General Election/UK Politics

[Cornish Steve]

 

The current investment in the NHS, in real terms, is higher than it was under the last Labour Government. The major difference is that demand on the service has grown significantly.

 

Because of an aging population, and costs increase significantly with age. The whole healthcare debate is an important one, because technology means we could keep everyone alive for longer but at a cost greater than the nation's GDP. Do we ration healthcare by ability to pay, by age, by usefulness to society, by closeness to death? It's a very awkward but necessary discussion.

 

Personally, I prefer to spend more on helping the poor, the sick, and the immigrant, others prefer to spend more on policing and national security, and still others believe communities and not government should solve problems. That's politics, and individuals will always differ. We might as well accept that and not get up in arms about it. A little respect for others and their opinions would not go amiss (not aimed at you, John).

Edited June 14, 2017 by Cornish Steve

[Guest rusty747]

I was reading an article on pensions recently which is directly relevant to the cost of a larger elderly population who will live longer.

 

It stated that, at the moment there are in UK 8 people working and paying tax for each person of retirement age. In little more than a generation, that figure is expected to halve, to 4.

 

Just let that sink in. The taxable element of our salary that supports the NHS will have to double (at today's rates) just to provide the same level of care we provide today. And those figures were based on nil net immigration and no new (and invariably vey expensive) advances in medical care. Factor that in to the equation and we would be working just to pay tax to keep old people alive.

 

It reminds me of the Irish solution to unemployment - raise the school leaving age to 50, then everyone becomes a lollipop man or woman!

 

Clearly, some very difficult decisions will have to be made and I am very glad not to be the one that has to make them. Health is obviously of vital importance, but what about Security, Policing, infrastructure of Community?

 

The bottom line is that none of us can have what we can't afford as individuals and the same is true of any country. I am not sure if that offers a solution but it sure as hell clarifies the problem - for me at any rate.

Edited June 14, 2017 by rusty747

[johnh]

No one has more respect than me for the consultants, doctors and nurses in the NHS. I have a heart condition that requires regular monitoring and the service I get through the NHS is brilliant and the medical staff work very hard. The problem I see is that the NHS is providing a career path for non-medical people. The NHS is stacked out with non-medical managers. I have had two op's at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading. About 5 years ago, there was an article in the Reading paper that stated that there were 110 non-medical staff earning in excess of 100k per annum in the Royal Berks. This is the problem. There needs to be a complete root and branch reform of the NHS and an integral part of that reform must be to return control to qualified medical people. I can remember in Liverpool in the late 1940's, It was the doctors and (particularly) matrons who ran things. The other issue is the purchasing of equipment and drugs. A recent article indicated that one Hospital Trust was paying 150% more for a drug than another Trust. More bang for the buck as they say in the States.

[Palfy]

No one has more respect than me for the consultants, doctors and nurses in the NHS. I have a heart condition that requires regular monitoring and the service I get through the NHS is brilliant and the medical staff work very hard. The problem I see is that the NHS is providing a career path for non-medical people. The NHS is stacked out with non-medical managers. I have had two op's at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading. About 5 years ago, there was an article in the Reading paper that stated that there were 110 non-medical staff earning in excess of 100k per annum in the Royal Berks. This is the problem. There needs to be a complete root and branch reform of the NHS and an integral part of that reform must be to return control to qualified medical people. I can remember in Liverpool in the late 1940's, It was the doctors and (particularly) matrons who ran things. The other issue is the purchasing of equipment and drugs. A recent article indicated that one Hospital Trust was paying 150% more for a drug than another Trust. More bang for the buck as they say in the States.

My sister in law is one of two who were promoted in our local hospital about a year ago to trial the position as matron, at the time she was full hope that she could add worth to her role her staff and patients, now she is disheartened by the job, due to none medical managers (basically accountants) blocking their suggestions and tying their hands using the cost excuse.

[MikeO]

Was talking to a chap in the airport this morning, turned out he was a police sergeant from Cardiff; he said that the 20,000 cuts mean that he now operates out of a station with just him and two constables, and they're responsible for looking after 150,000 people; often nobody on duty at night so if you happen to be assaulted in his area at 2.00am you're on your own.

Called the PM "Maggie" May which I thought was quite funny .

 

Some appropriate lyrics as well .

