• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Wait...Who, How, When, What....???...I feel left out of the loop...

The problem is how long they've been trying to make change and have been blocked? 60 years? At this point I'd like to see something go through. If it's expensive (or flawed in some other major way), there will likely be more drive from EVERYONE to get something done (besides simple tort reform). If it doesn't go through we're not very likely to be hearing much about it from anyone for another 10 years.
I heard on the radio that Senate Finance commitee says this bill will reduce the deficit by $128B over ten years. Even Boehner's response to that was that 'quality would be less'. I took that as his conceeding that they were pretty close on the estimate. :shrugs:
I don't trust either side of the isle on the cost projections. It will be a given that it will be way under the actual. The only way adding 25mil people to the insured reduces the deficit is if they raise taxes to make it appear so on paper. I agree with you Tom that we need some change but I would rather they take the time and attempt to do it right rather than the ram anything through that we can get through partisan policy. Maybe the vote needs to be made by us and not them. Let the two sides hash out a system and let the people vote taking as much partisanship out of it as possible.
 
I misunderstood your post. I thought you were speaking to tort reform, which is a small part of cost. But excess tests are a big problem as you said.

Real tort reform, as opposed to the lame-o thing Texas has that hasn't slowed down extra testing, would save money. What Texas has is a system that limits the size of the award in the case of successful malpractice suits. Physicians do all these extra tests because if they do enough and it's all normal, they are less likely to wind up going to trial because nobody who does plaintiff work will take the case (because there was no malpractice and all those extra tests "prove" how hard the physician tried to find any and all possible problems, including ones that are extremely rare). A chart that shows that the physician went "above and beyond" trying to make sure everything was done is a chart that will deter a plaintiff's attorney from ever filing.
 
Real tort reform, as opposed to the lame-o thing Texas has that hasn't slowed down extra testing, would save money. What Texas has is a system that limits the size of the award in the case of successful malpractice suits. Physicians do all these extra tests because if they do enough and it's all normal, they are less likely to wind up going to trial because nobody who does plaintiff work will take the case (because there was no malpractice and all those extra tests "prove" how hard the physician tried to find any and all possible problems, including ones that are extremely rare). A chart that shows that the physician went "above and beyond" trying to make sure everything was done is a chart that will deter a plaintiff's attorney from ever filing.

Speaking of Texas in regards to health care, I hope everyone here has read Atul Gawande's excellent article that appeared in The New Yorker in June of last year. It talks about how McAllen, TX has become the second most expensive health care market in the nation - primarily due to overutilization. However, it may be more due to the physician's "entrepreneurial spirit" than practicing "defensive medicine".

Here's an excerpt:

One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.

Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the country’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.

“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bull. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”
Everyone agreed that something fundamental had changed since the days when health-care costs in McAllen were the same as those in El Paso and elsewhere. Yes, they had more technology. “But young doctors don’t think anymore,” the family physician said.

The surgeon gave me an example. General surgeons are often asked to see patients with pain from gallstones. If there aren’t any complications—and there usually aren’t—the pain goes away on its own or with pain medication. With instruction on eating a lower-fat diet, most patients experience no further difficulties. But some have recurrent episodes, and need surgery to remove their gallbladder.

Seeing a patient who has had uncomplicated, first-time gallstone pain requires some judgment. A surgeon has to provide reassurance (people are often scared and want to go straight to surgery), some education about gallstone disease and diet, perhaps a prescription for pain; in a few weeks, the surgeon might follow up. But increasingly, I was told, McAllen surgeons simply operate. The patient wasn’t going to moderate her diet, they tell themselves. The pain was just going to come back. And by operating they happen to make an extra seven hundred dollars.

I gave the doctors around the table a scenario. A forty-year-old woman comes in with chest pain after a fight with her husband. An EKG is normal. The chest pain goes away. She has no family history of heart disease. What did McAllen doctors do fifteen years ago?

Send her home, they said. Maybe get a stress test to confirm that there’s no issue, but even that might be overkill.

