HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

ACA/Health thread part IV

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2014, 06:33 AM
  #1
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
ACA/Health thread part IV

last thread is at 1000. Government shutdown isn't an issue.

Didn't call it "Obamacare" since some consider it an epithet and the discussion involves more than just the ACA.

to remind you where we were…

cancer patients aren't just left to die if they have no insurance, but at the same time having coverage doesn't guarantee that you can get non-urgent care, especially if its medicaid, due to there being not enough physicians and medicaid paying so poorly that some physicians don't participate

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 03:00 PM
  #2
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Preds could you come up to Michigan? it's been a cold winter and your hot air could really make things more comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
apples to oranges.

your original point is that people with life threatening illnesses like cancer don't get care if they don't have insurance and thus are just left to die. thats complete bullishit.

the point about not enough doctors applies to things like having to wait months to see a physician for non urgent care, or not being able to find a family doctor who takes medicaid.





do either of you have a point?
So why don't people just stop paying for their insurance if they get treatment anyway? Why should anyone pay their medical bills? If you really believe that people without insurance and money get adequate care, then there is no point in having insurance or even charging people for care. Because they can get it for free somewhere.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 08:57 PM
  #3
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
You used an anecdote to rebut an anecdote.

Who is simple?
(brought from the other thread)

apparently you are too simple to understand that what I posted was an aside, not a rebuttal… Jonathans comment reminded me of another new Jersey resident who expressed an opinion about Kentucky, but i wasn't using my anecdote to refute him..

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-13-2014, 09:00 PM
  #4
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Preds could you come up to Michigan? it's been a cold winter and your hot air could really make things more comfortable.



So why don't people just stop paying for their insurance if they get treatment anyway? Why should anyone pay their medical bills? If you really believe that people without insurance and money get adequate care, then there is no point in having insurance or even charging people for care. Because they can get it for free somewhere.
Now you are just being an argumentative idiot.(Not that I expect any less from a Wings fan….)

Nowhere did I ever say that anyone can get adequate care for anything and everything with no coverage and no money(in fact I explicitly stated the opposite, e.g. hip replacement and sinus surgery)… but they can and do get treatment for cancer. If you think otherwise… well, you're just wrong.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 01:50 AM
  #5
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
(brought from the other thread)

apparently you are too simple to understand that what I posted was an aside, not a rebuttal… Jonathans comment reminded me of another new Jersey resident who expressed an opinion about Kentucky, but i wasn't using my anecdote to refute him..
Sure thing Doc. Your anecdote wasn't actually an anecdote. And my original reply to you wasn't a light hearted jab either.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 02:03 AM
  #6
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Sure thing Doc. Your anecdote wasn't actually an anecdote. And my original reply to you wasn't a light hearted jab either.
well okay I will concede the semantics battle to you this time then….

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 02:11 PM
  #7
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Oh dear. The Republican Party’s worst nightmare is coming true. Obamacare is working.

The news that nearly 1.2 million people signed up last month for insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges is highly inconvenient for GOP candidates nationwide. It looks as if the party’s two-word strategy for the fall election — bash Obamacare — will need to be revised.

Cumulatively, 3.3 million people had chosen insurance plans through the state and federal exchanges by the end of January. These figures do not include the additional people who have been determined newly eligible for insurance under the federal-state Medicaid program. Overall, the program appears to be doing exactly what it was designed to do: make health insurance accessible and affordable for those who truly need it.

The numbers are even more encouraging when you look more closely. The proportion of young people — from 18 and 34 — who chose insurance plans through the exchanges increased slightly to 27 percent, compared with an average of 24 percent in previous months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5fb_story.html

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 03:07 PM
  #8
Kevin Malone
Registered User
 
Kevin Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
LOL I don't know if I have ever seen such a fluff piece.

http://http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ob...at_orig=health

Quote:
(Weekly Standard) On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that enrollment in the Obamacare private exchanges increased by 1,146,071 in January. In December, HHS reported 1,788,000 enrollees in the month of December. That suggests a drop-off of approximately 500,000, or 29 percent. (See the chart on page 5 here for a graphical representation).
So enrollment is down 29% from the previous month...