 

"All you did was wreck my bed

and in the morning kick me in the head"

"Oh Maggie I wish I'd never seen your face

You made a first-class fool out of me

But I'm as blind as a fool can be"

[pete0]

I have put a fact forward. Four actually.

 

1- You called me a murdererer.

 

2- That is libel

 

3- I gave you the opportunity to retract but you just compounded your crime

 

4- I have complained about your illegal behaviour.

 

I will let the the appropriate Authorities take it from here.

If me pointing out the consequences of your actions upsets you so much, maybe you should look at your actions rather than crying about me.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-846a762ed5fa5cbf9ffe65523d802b94-c

Edited June 14, 2017 by pete0

[Bailey]

Rusty, John and Palfy your comments are the same as I hear regularly as well. Throwing money at the NHS won't do a thing. The NHS has been dying a slow death for decades and thats because no politician or political party is prepared to go through it all top to bottom. It's the same with the Police as well.

 

Pete I would love to know exactly how you think Corbyn would 'rescue' the NHS based on his manifesto? You won't be able to because it's all rhetoric. All hot air to win a vote with no actual substance, no actual idea and no plan.

 

With the NHS as it is, increased spending will only add to its inefficiency. Standards won't improve, waiting times won't get any better, and you will still have to pay for parking!

Edited June 14, 2017 by Bailey

[MikeO]

Rusty, John and Palfy your comments are the same as I hear regularly as well. Throwing money at the NHS won't do a thing. The NHS has been dying a slow death for decades and thats because no politician or political party is prepared to go through it all top to bottom. It's the same with the Police as well.

 

Pete I would love to know exactly how you think Corbyn would 'rescue' the NHS based on his manifesto? You won't be able to because it's all rhetoric. All hot air to win a vote with no actual substance, no actual idea and no plan.

 

With the NHS as it is, increased spending will only add to its inefficiency. Standards won't improve, waiting times won't get any better, and you will still have to pay for parking!

 

Not if you get cancer, it's one of the few perks, free parking pass .

 

Every cloud eh?

[pete0]

Rusty, John and Palfy your comments are the same as I hear regularly as well. Throwing money at the NHS won't do a thing. The NHS has been dying a slow death for decades and thats because no politician or political party is prepared to go through it all top to bottom. It's the same with the Police as well.

 

Pete I would love to know exactly how you think Corbyn would 'rescue' the NHS based on his manifesto? You won't be able to because it's all rhetoric. All hot air to win a vote with no actual substance, no actual idea and no plan.

 

With the NHS as it is, increased spending will only add to its inefficiency. Standards won't improve, waiting times won't get any better, and you will still have to pay for parking!

Getting rid of all the none medical staff. There's a whole level who just hire consultants. Get it fully nationalised and stop throwing money at consultants and the in-betweeners. Bring in talented and willing staff from abroad rather than kicking them out. Stop buying medical supplies at over inflated prices from MPs spouses. Edited June 14, 2017 by pete0

[Guest rusty747]

If me pointing out the consequences of your actions upsets you so much, maybe you should look at your actions rather than crying about me. https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-846a762ed5fa5cbf9ffe65523d802b94-c

Happy to debate politics with anyone but the lies that you came out with have no place in politics and are a personal hate attack.

 

I don't believe you are so stupid as to be unable to see that.

 

You called me a murderer. So either take the allegation to the police and have me arrested or wind your neck in, retract and apologise - if you have the common decency and manners to do so.

 

Your language is a disgrace to your point of view and you have tried, and failed, to deflect attention from your libel. I will not let you do that. You made a very false allegation, in writing, and you will be called to account.

Edited June 14, 2017 by rusty747

[Guest rusty747]

Getting rid of all the none medical staff. There's a whole level who just hire consultants. Get it fully nationalised and stop throwing money at consultants and the in-betweeners. Bring in talented and willing staff from abroad rather than kicking them out. Stop buying medical supplies at over inflated prices from MPs spouses.

That would certainly provide some financial relief, and no doubt improve morale too. But it would be a mere drop in the ocean.

 

At some stage we are going to have to address the elephant in the room. The only way to provide a NHS to the standard we all want, benefitting everyone is to raise taxes to a level that would be political suicide and to trash the economy in the process.

