Is Gen Y going to be the most productive generation ever?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 26 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]468218[/snapback]</div>

Do you think they really don't know what money is transferred in and out of your accounts even if it is offshore. There are few banks that you could route that money too offshore that wouldn't report every financial investment and withdrawal taken from it, and the information goes through a database just waiting to raise a red flag for someone to investigate it. The banks that don't participate are the shadier banks that big tymers use and those banks only do it because their fee's are so high that they are willing to turn their head to criminal activity, the crooks don't mind because they have millions so what if the bank takes 10 percent. It is no where near as easy to move money like it looks like it is in the movies.

Oh and by the way, you also must think that you have anonymity on the internet, once you make a post about illegal activity that you plan on doing, you might as well say it is here forever in cyberspace sitting on a couple of servers, just waiting for you to get caught. If you get caught stealing from the government the money they "steal" from you will be the least of your problems, and it will be fitting that since you plan on living a long time, you can still live off the system in prison and you better hope you still have some of that money left to pay off Jimbo and Big Earl otherwise you may be getting some "big payments" with penalties for early "withdrawals."

Here's to Jail :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(morpheusx @ Jun 26 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]468564[/snapback]</div>

GOOD ONE!


Don't drop the soap!!!!!

P.S. I knew he wasn't as rich as he made out as soon as he started talking about all of his money. People with substantial money don't talk about it. It's uncouth.

Maybe he's a chiropractor??? LOL!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 26 2007, 09:17 PM) [snapback]468579[/snapback]</div>

LOL
I think he is barely qualified to be Dr. Pepper, but once he goes to prison he will be known as Mr. Ahhhh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 26 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]468579[/snapback]</div>

The only money he's transferring is from the allowance his parents give him to his piggy bank. Unless he also has a paper route, but he strikes me as being too lazy for that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jun 26 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]468619[/snapback]</div>

Oh yea! hahaha Totally forgot he's 15...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(morpheusx @ Jun 26 2007, 08:23 PM) [snapback]468564[/snapback]</div>

How can they follow the money when we dont even allow our intelligence agencies the capabilities of following money being transferred through banks outside the US? Heck, they cant tap my phones, they cant follow my financial transactions - isnt it great all the liberties and rights we give terrorists can trickle down to the ordinary US citizen who is not even trying to kill anyone :lol: Jeez, i hope b hussein obama or hillary wins to make it even better for everyone.

One day, you will consult a financial consultant about your retirement planning and discover all the legal possibilities open to you and your family. I suggest you start asap since the odds are soc sec will not be able to do for you what it will be doing for me

I have zero to hide from anyone or any govt agency. Having some means allows me access to highly trained and professional guidance in my lifes matters - advice that has been to date very solid and accurate not to mention legal. I as a matter of operating systems almost always get two opinions before doing anything that might involve any govt agency.

I still have great desire that you put into place all the strategies you have thought of to become the most productive generation ever - you will need to be given all the govt social programs in place now (all of which I will participate in if legally possible) and all the ones you desire to put into place in the future. And again, i thank you for your generosity - I appreciate it, my family appreciates it, and my heirs appreciate it too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 26 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]468394[/snapback]</div>

Here is one article from within a country with already well established nationalized healthcare - seems to me they are not so happy that they are killing so many of there own people every year. If you extrapolate that out to the US it would be almost another 1,000,000 deaths per year from socializing medicine - like the obvious - its cheaper to let people die than to treat them. again, if YOU want socialized medicine with WASH DC controling what and what you cannot get for your own healthcare - FINE ---- DO NOT DRAG ME ALONG WITH YOU.

Here is the link: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_...-name_page.html

Here is the article: Enjoy
4 June 2007
462,000 DEATHS CAUSED BY NHS
Failings are revealed
By Natalie Walker

POOR NHS treatment has led to almost half a million Scots dying in the last 30 years, a new study has revealed.

Doctors at Glasgow University found that between 1974 and 2003, a total of 462,000 people died in Scotland as a result of health service failings

It means Scotland has one of the highest avoidable death rates in western Europe.

The study examined the number of deaths caused by a lack of "timely and effective health care".

The vast majority of people - around 250,000 - who died due to inadequate or delayed treatment were heart or stroke patients.

Another 7300 had cancer and slightly more than 2000 were pneumonia patients.

The study revealed that avoidable deaths among men in Scotland over the time period was 176 for every 100,000 people.

This compared with 159 in Portugal, 129 in Austria and 100 in Italy.

Rates for women were 123 per 100,000, also higher than every other European country investigated.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 26 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]468394[/snapback]</div>

For a little more current evidence against socialized medicine from within Paradise [England] itself:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/9096

Here are some snipits:

"However the figures, published on Thursday, also show that about one in eight patients are still waiting longer than a year for treatment."

Waiting a year for treatment - again, enjoy yourself and make sure your ipod batteries are well charged.