Quote:
Yet this underestimates the true extent of enrollment dropoffs. The HHS reporting period for December was four weeks, beginning on 12/1 and ending on 12/28. The reporting period for January was five weeks, beginning on 12/29 and ending on 2/1. This suggests that in December, enrollments averaged 447,000 per week, compared to 229,000 in January, or a 49 percent drop-off in new enrollees.
So taking in account that January had an extra week enrollment was actually down 49%...

Quote:
Notably, Kathleen Sebelius announced on January 24 that HHS had reached 800,000 enrollees already for the month, suggesting that the rate in the final two weeks of the month was lower than the rate in the first three weeks.
So enrollment is dropping faster than previously thought...

Quote:
At this point, industry insiders estimate that about 20% of people whom HHS claims are enrollees have not paid their premiums.
Working great...

Quote:
If the insiders are right, then the real level of enrollment right now is just 2.6 million, which puts the administration at just 38 percent of the original target with two-thirds of the enrollment period now finished.
This also does not include the people who have lost health insurance during this period. If Obamacare is working so great why did Obama just issue another extension? Anyone claiming Obamacare has been a success either has a few screws loose or is just a blind cheerleader.

Kevin Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 03:13 PM
  #9
MurrayBannerman
BBall ATD Champion
 
MurrayBannerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 219
Country: United States
Posts: 21,388
vCash: 1625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
LOL I don't know if I have ever seen such a fluff piece.

http://http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ob...at_orig=health



So enrollment is down 29% from the previous month...



So taking in account that January had an extra week enrollment was actually down 49%...



So enrollment is dropping faster than previously thought...



Working great...



This also does not include the people who have lost health insurance during this period. If Obamacare is working so great why did Obama just issue another extension? Anyone claiming Obamacare has been a success either has a few screws loose or is just a blind cheerleader.
Sounds like articles touting a falling unemployment rate.

MurrayBannerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-14-2014, 03:31 PM
  #10
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
oh holy shit. you post that crappy opinion piece from a known Obama schlong slurper and yet give me hell when I link Avik Roy….


I could link three or four opinion pieces that I read that look at the same numbers and come to the polar opposite conclusion

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 09:59 AM
  #11
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
Now you are just being an argumentative idiot.(Not that I expect any less from a Wings fan….)

Nowhere did I ever say that anyone can get adequate care for anything and everything with no coverage and no money(in fact I explicitly stated the opposite, e.g. hip replacement and sinus surgery)… but they can and do get treatment for cancer. If you think otherwise… well, you're just wrong.
Keeping it classy as always Preds. Did you channel Ap for the scathing hockey burn?

Well I do think otherwise, because if I'm wrong then there isn't any reason for cancer patients to have insurance. I haven't mentioned hip or sinus surgery so I don't know why you're bringing that up. Surely not to cloud the issue eh good doctor?

Here is an interesting article about how Obamacare is helping people with Epilepsy.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/my_p...with_epilepsy/

Quote:
Supposing a poor person with epilepsy in the United States does manage to see a doctor and determines he or she does have epilepsy, consistently affording medication can be tremendously difficult. Prices of anti-seizure drugs have skyrocketed in recent years, with the Epilepsy Foundation of North Carolina reporting that “epilepsy medications are expensive, often costing more than $1,000 a month. For those not covered by insurance or other programs, these costs are prohibitive. Most affected are the working poor.” Some branches of the Epilepsy Foundation and other charities targeted at helping people with epilepsy do try to maintain funds for those who cannot afford their medications – but these funds are spotty, subject to change, and limited.
More available coverage, especially once Red States stop being *******s and get with the program, mean that more people can treat their conditions. Obamacare's getting rid of the pre existing conditions bs means people like this can get insurance so they can get treated. But I'm sure if some person with epilepsy has no money or insurance they'd get treated anyway, or is this not serious enough to get that, ala the free cancer treatments for poor uninsured people that you're talking about.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 06:35 PM
  #12
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Keeping it classy as always Preds. Did you channel Ap for the scathing hockey burn?

Well I do think otherwise, because if I'm wrong then there isn't any reason for cancer patients to have insurance. I haven't mentioned hip or sinus surgery so I don't know why you're bringing that up. Surely not to cloud the issue eh good doctor?