 

The stark reality is that we either have to accept a reduced level of care from the NHS (maybe topped up by some form of medicare system - more cost of course) or restrict who is entitled to care under the NHS. Neither is a good option obviously, but at some stage, politicians have to sit down and wrestle with the problem. And the longer they leave it, the worse the problem will become and the more radical the eventual solution will have to be.

 

This is what really worries me about JC. He will tax and spend (the Institute of Fiscal Studies say his manifesto is under funded by at least £20 billion) and the argument about raising corporation tax doesn't hold water really. Apple and Google operate in UK but all their paperwork and admin is located in Ireland so for JC to honour his pledges he is going to have to find at least £20 billion more than he has budgeted for - and that is quite a lot of tax.

 

I am an expat and have a decent discount on a basic level of private healthcare for myself, my wife and daughter. The monthly cost is more than people on an average income in UK pay in income tax. And that private health insurance has gone up 20% in 2 years. The NHS is now subject to many (if not all) of those expenses (discounting economies of scale of course) so, imho, to fully fund the NHS to provide full care for all is just not financially viable into the future. But governments of any persuasion don't want to deal with the problem head on. The tory solution is to divest much of the costs to (profit driven) private enterprise while Labour's tax and spend would undermine the economy. In short, neither party has an effective solution and I think a cross party working group may be a good starting point to at least realistically evaluate costs, patient population size, future organisational structure, entitlement, geographic coverage, etc etc.

 

Sad, but an inevitable fact of life I fear.

Edited June 14, 2017 by rusty747

[Cornish Steve]

Having experienced both universal healthcare (the NHS in Britain) and privatized healthcare (the US system), I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both.

In the NHS, waiting lists are long and there's little choice. Amazingly (when we lived in Britain), your medical records are an official state secret so, as a patient, you can't participate in decision-making. Specialzed resources are limited (drive hundreds of miles in some cases for treatment). Doctors are more arrogant in the NHS, but nurses are great. Doctors making home visits is wonderful, too. Everyone, of course, is covered, and fees are low. I found the system great for non-serious things but lacking for the more serious.

 

In the US, you can walk into a clinic at any time to be seen, and there are literally hundreds to choose from. For specialists, waiting lists are between one and a few weeks. The technology available and quality of treatment is superb. At least five hospitals within 40 minutes' drive of my home perform heart transplants, for example. If you work, you usually get medical insurance and pay a contributing amount each paycheck (we pay close to $1,000 a month, which is less than half the premium). Competition leads to efficiency and quality: If a doctor is arrogant, for example, I just go elsewhere. There are plenty of doctors and hospitals to choose from. If you don't have insurance, the system stinks. Most are forced to go to ER for everything since they won't turn anyone away. Insurance companies can be a pain, imposing silly rules about what prescriptions you can and cannot have.

 

Personally, I would prefer to see universal coverage (with the government paying a fixed insurance premium for everyone for standard treatment). Doctors and hospitals, though, should be private so competition guarantees quality and lower prices. If I want to to above and beyond standard treatment (e.g., cosmetic surgery), then I should pay the difference. Supplemental insurance companies could plug that gap. This solution is probably close to the Canadian system, but we need to have the right balance between spending what's needed and not spending excessively for end of life care.

 

There are several problems to solve: The high cost of some prescriptions (for companies to recoup their R&D costs); limiting liability claims (which are crippling for doctors in the US); and ensuring adequate coverage in less populated areas. I don't have a problem with administrators, but they must more than pay for themselves in terms of cutting costs. If we don't keep a tight rein on costs, the health system would soon become a sinkhole.

 

Just my thoughts on the topic.

[Guest rusty747]

Not if you get cancer, it's one of the few perks, free parking pass .

 

Every cloud eh?

And family planning, apparently! Genuine sign from a NHS site.? Edited June 14, 2017 by rusty747

[pete0]

Having experienced both universal healthcare (the NHS in Britain) and privatized healthcare (the US system), I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both.

 

In the NHS, waiting lists are long and there's little choice. Amazingly (when we lived in Britain), your medical records are an official state secret so, as a patient, you can't participate in decision-making. Specialzed resources are limited (drive hundreds of miles in some cases for treatment). Doctors are more arrogant in the NHS, but nurses are great. Doctors making home visits is wonderful, too. Everyone, of course, is covered, and fees are low. I found the system great for non-serious things but lacking for the more serious.

