug launches in Europe.
In other words, European governments haven’t figured out a way to deliver health care for less money — they’ve simply figured out a way to ration care.
There are things we can do—malpractice reform, more nurse practitioners, generics, better consumers—to reduce the cost of care in America. But even then, we might be talking about $5100 per capita instead of $5700, not $250. And even then, I’m dubious we could cut our national health bill per se. The response of consumers to lower costs is greater consumption. We are producing and using energy more efficiently than ever and Americans are consuming more. The low price of TVs means one in every room. The low price of food means an obese nation. And if MRIs get cheaper, we’ll just start getting them every time we kick a soccer ball wrong.
Historically, the only way to really cut costs is rationing. Because—and I hate to keep repeating this, but it needs to be ingrained into our political culture—it’s always cheap to die.
Update: I hadn’t realized Lee posted the same article earlier. Doh!
Comments
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
We have a free clinic every 2nd and 4th Wednesday at my church. It’s run by licensed, practicing doctors and nurses. The doctors average 3 patients per hour, it just depends on the various health issues of the patients, but they give exceptional healthcare to all of the uninsured patients who come in. Plus they give them either free or reduced price drugs.
Maybe Sweden should look at the system that my church has.
I’m Swedish,and the new goverment (the liberal conserative coalition) promised to deal with these waitlines that the socialist parties had caused us,we will see how they do in these 4 years.
But yes there is a waitproblem.
My grandma for ex with cancer was put on a fucking waitlist,and sadly she died from it.
She got to the operation table were the finest cancer surgeons worked but they just opend and closed her when they saw that the cancer had spread too much.
A fucking 6 month waitline for a cancer operation,that is Sweden. :S
Beside that its okay,my mom at one time didn’t have money and my brother who broken his arm and needed medicin got it all for free.
Well, quez, in the future, remember there’s a growing industry in some countries to deal with the problem of wait times. It’s called medical tourism.
MikeS, I have to admit, I’m not following you, here.
The chief complaint about U.S. healthcare is the incredible cost.
But you’re promoting rationing to lower the costs.
What I don’t understand is, if less consumption equals lesser costs, then why have the high prices, which have undoubtedly stopped many people from consuming medical services, not had the same effect, already?
It just seems really… circular, to me.
Also, I would think that serious tort reform alone would provide more than a $600 per-capita saving. I mean, if you are truly serious about malpractice tort reform, and eliminate the majority of trivial lawsuits, which probably account for upward of 80% of the dollar amount of malpractice pay-outs (yes, I’m guessing), then put serious insurance company regulations in place to keep those costs reasonable, I would guess you could conceivably bring that number from $5700 to $3000 or even $2500.
Of course, in all honesty, I’m just a circus clown, here. I’ll be the first to admit it. This is just my uninformed impression.
If you really believe it’s otherwise, then I would be forced to defer to your (far) more informed position, as an actual medical practitioner.
Medical tourism happends here a lot or rather “social tourism” even our former statsminister (like primeminister) who follow his socialist agenda admitted that and it needed to stop.
People from eastern europe tries/tried to take advantage of our healthcare.
Medical tourism happends here a lot or rather “social tourism” even our former statsminister (like primeminister) who follow his socialist agenda admitted that and it needed to stop.
People from eastern europe tries/tried to take advantage of our healthcare.
I don’t think that’s what he meant by medical tourism. I think he meant the practice several countries have adopted of having for-profit medical facilities dedicated to providing services for people from foreign countries by actually paying for the procedures. Go to india and have a medical procedure performed by an American trained doctor in a state of the art facility. Not go to sweden and try to leech off its system.
But you’re promoting rationing to lower the costs.
No, I’m saying that if you’re going to try to force costs down, you’re going to have to ration. I’m not promoting rationing in any sense. I am simply saying it is the inevitable result of trying to artificially hold down costs.
That has always been the case. The Law of Supply and Demand tells us what happens you set the price of something artificially low—people begin to run out of it.
What I don’t understand is, if less consumption equals lesser costs, then why have the high prices, which have undoubtedly stopped many people from consuming medical services, not had the same effect, already?
I think you misread. Lower prices leads to greater consumption.