Here is an interesting article about how Obamacare is helping people with Epilepsy.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/my_p...with_epilepsy/



More available coverage, especially once Red States stop being *******s and get with the program, mean that more people can treat their conditions. Obamacare's getting rid of the pre existing conditions bs means people like this can get insurance so they can get treated. But I'm sure if some person with epilepsy has no money or insurance they'd get treated anyway, or is this not serious enough to get that, ala the free cancer treatments for poor uninsured people that you're talking about.
do you really not understand that your line of reasoning is just, well, stupid?

most people either have or don't have insurance before they are diagnosed… nobody knows in advance that hey are going to get cancer and bases their insurance purchasing on that…

and just because they get care doesn't mean they won't get a bill for it, especially if they have money to begin with… so going uninsured wouldn't keep them from being treated but it would benefit them financially if they did have coverage.

and i mention sinus surgery and hip surgery because it appears that you don't know the difference between elective and life threatening conditions.

an indigent epileptic could almost certainly find a physician to care for them.. the challenge is getting their meds… although most drug companies have indigent programs, and many epilepsy drugs are generic and cheap

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 06:39 PM
  #13
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
So she was lying when she talked about how difficult it is for poor uninsured people to keep up with their $1000 prescription payments?

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 07:01 PM
  #14
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
So she was lying when she talked about how difficult it is for poor uninsured people to keep up with their $1000 prescription payments?
not at all. but there are other alternatives for most epileptics.

look, I don't know if you are misunderstanding me as trying to say that the current system is great and doesn't need to change or what, but you are just going to have to take my word for it that a cancer patient will be able to receive treatment if they want it and are willing to make an effort(i.e.travel) , regardless of their financial situation.

Now, they may not be able to get experimental treatment unless they enroll in a clinical trial(but then again, most insurances don't cover experimental treatment either), but they can certainly find somewhere to get surgery, radiation, and standard chemotherapy.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 07:25 PM
  #15
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
I think you're understating the reality that people do die because they can't access care. I find it hard to believe that people get whatever care they need one way or the other whether or not they can pay for it.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-15-2014, 07:46 PM
  #16
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
I think you're understating the reality that people do die because they can't access care. I find it hard to believe that people get whatever care they need one way or the other whether or not they can pay for it.
They die all the time earlier than they would have without insurance. Period. Yes, Cancer included the "Peridod".

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2014, 06:38 PM
  #17
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
I think you're understating the reality that people do die because they can't access care. I find it hard to believe that people get whatever care they need one way or the other whether or not they can pay for it.
I never was addressing all conditions or care received by uninsured people in general. You are trying to put words in my mouth. The one and only scenario I have been addressing this whole time is your assertion that cancer patients get denied treatment for their cancer if they don't have insurance, which is complete and total bullishit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
They die all the time earlier than they would have without insurance. Period. Yes, Cancer included the "Peridod".
what the fuck is a "perdidod"??

And I'll give you the benenfit of the doubt that you meant they die sooner than they would have with insurance… unless you were trying to be sarcastic in which case…

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2014, 03:08 PM
  #18
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
So you are actually saying that everyone with cancer gets treated equally regardless of their ability to pay or insurance status? Sorry but I don't believe it, and I ask again why anyone would get insurance or pay their doctor bills if everyone with cancer gets treated anyway.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2014, 11:19 PM
  #19
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
So you are actually saying that everyone with cancer gets treated equally regardless of their ability to pay or insurance status? Sorry but I don't believe it, and I ask again why anyone would get insurance or pay their doctor bills if everyone with cancer gets treated anyway.
no, I did not say everyone gets treated EQUALLY… what I said was that we don't just tell people with cancer and no insurance and money, "tough shit, you're gonna die"

people with money/better coverage can get care where they choose, and may be able to choose more expensive modalities if there are more than one equally effective modalities for treatment (like with prostate cancer, for instance)

also, people who have no insurance but have some money/assets will end up being expected to pay for their care, eventually, and so having insurance would lessen that potential burden, but again, not having the coverage would not keep someone from receiving care.

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2014, 11:22 PM
  #20
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
no, I did not say everyone gets treated EQUALLY… what I said was that we don't just tell people with cancer and no insurance and money, "tough shit, you're gonna die"

people with money/better coverage can get care where they choose, and may be able to choose more expensive modalities if there are more than one equally effective modalities for treatment (like with prostate cancer, for instance)

also, people who have no insurance but have some money/assets will end up being expected to pay for their care, eventually, and so having insurance would lessen that potential burden, but again, not having the coverage would not keep someone from receiving care.
How come I've read stories where a person has run out of benefits, can't afford further cancer treatments and the hospital cuts them off. I then see sometimes the news station ask for donations to help them out?