 

In the US, you can walk into a clinic at any time to be seen, and there are literally hundreds to choose from. For specialists, waiting lists are between one and a few weeks. The technology available and quality of treatment is superb. At least five hospitals within 40 minutes' drive of my home perform heart transplants, for example. If you work, you usually get medical insurance and pay a contributing amount each paycheck (we pay close to $1,000 a month, which is less than half the premium). Competition leads to efficiency and quality: If a doctor is arrogant, for example, I just go elsewhere. There are plenty of doctors and hospitals to choose from. If you don't have insurance, the system stinks. Most are forced to go to ER for everything since they won't turn anyone away. Insurance companies can be a pain, imposing silly rules about what prescriptions you can and cannot have.

 

Personally, I would prefer to see universal coverage (with the government paying a fixed insurance premium for everyone for standard treatment). Doctors and hospitals, though, should be private so competition guarantees quality and lower prices. If I want to to above and beyond standard treatment (e.g., cosmetic surgery), then I should pay the difference. Supplemental insurance companies could plug that gap. This solution is probably close to the Canadian system, but we need to have the right balance between spending what's needed and not spending excessively for end of life care.

 

There are several problems to solve: The high cost of some prescriptions (for companies to recoup their R&D costs); limiting liability claims (which are crippling for doctors in the US); and ensuring adequate coverage in less populated areas. I don't have a problem with administrators, but they must more than pay for themselves in terms of cutting costs. If we don't keep a tight rein on costs, the health system would soon become a sinkhole.

 

Just my thoughts on the topic.

The average Joe over here would be screwed with the average wage being £26k over here. Minus pension, tax, and nics and you're left with £1600 a month. The average cost of running a home is £1634 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/08/cost-of-running-a-home-in-the-uk-now-almost-half-of-all-househol/ it would be completely unaffordable and dangerous. Wages and costs in this country are a shambles.

[pete0]

1)That would certainly provide some financial relief, and no doubt improve morale too. But it would be a mere drop in the ocean.

 

2)At some stage we are going to have to address the elephant in the room. The only way to provide a NHS to the standard we all want, benefitting everyone is to raise taxes to a level that would be political suicide and to trash the economy in the process.

 

3)The stark reality is that we either have to accept a reduced level of care from the NHS (maybe topped up by some form of medicare system - more cost of course) or restrict who is entitled to care under the NHS. Neither is a good option obviously, but at some stage, politicians have to sit down and wrestle with the problem. And the longer they leave it, the worse the problem will become and the more radical the eventual solution will have to be.

 

4)This is what really worries me about JC. He will tax and spend (the Institute of Fiscal Studies say his manifesto is under funded by at least £20 billion) and the argument about raising corporation tax doesn't hold water really. Apple and Google operate in UK but all their paperwork and admin is located in Ireland so for JC to honour his pledges he is going to have to find at least £20 billion more than he has budgeted for - and that is quite a lot of tax.

 

5)I am an expat and have a decent discount on a basic level of private healthcare for myself, my wife and daughter. The monthly cost is more than people on an average income in UK pay in income tax. And that private health insurance has gone up 20% in 2 years. The NHS is now subject to many (if not all) of those expenses (discounting economies of scale of course) so, imho, to fully fund the NHS to provide full care for all is just not financially viable into the future. But governments of any persuasion don't want to deal with the problem head on. The tory solution is to divest much of the costs to (profit driven) private enterprise while Labour's tax and spend would undermine the economy. In short, neither party has an effective solution and I think a cross party working group may be a good starting point to at least realistically evaluate costs, patient population size, future organisational structure, entitlement, geographic coverage, etc etc.

 

6)Sad, but an inevitable fact of life I fear.

1. That's just ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure an expert would be able to do a decent job with the finances.

2. Works in Norway and Sweden who are proud of his much they pay into the system. Whereas our last leader was using tax loopholes.

3. Spend smarter and fund it adequately. Does say trident really need billions, which could be better used to find the NHS.

4. Google has close Tory ties. With another government in charge they'd have to pay exponentially more in tax. Possibly save the NHS alone just by not doing favours.

5. The expense here are astronomical because they help profit the pockets of greedy mps and their friends. Just by using competitive deals you'd save a fortune.