Also, I would think that serious tort reform alone would provide more than a $600 per-capita saving. I mean, if you are truly serious about malpractice tort reform, and eliminate the majority of trivial lawsuits, which probably account for upward of 80% of the dollar amount of malpractice pay-outs (yes, I’m guessing), then put serious insurance company regulations in place to keep those costs reasonable, I would guess you could conceivably bring that number from $5700 to $3000 or even $2500.
a) you’re assuming that malpractice reform will do away with all cases; it won’t. Not unless you gut the civil tort system. Medicine is a risky business and doctors have to go on instinct as much as science. Lawsuits are inevitable.
b) i don’t really understand where the $2500-3000 figure comes from. Even if we buy Moore’s fantasy of eliminating all insurance overhead, we’re talking about 25% of our healthcare bill, not 50%.
c) My point is that if you bring the cost of an MRI down, people will just spend as much as they were before and get more MRIs. If you bring the cost of prescription drugs down, people will gobble more pills. Consumption is limited by how much money we have, not how much healthcare we theoretically “need”. It is a fundamental law of economics that needs are infinite.
What’s this, Americans heading to Canada for Medical Tourism? Say it isn’t so.
“Healthcare North of the Border
Not all benefits of medical tourism require extensive travel. American patients need not travel far at all to get new and effective treatments. Canada has just begun to offer a new and highly effective treatment for prostate cancer patients, and Americans are coming in by the thousands seeking treatment. Ablatherm™ high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a nonsurgical procedure that uses a precise ultrasound beam to safely and effectively destroy the prostate tissue.
The treatment is usually performed as an outpatient procedure, and is noninvasive. According to John A. Warner, BSc, MD, FRCS(C), University of British Columbia, who has been recommending the treatment since its introduction in Canada, the procedure offers “pinpoint accuracy, no blood loss and success rates at least as good as, if not better than surgery or radiation.” And without the added risk that surgery presents, this treatment seems to be the answer to prostate cancer.
“Ninety percent [of patients] are successfully treated with one treatment only. In those rare cases where cancer recurs, it is definitely possible to use this treatment again, which is something none of the other treatments can offer,” says Warner. As a result, many patients who were treated with different methods, but had a recurrence of cancer, use Ablatherm HIFU with great results.
With fewer side effects and no need for surgery, why can’t Americans seek this treatment in the U.S.? According to Warner, “Ablatherm HIFU is currently under clinical trials by the U.S. FDA. The FDA requires that clinical trials be performed in the U.S., whereas Canada accepted the European clinical trial data.” The FDA has only recently taken a closer look at Ablatherm HIFU and begun testing.
With approval still pending, American patients are traveling to Canada and paying the price for treatment. “Approximately 80 percent of our enquiries come from American patients and 40 percent of our patients are American. Americans are not waiting for the procedure and are traveling to Canada and paying out of pocket,” explains Warner.”
Yes, DVDguy, our Federal government can be slow to approve drugs and procedures. Isn’t it interesting how governments can get in the way of good health care?
Nice post, dvdguy. You’ve given us yet another argument against moore’s contention that the U.S. guvment can best handle our healthcare.
Keep up the good work.
“Approximately 80 percent of our enquiries come from American patients and 40 percent of our patients are American. Americans are not waiting for the procedure and are traveling to Canada and paying out of pocket,” explains Warner.”
Doesn’t this kind of back up what people are saying?
That given a choice of not paying and waiting or paying and not waiting, people will choose to pay.
Yes, it does . . . but only if they have the funds.
but only if they have the funds.
Or the option =)
hey, this is my first post here, I’m new -it’s a bit long, sorry)
I think there is more that can be done than what you listed.
I think in many cases the focus of treatment in the US is not on “cure” but on “treatment”. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies will try to “treat” you until you die. As a medical biller, I’ve personally seen doctors try to manufacture reasons for patients to keep coming back.
Rationing exists here just like it does in other countries. The insurance companies ration payment and doctors ration care based on insurance. If you have certain conditions and certain insurance coverage, you’d be hard pressed to find a doctor willing to treat you. And when you do find one, sometimes the next appointment you can get is not for months and months since every other person with that insurance is there. A few cases: A little over 6 months ago, there was an article in the local newspapers(I’m in Washington DC) about a woman who lost her son because of a toothache. It took so long to be seen with her insurance (there were only a handful of doctors willing to accept it), that by the time she was seen, her son’s tooth had become infected, the infection got into his blood stream, then brain...then quickly killed him.