And today? Today, the cardiologist said, she would get a stress test, an echocardiogram, a mobile Holter monitor, and maybe even a cardiac catheterization.

“Oh, she’s definitely getting a cath,” the internist said, laughing grimly.

To determine whether overuse of medical care was really the problem in McAllen, I turned to Jonathan Skinner, an economist at Dartmouth’s Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, which has three decades of expertise in examining regional patterns in Medicare payment data. I also turned to two private firms—D2Hawkeye, an independent company, and Ingenix,
UnitedHealthcare’s data-analysis company—to analyze commercial insurance data for McAllen. The answer was yes. Compared with patients in El Paso and nationwide, patients in McAllen got more of pretty much everything—more diagnostic testing, more hospital treatment, more surgery, more home care.

The Medicare payment data provided the most detail. Between 2001 and 2005, critically ill Medicare patients received almost fifty per cent more specialist visits in McAllen than in El Paso, and were two-thirds more likely to see ten or more specialists in a six-month period. In 2005 and 2006, patients in McAllen received twenty per cent more abdominal ultrasounds, thirty per cent more bone-density studies, sixty per cent more stress tests with echocardiography, two hundred per cent more nerve-conduction studies to diagnose carpal-tunnel syndrome, and five hundred and fifty per cent more urine-flow studies to diagnose prostate troubles. They received one-fifth to two-thirds more gallbladder operations, knee replacements, breast biopsies, and bladder scopes. They also received two to three times as many pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, cardiac-bypass operations, carotid endarterectomies, and coronary-artery stents. And Medicare paid for five times as many home-nurse visits. The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine.

Again, here's the link for the entire article.

Dale
 
It talks about how McAllen, TX has become the second most expensive health care market in the nation - primarily due to overutilization. However, it may be more due to the physician's "entrepreneurial spirit" than practicing "defensive medicine".

Oh yes. I won't deny there is this factor in costs too. No doubt about it. Talking about the high cost of defensive medicine isn't intended to say that is the only cost driver.

Edit: It's just that where I am I see much more defensive medicine that entrepeneurial overuse.
 
Real tort reform, as opposed to the lame-o thing Texas has that hasn't slowed down extra testing, would save money. What Texas has is a system that limits the size of the award in the case of successful malpractice suits. Physicians do all these extra tests because if they do enough and it's all normal, they are less likely to wind up going to trial because nobody who does plaintiff work will take the case (because there was no malpractice and all those extra tests "prove" how hard the physician tried to find any and all possible problems, including ones that are extremely rare). A chart that shows that the physician went "above and beyond" trying to make sure everything was done is a chart that will deter a plaintiff's attorney from ever filing.

Your post is kind of my point. But that's what so many from the right advocate. And as TX clearly shows, the tort reform hasn't resulted in saved costs that are passed to the consumer.

I this regard, there needs to be a major mentality shift in the medical community. I hate to use the word "ration" because it has such negative connotations, but I think we need a little rationing. Maybe updated guidelines or something. In the case of the gallstones mentioned in the article, maybe require a mandatory diet change and wait for normal cases before operating?
 
I this regard, there needs to be a major mentality shift in the medical community. I hate to use the word "ration" because it has such negative connotations, but I think we need a little rationing. Maybe updated guidelines or something. In the case of the gallstones mentioned in the article, maybe require a mandatory diet change and wait for normal cases before operating?

There will be NO SHIFT in the medical community as long as patients sue at the levels and for the reasons they do around here. If the person has gallstones, there is a small chance they could get gallstone pancreatitis and DIE if they don't get their gallbladder taken out right away, and NO surgeon is going to take the chance of being sued for that outcome, they are going to take out that gallbladder.