6. In the words of Tim Farron, it doesn't have to be this way.

Edited June 14, 2017 by pete0

[MikeO]

And family planning, apparently! Genuine sign from a NHS site.IMG_1275.JPG

 

Brilliant!

[Chach]

1. It's common knowledge the NHS is under funded. British love a moan, and you must hear at least once a month someone moan about trying to get a doctors appointment.

 

2. Would be nice if that was true, all evidence suggests otherwise. Fact is they are privatising it so their mates can profit.

 

3. Seriously?

No one, yet. However if you missed the point - Heart surgery: Three hospitals told to stop complex treatment - BBC News https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36737265&ved=0ahUKEwjTjLu5273UAhXEI8AKHbNnDAEQFghoMAk&usg=AFQjCNG_mc47p5hpwmKqbc_83CzkUfJnTA&sig2=WhjwjjwHTf4BMPxkzP5org

 

4. Murdering people isn't very complex. You either kill or you don't. What's the difference between you voting for your government to kill innocent people and terrorist?

 

5. Not called May a peados though have I?

Previous links prove enough. BBC cover up too. Hillsborough cover up as well. May is disgusting just look at every way she had voted in Parliament.

 

6. Difinitive how? Maybe you've added cunt yourself as it's your own belief. If so, I agree to a point. Some are just stupid and blinded by media.

 

7. Emotion? I find it more than reasonable not to vote for any party that actively engages in killing for its own interest. Emotion, would be me punching every tory I know in the head. You believe it's rational to murder innocent people?

 

You've accused people of not providing any argument and then when someone does, you just deflect, change the subject or obfuscate semantically about conspiracies that are what, supposed to prove guilt by association?

A quick google tells me that funding for the NHS has increased from 75 billion to 117 billion in the last ten years and I know that spending before that under Blair had huge increases, unfortunately the bigger something is, the worse (or at least the worse it seems) to operate.

Funding might not even be the issue and a change of government isn't going to that because the NHS isn't run by MP's, its run by civil servants.

I didn't vote Tory when I lived in England and I don't vote Tory here in Australia, if you're going to have a discussion at least make a commitment to be intellectually honest and you might have a chance of changing someones mind/vote.

[aaron]

I have put a fact forward. Four actually.

 

1- You called me a murdererer.

 

2- That is libel

 

3- I gave you the opportunity to retract but you just compounded your crime

 

4- I have complained about your illegal behaviour.

 

I will let the the appropriate Authorities take it from here.

:rofl: never seen anything more childish than this on here. "Illegal behaviour" had me howling, please tell me this was a sarcastic post?

[pete0]

 

You've accused people of not providing any argument and then when someone does, you just deflect, change the subject or obfuscate semantically about conspiracies that are what, supposed to prove guilt by association?

A quick google tells me that funding for the NHS has increased from 75 billion to 117 billion in the last ten years and I know that spending before that under Blair had huge increases, unfortunately the bigger something is, the worse (or at least the worse it seems) to operate.

Funding might not even be the issue and a change of government isn't going to that because the NHS isn't run by MP's, its run by civil servants.

I didn't vote Tory when I lived in England and I don't vote Tory here in Australia, if you're going to have a discussion at least make a commitment to be intellectually honest and you might have a chance of changing someones mind/vote.

Are you serious? Maybe if you lived here you'd see how serious the problem is. Want to see a doctor, cross your fingers and hope you're lucky enough to get through on the phone. The NHS has been systematically destroyed by the government. Run by civil servants? Who are the supplies contracts all with? Hiring policy?

 

https://juniordoctorblog.com/2016/11/

[Guest rusty747]

:rofl: never seen anything more childish than this on here. "Illegal behaviour" had me howling, please tell me this was a sarcastic post?

You keep chuckling pal.

 

The police are taking it seriously.

[Matt]

You keep chuckling pal.

 

The police are taking it seriously.

I'm really hoping it's just a big wind-up personally

[Guest rusty747]

Are you serious? Maybe if you lived here you'd see how serious the problem is. Want to see a doctor, cross your fingers and hope you're lucky enough to get through on the phone. The NHS has been systematically destroyed by the government. Run by civil servants? Who are the supplies contracts all with? Hiring policy? https://juniordoctorblog.com/2016/11/

The problem is not lack of funding. It is too many people claiming entitlement. And if you increase the funding to meet this higher need you will just encourage even more economic and free health care tourism.