My mother in-law had...has! a brain tumor and two different insurances (her own and coverage under her husband) and the doctors, because of her own insurance(she’s a teacher,it comes with the job) limited the amount of investigation they did on her and kept telling her she just needed new glasses for her blackouts, exponentially bad vision and headaches that were making her see blue. She was rushed to the ER a few times - same result, prescribed stronger pain killers, more of it and told her to see an eye doctor (and she couldn’t get an appointment that was within 3 months].
When they finally did do the relevant tests(after she used her husband’s insurance) and were *shocked* that she had a tumor, they only removed enough of it for it to stop bothering her because taking out the entire thing would just take too long. So of course she now has to live on medication and regularly visit the doctors. Had it not been for her husband, she would have been waiting to see an eye doctor and probably died in the process.
I think there can be a happy medium between universal health care and our current system.
Insurance premiums can be drastically reduced, and insurance saved for only expensive procedures(which they will be required by law to pay for as long as there is enough evidence to support the necessity and the government should provide care up to a certain point. Growing up I heard the saying “necessity is the mother of invention” over and over and I believe that if not for the lucrative financial benefits of keeping people medicated to pharmaceutical companies, they would actually develop medication that could cure and eliminate alot of illness. Let a epedimic(has to be something that kills quickly) hit somewhere tomorrow, watch how fast the government and pharmaceutical companies work to cure it. If it’s easily communicable, the treatment will be almost free also.
I really think that we need to drastically reduce funding for a lot of the things we seem to prioritize (Like NASA! I don’t give a f&^k about going to Mars - excuse my French - or a 12 billion a month war that’s getting us nowhere and defense spending [we really have enough weapons now - really]) and focus on something that will actually help people. (note: the government does spend money on healthcare - but only where it’s interests are served - I believe that the US is planning operations sometime in the future in Africa -because they are devoting a lot of resources to Malaria research(at Walter Reed), and I KNOW it’s not because they care about the African people.)
The FDA requires that clinical trials be performed in the U.S., whereas Canada accepted the European clinical trial data.
USA = dragging their feet
Europe = doing a good job
Canada = doing a good job
I think this shows more about typical American sentiment ("if we didn’t do it, it’s not done") than some kind of inherent problem with “government control”.
Eman84 I don’t know if I’ve been here long enough to welcome people, but none-the-less: welcome!
Keep in mind, isolated incidents are only valid on this site if they support the “socialist medicine = bad” mantra. Any isolated incident that in any way criticizes the current, private system will be deemed “cherry picking” and bitched about mercilessly.
Also, I think it is writ “thou shall make no mention of wasteful defense spending”. I’m not sure where the MooreWatch commandments are, but that is certainly one of them. I think your NASA comment will be OK though.
USA = dragging their feet
Europe = doing a good job
Canada = doing a good job
I think this shows more about typical American sentiment ("if we didn’t do it, it’s not done") than some kind of inherent problem with “government control”.
You know Hirudin, until you posted this, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
It’s plain now you don’t deserve it. What you think is wrong as posted above is the best example I can think of to show how biased you are. It also demonstrates gross ignorance.
In other words, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
If the way you’ve responded up to my posts up to this point was “giving [me] the benefit of the doubt” I can’t wait to see what you’ve got in store for me in the future.
No, I’m not a cheerleader for ‘Mer’ca, but I don’t see anything in that quote that is so inflammatory that it should somehow drastically change your opinion of me.
Lets see what you’ve got; let me have it!
I think this shows more about typical American sentiment ("if we didn’t do it, it’s not done") than some kind of inherent problem with “government control”.
Why don’t you explain how you arrived at this little nugget of biased misinformation. Just making shit up, or do you have reasons to believe this crap?
Eman84, you shouldn’t judge NASA so harshly without doing at least the bare minimum of research as to the benefits we get from NASA. The old adage, “look before you leap” comes to mind.