Guidelines do NOT protect physicians who follow them from losing a medical malpractice lawsuit. There was a suit about 10 years ago in which a physician carefully followed the guidelines about PSA screening in men over 75 years old, which suggest not screening those men, or at least discussing whether to do it or not. The physician discussed it with the patient, who said he didn't want the blood test (which is intended to detect prostate cancer). IIRC the patient said he wouldn't have surgery for prostate cancer if he found out he had it, because of the problems that patients can have after the surgery (impotence & urinary incontinence). The patient didn't have any problems that would indicate he had prostate cancer. Several years later the patient developed prostate cancer and died. The family sued the physician and won a LARGE settlement. The guideline the physician followed was entered into the evidence at trial. Do you think any physician who knows about this lawsuit is going to skip ordering a PSA? I don't.

The recent USPSTF recommendation that maybe women should not get annual mammograms starting at 40 and never stopping until death is NOT going to change what physicians do, because if a woman's doctor follows that recommendation (to discuss the pluses & minuses of screening & go with the patient's choice) and the woman does NOT get a mammogram, and then DOES get a breast cancer, she or her family is very likely to sue, and very very likely to win the suit.

In order to shift the mentality in the medical community, the mentality in the public at large has to shift. We need to discuss as a SOCIETY how much are we willing to spend to prevent one death, and come to some conclusions, so that physicians can feel safe.
 
I have been reading and keeping up with the thread. Since I initiated it. And have learned numerous things from people more expert in these matters than me.

And incidentally, "thank you" to all parties for keeping this academic and not emotional.

I was reading news today, which of course includes...editorials...from numerous points of view. Anyhoo, I would like to share this particular editorial...as it certainly relates to my original post. (I know, I know,...so ignore the inflammatory/biased title.) But it does, in more common language, refer to procedural matters, which is my complaint about this "deem and pass" slight-of-hand hocus-pocus. Constitutional etiquette and simple straightforward parliamentary procedure are the old-fashioned right way to do things...right? Or did I fall out of a tree in some foreign orchard very far away?
This whole business of "Change" and a move toward transparency and simplifying government that has risen into strata above the heads of most americans....is what I thought Obama was all about. The passing of a major, nation-changing bill...by non-voting, close-your-eyes, turn-your-head shifty technicalities makes me dislike and distrust Nancy Pelosi (and others) intensely. And that is a major understatement.

Oops, here's the editorial, LOL :
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/
 
If their pay is cut by much, they will simply quit practicing medicine, reducing the supply of physicians in the most needed categories, those that provide primary care. We already have a shortage of these types of physicians in some parts of the country.

There are other shortages too, including rheumatologists (who treat patients with severe arthritic conditions), and neurologists, who treat brain & nerve disorders, including things like multiple sclerosis & stroke. These folks are not well-paid, because they have to spend a long time with each patient to explain things to the patient, because it is complicated and because frightened people have a harder time absorbing information quickly. Many of these types of specialists will also decide not to practice medicine any more if their pay is cut.

I doubt it. What sort of work will they get instead? Flip burgers somewhere? Or maybe not be able to find ANY work elsewhere like a lot of people are having trouble doing these days. They may have to change their lifestyles and maybe tighten the belt a little bit, but I doubt anyone is going to just throw away a career they have trained for years to get established within to MAYBE get a job that will likely pay far less than what they would currently be making, even with a pay cut.

Yeah, that's what they are SAYING, but it's really just crying "WOLF!!" to scare people from attempting to cut back the high cost of medical care.
 
I'm not familiar with the specific case you talked about regarding the prostate cancer, but if that is what actually happened then its appalling. Malpractice suits are supposed to be for gross negligence.

Writing a prescription for a drug that was listed as being allergic on the patient's chart, or NOT following guidelines. But if that physician did indeed follow guidelines to the "t", then he shouldn't be held responsible. Sometimes people just get sick or die - doctors can't play God all the time and save everyone all the time. People, families, and we as a society need to accept that.

In order to shift the mentality in the medical community, the mentality in the public at large has to shift.

This is a little like the chicken and the egg. Who will change first? I honestly think the doctors need to take the lead. They need to better educate patients on the procedures that are necessary and those that aren't. I just don't see a patient saying to a doctor "Nah, don't do that test, I read about it and saw it only detects anomalies 0.5-2% of the time and isn't worth the cost."