 

I know it leaves a bad taste to some but we have to either impose strict border controls, or accept huge tax rises or accept the reduced level of care from the NHS.

 

Ps, PeteO,

 

I will engage in political dialogue with you but I still think you spout irrational bullshit by making very serious personal accusations which you can't substantiate against people you don't know.

 

Its a good job you cant die of constipation mate as you are full of it.

Edited June 15, 2017 by rusty747

[Guest rusty747]

I'm really hoping it's just a big wind-up personally

No it isn't.

 

The police are taking steps to obtain the IP.

 

You can't go around accusing people of being murderers and terrorists and I am very surprised that there has been no mod intervention. That too is part of the complaint I made. Mods, you have a responsibility to deter and remove hate speech and you haven't done it.

[Matt]

No it isn't.

 

The police are taking steps to obtain the IP.

 

You can't go around accusing people of being murderers and terrorists and I am very surprised that there has been no mod intervention. That too is part of the complaint I made. Mods, you have a responsibility to deter and remove hate speech and you haven't done it.

It's a sensitive topic with very strong beliefs on both sides. People get carried away from time to time, and personally, if you can't deal with that then the internet is not a place you should frequent.

 

I looked at what Pete said, and for me it is clearly out of passion for his beliefs and a "heat of the debate" moment. We have them all the time. If you had a problem with it or the moderation, you should've contacted us - that's what the report system is for. To go straight to legal authorities is not only OTT (in my opinion) but also a complete abuse of their system and a waste of their resource, paid for by the tax-payers of the country.

 

Feel free to continue in PM, Rusty.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Matt

[aaron]

You keep chuckling pal.

 

The police are taking it seriously.

Please tell me this is a piss take? Someone? Anyone?

[Guest rusty747]

It's a sensitive topic with very strong beliefs on both sides. People get carried away from time to time, and personally, if you can't deal with that then the internet is not a place you should frequent.

 

I looked at what Pete said, and for me it is clearly out of passion for his beliefs and a "heat of the debate" moment. We have them all the time. If you had a problem with it or the moderation, you should've contacted us - that's what the report system is for. To go straight to legal authorities is not only OTT (in my opinion) but also a complete abuse of their system and a waste of their resource, paid for by the tax-payers of the country.

 

Feel free to continue in PM, Rusty.

Ok then Matt,

 

Pete remains unable to debate politely and you are supporting his hate.

 

The report stands. Please delete me from membership as I dont wish to be associated with that sort of person.

 

With thanks to the good people of this forum but this is unacceptable.

 

Bye all

[aaron]

Taraa

[pete0]

It's a sensitive topic with very strong beliefs on both sides. People get carried away from time to time, and personally, if you can't deal with that then the internet is not a place you should frequent.

 

I looked at what Pete said, and for me it is clearly out of passion for his beliefs and a "heat of the debate" moment. We have them all the time. If you had a problem with it or the moderation, you should've contacted us - that's what the report system is for. To go straight to legal authorities is not only OTT (in my opinion) but also a complete abuse of their system and a waste of their resource, paid for by the tax-payers of the country.

 

Feel free to continue in PM, Rusty.

Cheers Matt, I might contact you for a witness statement ?.

 

The irony in the public resources argument is testament to the 'sensible' argument otherwise.

[Matt]

Cheers Matt, I might contact you for a witness statement .

 

The irony in the public resources argument is testament to the 'sensible' argument otherwise.

Don't thank me. You went too far in parts and I don't at all agree with the way you presented your argument

 

Rusty, sorry to have upset you, snowflake. The fact that you didn't come to the mods first, or converse in PM speaks for itself. Let us know if you intend to request an invoice for the services you wasted the time of, since you don't pay for them. I'd be extremely interested.

[pete0]

Don't thank me. You went too far in parts and I don't at all agree with the way you presented your argument

 

Rusty, sorry to have upset you, snowflake. The fact that you didn't come to the mods first, or converse in PM speaks for itself. Let us know if you intend to request an invoice for the services you wasted the time of, since you don't pay for them. I'd be extremely interested.

Fair enough.