Since you mentioned cancer, let’s start there:
NASA And Cancer Research-A new, non-surgical breast biopsy technique using a device originally developed for HST’s Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) is now saving women pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time and money. This technique, called stereotactic automated large-core needle biopsy, enables a doctor to precisely locate a suspicious lump and use a needle instead of surgery to remove tissue for study. This precise process is possible because of a key improvement in digital imaging technology known as a Charge Coupled Device or CCD.
-Digital signal processing was pioneered at NASA for use during the Apollo Lunar landings to computer-enhance pictures of the Moon. This technology was used in a broad range of Earthbound medical and diagnostic tools, including advanced body imaging techniques known as CT, CAT Scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
-NASA uses the microgravity of space to grow human tissue for research and transplantation and to gain valuable knowledge important to the treatment of cancer. The NASA-designed Bioreactor is a unique tissue culture chamber, the size of a home sewing machine, that grows cells in three dimensions.
-Outside Earth’s atmosphere and beyond low Earth orbit, space crews may be exposed to different types of potentially harmful radiation. NASA’s space radiation research focuses on understanding how different kinds of space radiation alter living tissue and developing ways to prevent damage to healthy tissue or accelerating the repair of damaged tissue. Knowledge gained through space radiation research will contribute to understanding how radiation causes and cures cancer as well as the process by which cancer develops.
-Technology from space-based instruments studying the atmosphere will soon be in the medical examination room. NASA is developing a mammogram to produce an image of the entire breast and provide a better image—two times better than currently available—to identify tumors.
-Telemammography: NASA expertise in transmitting high-resolution digitized photographs using satellite networks will soon link doctors in rural areas to medical experts across the country. The satellite technology is more cost-effective and faster than traditional transmission of data through telephone lines.
-The National Institutes of Health recently approved a Small Business Technology Transfer task for an endoscope with a 200 megahertz ultrasonic probing capability to allow examination of the esophagus at the cellular level to view such diseases as cancer. The work will be done by researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, with the University of Southern California School of Medicine and QMI, a small company located in Costa Mesa, CA, specializing in ultrasonic instrumentation.
-Software and computer technology originally developed to improve images of Earth and planets will allow physicians to rapidly identify and display carcinomas that otherwise might go undetected. CT, MRI, and PET images can be fused resulting in greatly enhanced resolution of tissue. Clinicians, sitting at a workstation, can interactively zoom closer or farther away, as well as slice or rotate the image, for any desired view to identify potential tumors and possible metastatic disease.
And I didn’t list a tenth of it. I also didn’t go into how NASA research has improved treatment used for burn victims, reconstructive surgery and all the drug treatment improvements they’ve been responsible for.
It might be time for you to re-evaluate how you really feel about NASA and space research. If for no other reason, reading my links could fill that empty void you’re experiencing waiting for the next mikkel moore expose on the horrors of Amerikka. Maybe he should check out making a film about NASA. Bushitler has increased NASA’s budget, so there has to be some eye-opening anecdotes just waiting to be unearthed.
Hirudin
Also, I think it is writ “thou shall make no mention of wasteful defense spending”. I’m not sure where the MooreWatch commandments are, but that is certainly one of them. I think your NASA comment will be OK though.
Read what I posted above and think again. If you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t want to do a modicum of research, go post on moore’s forums.
Who developed the technology for the Sonablate® 500, the very device used in the Ablatherm® HIFU treatment?
It all started at the University of Indiana School of Medicine in Indianapolis way back in the 1970s. That technology was further developed by other research centers across the globe.
And who invented the Sonablate® 500?
A company out of Indianapolis called Focus Surgery, Inc.
And who manufactures the Sonablate® 500?
A company out of New York called Misonix, Inc.
And who owns the trademark to the Ablatherm treatment?
A company from Lyon, France called EDAP.
And how long did it take to develop the treatment?
Beginning in 1989, three European research groups united in their efforts and initiated a project to develop this treatment. Ten years after the procedure was developed, clinical trials began. Canada began using the treatment in April of 2005.
Now please explain to us how the FDA (U.S. government) is holding back on approving this technology because Americans had nothing to do with this treatment.
