SIG I clearly stated, if he came here, for some reason the prick won't my home town, then I'd be more than happy to defend myself, nothing illegal about defending myself so good luck with that. Your just up WRB's ass, or your just another 1 of his ID's, can't see how anyone can not think that guys a nutter, ohhhhh in 2016 B1S1 said something omg, GROW UP!!
It's something that you and him recently stated (2020) that's similar to something stated in 2016. This year, as explained, do not come barking up this tree...again. Stated to you before my thread on Brazil in which you tried to invade and stated to you earlier in another thread before that in someone else thread. Nobody is going to take that crap from either one of you two. I'm not in the hospital anymore and just out of a coma. Seriously, something is wrong you two and something was wrong with you two back then. Simply, I don't like bullies...never did and I don't turn the other cheek. Have you notice I don't go barking up your tree or B1S2 trade journal threads. Seriously, have you ever seen me make a negative comment about your trade journals ? All these years..what crawled up your butts. Now you're back at making threats again...seriously, what's wrong with you. You guys should have been banned a very long time ago for your B.S. and you both are very lucky I do not go into your threads and bark up your tree. wrbtrader
We'll let the right folks sort that out. It's late for you over there now but I'll get started on it in the morning. I did some exchange work when I was in the military with some of the finest examples of your countrymen, a few of which are now in various civilian LE positions. I'm sure they'll find this interesting, should be pretty quick and easy to track you down and Krav Maga does work well against a gun. Good luck there tough guy.
WRB, I presume we only have your word for this and who cares, ever consider your a complete asshole with serious mental issues, others have commented on this and just a nasty waste of oxygen. Don't even remember your posts back more than 6months, just some old twat who likes to rattle on and doesn't really understand anything that said to him, figured dementia so left you to it, guessing I'm not wrong. Already left, came over to give B1S1 some support, place is 90% pricks, if nothing else Covid's highlighted well who the pricks are. I guess we both asked, have you got mental issues ?? and you lied and said NO!! and that's why your obsessed with both of us and talking BS LOL PRICK!!!
SIG, ask them what Unit in the UK does the Krag Maga, p.s. Worcestershire is next to Herefordshire, who's based there. No guns outside of the services in the UK so more useful than it is in the USA!!
Actually, we've had "ObamaCare", the ACA, for some time now. It ain't free for most people. Just a side distraction tossed in to break up the monotony of the current flame war, lol! Health care can never be "free" when you have a for-profit health-care system.
So got it kinda pushed through but not really, as it would ruin the for profit business then, nasty. Free over here, but there trying to sell to the US and make it like yours They voted to not put into into Law last week that they can't sell the NHS, cause if they did it would give the wrong impression that they ever planned to sell it, despite having a vote on it that almost got though, so left it open and will definately be selling it soon. Then Brits get to die of treatable diseases / illness just like you lot yeah, no insurance no credit rating, not got 200K for the operation, no problem just sit over there and wait to die
Not my problem that you have memory problems and I'm sure you'll forget it all again just like when you enter my Brazil thread to spew your B.S. (a thread I don't think B1S2 posted in). Yet, you now state you came back to give support to B1S2...more B.S. from you as you try again to back peddle. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-tests-positive-for-covid-19.347231/ Seriously, search the above link...you're not back here to give B1S2 any support. Nobody is threatening him in my thread nor anywhere else that I've been posting. Yet, I've fact checked both of you two often in other threads. That's obvious even in this thread. Simply, you own this behaviour all on your own now...you're no savoir nor rescuer. Just more cover up nonsense when you have your back to the wall. wrbtrader
You can get the operation. They're supposed to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. They just bill you later. "...It would be wonderful if we could contain medical costs by selectively eliminating care that yields no clinical benefits. That's what Washington's health reformers keep promising. Withholding care that saves lives in order to save money is as unspeakable in Congress as it is at the bedside. And yes, there's some truth to what I was asked to say as an Obama surrogate about opportunities to slash medical spending that buys us nothing. There's the 30 percent of health spending that's wasted on worthless care1—about the price of the $700 billion mortgage bailout, squandered each year. Plus there's the 10 percent or so of medical spending that covers avoidable administrative costs — another $200 billion a year. It surely makes sense to target this spending, by learning more about which tests and treatments work, cutting out those that don't, and getting rid of pointless bureaucracy. But