"The Government has set a key target that, by the end of 2008, nobody should wait more than 18 weeks from referral to the start of treatment. "

Aint that nice - the govt does not want its citizens to wait more than 18 weeks for chemo or an MRI

"The figures, based on 60% of inpatients who completed their treatment during March, show that 48% waited no more than 18 weeks following the initial referral by their GP.

And its so nice to know that almost FORTYEIGHT% did not wait 18 weeks! Those lucky people - how about the FIFTYTWO % who DID!!!!!! Again, you go there bro, do NOT bring me with you, I like life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]468702[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for finding this excellent evidence that supports my case! Yes, people in the UK (Ranked 18th) and specifically here in Scotland would like to see improvements. Why? Their care is not as good as that in Portugal (Ranked 12th), Austria (Ranked 9th), or Italy (Ranked 2nd). So the Scots think they can do better, who doesn't. It does nothing to prove the the U.S.'s system (Ranked 37th) is better. If you want to do that find me some numbers that avoidable deaths in the U.S. are less than those in countries that are ranked higher in the WHO's ranking system. You wont find it because avoidable deaths are one of the criteria that the WHO used to form the ranking. So in fact you have found me a nice little tidbit of info that shows the WHO ranking are based on fact and not rigged as you claimed earlier. Thanks


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]468702[/snapback]</div>

I've taken the liberty of bolding your false claim that you added completely unsupported by your source. If you read the story, this is a report on inpatient procedures. The last I knew, a MRI or a chemo treatment is an outpatient procedure and the article specifically says that outpatient procedures will be covered in a different report. You have fabricated your statement of 18 weeks to start chemo treatment! Why? :mellow: :angry: <_<

The news story states that the NHS specifically needs to target orthopedics. Considering that most orthopedic surgeries are not life threatening it would only make sense that it may take a while to schedule the surgery. Lets see, need takes precedent over money <_< Yes, that sounds about right. Considering that my wife waited 5 months between the diagnosis and knee surgery what does that say about care in the good old U.S.A.?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jun 27 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]468773[/snapback]</div>

You either have the wrong doctors or the wrong insurance coverage or you live in an underserved area or you do not have access to other physicians. you could have flown up to Gotham and been operated on in under one week and if it were emergent, the same or next day. I have never ever had a patient wait like that - ever -- even patients we see who are without insurance get better care than that.

It does not mean to dramatically alter our system to adopt a system we know is not perfect either. Perhaps my suggestions earlier today would be a better approach.

there is NO way you are going to convince millions of americans that we should trust the brainpower in wash dc to make decisions about our personal healthcare - nor should they be entrusted with our medical records.

i am shocked that you do not mind big brother knowing EVERYTHING about you - me personally - it scares the crap out of me.

and to think you think the costs of a nationalized healthcare system would be less than or = to what we pay know.

 

Never F*** with a man's livelyhood!

(Code-Dr. B works in the most profitable industry in America, he'll fight nationalize healthcare to the bitter end.)
Also (to earlier posters) please don't call Dr. B a 15 year old, that's completely uncalled for trollish name calling. He's actually an intelligent guy, but with very hard core neocon ideology, that few here find remotely palatable.
(Unless he starts the name calling, then shoot away)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 27 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]468881[/snapback]</div>

My uncle is an Anesthesiologist. He gave us a list of surgeons that he worked with a Yes / No. Only one of the surgeons that he recommended was covered by our plan and he was considered one of the best in the area and as such had a long wait. Like I said before, this wasn't life-threatening it's not like it couldnt wait. Better to wait and have it done right.

No, we couldn't just fly somewhere to get treatment. First, we couldn't afford it and second, most likely the doctor there would not be in our HMO. I prefer to pay 10% and wait then 50% and have it now. BTW, do you know how arrogant that sounds to most people, "Fly up to Gotham and get operated on in a week". That is just not in the realm of possibility for the majority of people.

I have no problem turning healthcare over to DC. Right now it is in the hands of for-profit CEO's. Is Washington that much worse. It works for all the rest of the developed world. In most countries the healthcare along with other public works are not run by the elected officials. They are run by dedicated career professionals from the field. They don't have perfect systems but they have good systems that provide care for all their population. They have systems that rank higher than our system when you look at the whole population not just the elite that can fly around the country for care.

I have no problem with the government having my medical records. Again, a for-profit company has them now and they are probable selling them to someone as we speak. The government already has all your financial records from the IRS, why not your medical?

I do believe that a single payer system would cost less than our current system. Why? It cost on average half as much in the rest of the world. If they manage to provide universal coverage at 1/2 the price than we can too. They are not better than us, they just have the will to do it! :lol:

 

one other point, I saw an interview with Michael Moore on Leno, and he said that he thought it was ironic that 14 years ago when the Clinton's were supposed to do the "universal healthcare" they were stopped in their tracks. Today Hillary Clinton receives more contributions from the healthcare and health insurance industries then anyone in Washington. What does that say?