Or could it be the FDA takes as long as 10 years to approve drugs and procedures, even those formulated by U.S. companies?
If you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t want to do a modicum of research, go post on moore’s forums.
Amen!
If the way you’ve responded up to my posts up to this point was “giving [me] the benefit of the doubt” I can’t wait to see what you’ve got in store for me in the future.
Well, Hirudin… would you say the same about me?
Would you infer that I have not given you the benefit of the doubt, to this point?
(or deny that I have even pleaded to others to do so?)
Because I’ll tell ya… I’m with Buzz, here.
Your posts are just getting more vitriolic, and less reasoned, every day. This last one takes the cake, and truly pulls back the veil to reveal a warped, quasi-anti-american visage.
I’m not going to rip into you for it.
I’m sure Buzz will do that, just fine.
Besides, I don’t see the point, now. Anyone who
truly thinks that way wouldn’t be effected by it, anyway. It would just fuel your opinions about conservatives, further. It would serve no other purpose.
Instead, I’ll say this;
Don’t expect me to defend you in the future, or give you any more benefit of the doubt. You’ve just lost any support I may have given you as an intellectually honest ideological opponent.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t want to do a modicum of research, go post on moore’s forums.
Yeah… great idea!
In fact, I think I might just go over there and
give Moore a piece of my mind, myself!
I can’t wait to exercise my right to free speech
and tell him that....
...
...
...oh, riiiiiiiiiight. I forgot.
The FDA requires that clinical trials be performed in the U.S., whereas Canada accepted the European clinical trial data.
I think this shows more about typical American sentiment ("if we didn’t do it, it’s not done") than some kind of inherent problem with “government control”.
Why don’t you explain how you arrived at this little nugget of biased misinformation.
“this shows more about typical American sentiment”
The FDA is an American administration.
“if we didn’t do it, it’s not done”
In the opinion of the FDA, clinical trials must be performed in the U.S.
“some kind of inherent problem with ‘government control’”
1. The government control in Europe isn’t getting in the way of good health care, not in this case at least.
2. The government control in Canada isn’t getting in the way of good health care, not in this case at least.
3. The government control in the United States does seem to be getting in the way of good health care, in this case at least.
So, for 2 of the 3 instances of “government control”, that we’re dealing with in this example, don’t seem to have an inherent problem.
The FDA requires that clinical trials be performed in the U.S., whereas Canada accepted the European clinical trial data.
No Ablatherm™ high-intensity focused ultrasound because of American sentiment? Yes.
No Ablatherm™ high-intensity focused ultrasound because of “government control”? No.
I think this shows more about typical American sentiment ("if we didn’t do it, it’s not done") than some kind of inherent problem with “government control”.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t want to do a modicum of research, go post on moore’s forums.
I may be wrong about this, but I suspect Hirudin is one of Moore’s fact checkers.
To aid in getting along with things.
I was wrong when I postulated that Eman84 wouldn’t be attacked for mentioning NASA.
artmonkey, no, you’ve been cool. I am saddened that you will no longer be cool toward me.
Oh . . . I see . . . the fact that the FDA began clinical trials 8 years after Europe did means in this case they’re right on top of things.
I think we agree, the FDA isn’t on top of things. I just don’t think they’re not on top of things because of “government control” in this case that is.
If the FDA approves of a drug/product first, or the US approves of some medical treatment first, will Europe take our word for it? Why should they? Why should we put our trust in a foreign entity?
I just don’t think they’re not on top of things because of “government control” in this case that is.
So why aren’t they on top of things in this case then?
Considering the FDA is a government entity, operating under government guidelines, with a government time-scale and is overseen by the government…
I don’t know if Europe would take our word for it. I wonder though.If the FDA approves of a drug/product first, or the US approves of some medical treatment first, will Europe take our word for it? Why should they? Why should we put our trust in a foreign entity?
Why should they? They shouldn’t. But if the data is sound, they should make their own conclusion based on the data.
I don’t think it’s as simple as “trusting” a foreign entity. It’s more like trusting foreign data.
If a clinical trial is done in another country, I would say the results of the study should be the focus, not the country in which the study was preformed.
Canada approved the French device and procedure based on the clinical trials done in France. The FDA only recently began clinical testing of both devices.