cutting out the care that's useless is astonishingly difficult. Most people think that doctors know which tests and treatments do and don't work — for most patients, at least. So did I, until it dawned on me a few months into medical school that my pediatrician had put one over on me by telling me he knew his nostrums would help. I'd fled, as an eight-year-old, from his allergy shots — under the examining table, up some stairs, and into a closet out of his reach. And, it turns out, the sorcerer's mix of mold, pollen, and mammal hairs he injected into me weekly, when he could catch me, hasn't been shown to work, notwithstanding the hundreds of dollars my parents spent on the stuff. My medical professors challenged me and my fellow first-years to insist on proof — and showed us that many of the treatments in common use do nothing. The same year, the Office of Technology Assessment (an agency that advised Congress on scientific questions until it was shut down in 1995) estimated that only about 10 to 20 percent of medical procedures rest on "gold-standard" evidence — randomized clinical trials. It's doubtful that this percentage has changed much in the thirty years since. The challenges are daunting. Drug companies, makers of medical devices, and clinical specialty societies fiercely resist efforts to compare tests and treatments and to condition payment on proof of effectiveness. There are classic horror stories, including that of the back surgeons who arched their backs when a federal agency empowered to make science-based treatment recommendations concluded that evidence favored fewer spinal operations for lower-back pain. Facing down this threat, they convinced Congress to geld the agency by barring it from issuing clinical guidance. A more recent example is so-called "CT angiography," which sums up serial, CT slices of the heart to create stunning three-dimensional views of clogged (or clear) coronary arteries. These images allow a glimpse inside the heart without so much as a needle stick. But whether this look enables doctors to save lives is uncertain. Their use soared in 2006, after General Electric brought high-resolution, 64-slice scanners to market. Medicare officials became alarmed about the cost. In December 2007, the agency that runs Medicare said it would pay for the scans only in limited circumstances and only if the doctors who did them participated in studies of their effectiveness. Physicians who'd invested in the machines went to war, demanding that Medicare cover the scans without condition. They lobbied Congress (as did GE), getting 79 Members to sign onto a letter asking the agency to pay for them without limitation. Three months after its December announcement, Medicare reversed course, saying it would cover the test without restrictions and offering only "hope" for future studies of the scans' effectiveness. Risky and pricey therapies routinely make their way into common use without such studies. Recent examples include hormone replacement for post-menopausal women and use of tiny screens coated with anti-clotting drugs to prop open coronary arteries; both treatments made headlines when federally funded clinical trials found that they killed more people than they saved. Another federally funded study, also conducted after-the-fact, revealed that a whole family of new, patent-protected antipsychotic drugs, adopted by most psychiatrists in the 1990s in response to aggressive marketing, performed no better than cheap, generic medications. What was most remarkable about these episodes was that rigorous studies were eventually done. The CT angiography story is more typical: new technologies stream into the market with minimal attention to their comparative efficacy. Private insurers won't pay for such studies for reasons that are right out of Economics 101: a finding that a therapy is ineffective benefits all insurers, not just the firm that funded it. Comparative effectiveness research is, in economics lingo, a "public good" — its results are available to all (through publication) and so can't be used by one health plan to get a leg up on its rivals. Change is looming. The 2010 health reform law created a "Patient- Centered Outcomes Research Institute," funded by levies on Medicare and private insurers, to sponsor such research. But the funding level, less than a tenth of a percent of what Americans spend on health care each year, will do little to increase the fraction of medical decisions that rest on science. And the Institute's governing body — composed mostly of representatives from the hospital, insurance, and drug and device industries, as well as physicians — seems almost designed to enable stakeholders to block studies that threaten their interests. Moreover, multiple provisions in the law (sought by providers and drug and device makers) hobble Medicare's ability to base coverage decisions on research the Institute sponsors. Excerpted fromThe Hippocratic Myth: Why Doctors are Under Pressure to Ration Care, Practice Politics and Compromise their Promise to Heal by M. Gregg Bloche M.D. Copyright 2011 by M. Gregg Bloche M.D. Excerpted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher."
And I guess people just don't want the bill / losing there house and everything to cover it, so they opt out, and I guess they think it'll never happen to them so they vote to save there 1-2% on tax that free ( kinda ) health care costs elsewhere.