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2014, 11:45 PM
  #21
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
How come I've read stories where a person has run out of benefits, can't afford further cancer treatments and the hospital cuts them off. I then see sometimes the news station ask for donations to help them out?
I would say in most of those cases there is more than meets the eye…

first, you have to understand that it doesn't cost a hospital much money to throw the switch on the radiation machine, and unless surgery involves an expensive implant, letting an indigent patient have surgery doesn't really set the hospital back all that much, so in cases where the hospital has actually "cut off" a patient (and risked the very bad PR that goes with stories like this) most often it is a patient who has already undergone standard treatment (i.e., some combo of surgery, radiation, and standard chemotherapy) and their cancer returns or persists, and all thats left is some new and very expensive treatment which a community hospital can't in good conscience afford to soak up the cost for(they have an obligation to stay fiscally solvent for the benefit of the whole community)

So the patient in that circumstance either has to go somewhere like a university that is treating their cancer in a clinical trial, or see if the company that makes the drug will give it to their hospital free or at reduced cost, or else do what these people do and go in TV and beg for money. I can't blame them for doing it if they choose to go that route, but I do blame the news media if they put it out there as the heartless money-grubbing medical community is just going to sit by and watch this person die. (when the truth is, if they are to that stage, they are probably going to die even with the expensive treatment)

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-18-2014, 05:52 PM
  #22
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
no, I did not say everyone gets treated EQUALLY… what I said was that we don't just tell people with cancer and no insurance and money, "tough shit, you're gonna die"

people with money/better coverage can get care where they choose, and may be able to choose more expensive modalities if there are more than one equally effective modalities for treatment (like with prostate cancer, for instance)

also, people who have no insurance but have some money/assets will end up being expected to pay for their care, eventually, and so having insurance would lessen that potential burden, but again, not having the coverage would not keep someone from receiving care.
By equally I meant that they all get treated, poor wording on my part. But people who don't have insurance are generally poor people. So we're clear, no insurance and money is not a problem right? Kind of makes you wonder why anyone cares that people can't get insurance, or that insurance wouldn't cover people with pre existing conditions. What's the big deal, someone will treat that guy for free right?

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 06:21 AM
  #23
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,712
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
By equally I meant that they all get treated, poor wording on my part. But people who don't have insurance are generally poor people. So we're clear, no insurance and money is not a problem right? Kind of makes you wonder why anyone cares that people can't get insurance, or that insurance wouldn't cover people with pre existing conditions. What's the big deal, someone will treat that guy for free right?
again, you're just being stupidly argumentative.

no insurance/no money is NOT "no problem"… it presents lots of problems, and definitely causes problems trying to obtain care for non-life threatening conditions, as well as preventive care, which is why people care about getting coverage….. but it won't keep you from getting treatment for cancer. Nobody gets told "tough shit go home and die". Thats as dumbed down and simple as I can make it and if that doesn't satisfy you then you're just trolling…

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 11:11 AM
  #24
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,572
vCash: 500
Arkansas decided they didn't want the Medicaid expansion after all, even with the "private option" tweaks that they crafted.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2...n-medicaid-ex/

Quote:
The state House of Representatives has voted down a bill to fund private option Medicaid expansion, but House Speaker Davy Carter says votes will be held until it passes.

The appropriation bill for the private option required a three-quarters majority, or 75 votes. It fell short Tuesday afternoon on a 70-27 vote.
As much as I'd love to chalk this up to nutter politics, if Arkansas' constitution requires a 3/4 majority for this kind of legislation, then that's what's really nutters about this.

Sevanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-19-2014, 04:56 PM
  #25
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,558
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
again, you're just being stupidly argumentative.

no insurance/no money is NOT "no problem"… it presents lots of problems, and definitely causes problems trying to obtain care for non-life threatening conditions, as well as preventive care, which is why people care about getting coverage….. but it won't keep you from getting treatment for cancer. Nobody gets told "tough shit go home and die". Thats as dumbed down and simple as I can make it and if that doesn't satisfy you then you're just trolling…
So what do we do about the people who are too poor to get preventative treatment? Wait for them to get cancer so they can jump through whatever hoops you're talking about to get free care? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to give them preventative care from the beginning than paying for their expensive cancer therapy later on?

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.