So why aren’t they on top of things in this case then?
Considering the FDA is a government entity, operating under government guidelines, with a government time-scale and is overseen by the government…
I’m sorry, I forgot to say that it wasn’t an “inherent” problem with government control.
The mere fact that they’re controlled by the government isn’t the reason they apparently started their trials 8 years later.
The point is, for better or worse, the FDA “controls” new medicine and medical procedures in this country. Sometimes they get it right . . . sometimes they get it wrong. But in few cases have they ever been accused of being anything other than a bureaucracy.
Back in the 80s people were screaming that they were dragging their feet with AIDS medication.
The mere fact that they’re controlled by the government isn’t the reason they apparently started their trials 8 years later.
They aren’t controlled by the government . . . they are the government . . . just like the IRS or any other branch of some big government agency.
Maybe that’s why their website has dot gov at the end.
And if you want one reason why some drugs are so expensive, aside from the fact some drugs are developed for very few people and the fact that some drug companies take advantage of demand and the fact that drug companies have only 10 years before their patent runs out, then look at the time and test required to get FDA approval. It’s a costly process.
I really think that we need to drastically reduce funding for a lot of the things we seem to prioritize (Like NASA! I don’t give a f&^k about going to Mars)
The federal budget is something on the order of 2.5 trillion-with-a-t dollars. NASA’s budget is $15b. How exactly is that a priority expenditure? Especially compared to the $600b+ that we spend on Health and Human Services.
I was wrong when I postulated that Eman84 wouldn’t be attacked for mentioning NASA.
Funny thing about how “being wrong” will tend to get your facts “corrected”.
The mere fact that they’re controlled by the government isn’t the reason they apparently started their trials 8 years later.
Obviously not. That’s a stupid argument and no reasonable human being would argue that. They are not incompetent and inefficient BECAUSE they are a government agency, but they ARE proof that government agencies tend to BE incompetent and inefficient. The reasons that they are so do not have to be “inherent”, because whatever the reason, the truth of their incompetence and inefficiency remains.
So, for 2 of the 3 instances of “government control”, that we’re dealing with in this example, don’t seem to have an inherent problem.
Not when you narrow it down to a single instance and only look at it from one lone aspect of a complex process, no. But that’s like saying that the Ford Pinto was not a dangerous car because (for example) their upholstery was better than Chevy’s.
Part of the problem with the FDA is that they get no kudos for approving a new lifesaving drug (that is, unless it has to do with AIDS; while I am no fan of organized gays, I will say that they have used their political clout very effectively on this one) but do get kudos for stopping thalidomide. Even though thalidomide’s harmless to everybody except women in one particular stage of pregnancy.
You know, when you take a grand economists view of NASA, they say it returns from 7 to 24 dollars (depending on who’s numbers you take) back into the economy for every dollar spent. If anyone has a copy of Astronomy from the early 90s, there was an article about this, which is where I first heard of it.
It’s one of the only financially successful federal agencies on the books. It helps us in ways we can’t begin to calculate, a million little things in modern life have been derived from the desire to live in space.
Besides the financial, dreams of space travel alone are worth some monetary investment. Even if it was a 100% money loser, I’d STILL want the space program to exist. I’ll never live long enough to go Out There, but I will die happier knowing that soon, very soon...someone will.
The X Prize shows that private space travel is only a generation or two away, and once that happens, there will be no one to stop us this time.
The X Prize shows that private space travel is only a generation or two away, and once that happens, there will be no one to stop us this time.
All your NASA is belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
Someone set us up the bomb, etc. etc. etc.
Post a Comment:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.The trackback URL for this entry is:
Trackbacks:
- azUpvSd
dRLwsoS oOyLeMao [URL=http://myxdodynm.com/]DDqtGfbLy[/URL]Tracked on: VHcuhD (81.95.148.98) at 2007 08 06 10:28:38
RSS (Subscribe)
From the article:
So, they’re sending folks to vets in Sweden . . . probably to get their annual rabies shot. That’s one way to ration care . . . make it less appealing to the masses.
(Actually, I know 2 American vets who seldom sent their kids to the doctor. Legal? No . . . but cost effective, yes. I suspect it happens often in this country.)