In that case I think its the medical community's responsibility to educate patients that the test isn't very effective and in most cases isn't necessary.

We need to discuss as a SOCIETY how much are we willing to spend to prevent one death, and come to some conclusions, so that physicians can feel safe.

I agree. There was a great article NPR did (maybe ~1.5 yrs ago) where they did a series on different countries that have various forms of socialized healthcare - it was during the election when healthcare was being heavily debated on the campaign trail. (I really need to see if I can find it on their website). But in one of the segments they talked about the British system and their rationing of care/drugs.

And they interviewed a gentleman who had some late stage cancer. And their was some new cancer drug that could extend his life by 3-6 months at best; but it cost something like $10k a month. The NHS denied his claim for that drug - he could pay for it out of his own pocket, but the government wasn't going to cover it.

Anyways, the NPR lady doing the story interviewed him about it. And he said that at first he was sort of upset but quickly made amends with it. He basically said that even with the drug he would be dead within a year and that it would have been greedy and selfish of him to take drugs that were so expensive that wouldn't change his prognosis and only extend his life by a couple of months. He said that the $60k spent extending his life 6 months could be better spent elsewhere in the system on people who need care more than him.

I realize this is just a single anecdote, but it really got me thinking of the mentality difference between other countries and ours. One does have to wonder if its worth it spending all the money we do to extend people's lives by a few months to a year. Most Medicare money is spent in the last year of a person's life. Maybe I come across as cruel, but you're right that its a discussion we need to have.
 
This whole business of "Change" and a move toward transparency and simplifying government that has risen into strata above the heads of most americans....is what I thought Obama was all about. The passing of a major, nation-changing bill...by non-voting, close-your-eyes, turn-your-head shifty technicalities makes me dislike and distrust Nancy Pelosi (and others) intensely. And that is a major understatement.

Oops, here's the editorial, LOL :
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

You do know that Republicans used these same tactics to much of their agenda passed? Does that excuse the Dems? No way! But at the same time I can't stomach the hypocrisy that so many from the right are showing by getting up in arms over this, yet remained silent or even defending the Republicans use of the same tactics.

I'll pay attention when someone who was against the Republicans doing it and is against the Democrats doing it speaks.
 
You do know that Republicans used these same tactics to much of their agenda passed? Does that excuse the Dems? No way! But at the same time I can't stomach the hypocrisy that so many from the right are showing by getting up in arms over this, yet remained silent or even defending the Republicans use of the same tactics.

I'll pay attention when someone who was against the Republicans doing it and is against the Democrats doing it speaks.
Matthew, I have no illusions nor doubts that republicans are equally as practiced in such tactics, above and below the table. I have been observing both fronts since Nixon was president. Thanks for the tutorial, though. ;)
Nor do I believe I should not complain now, because others have done it when/while I have not complained.
Until now, I had never heard of this "pass and deem" tactic. And I would be posting my awakened awareness of this, no matter which side of the congressional isle was performing the hocus-pocus.

Obama as first african american president, and Pelosi as first lady speaker of the house,...led us to believe that new horizons would be striven for...and old tactics would be moved away from. It has become abundantly clear that this "honeymoon" is over. In Obama's house, and in Pelosi's house.
Sorry if I am late crying foul. But it would be all too perpetuating of wrongness if I remained silent for the sake that "...well the republicans have been doing the same thing all along, too...".
I can't find it in me to apply playground tit for tat...to capitoline edumacated adults.
 
Eric, I can't imagine that anyone would be immune to the lure of using things like this as long as they are available. I seriously hope they just get the votes- it still looks like that's a possibility. I don't for the life of me get why they won't just let us be subjected to a filibuster. The nation needs to see that IMO. They act like it would play into the others' side, but I think most people would find it pretty ugly and would work against the Republicans. I'd make 'em don diapers and do the whole bit, lol. At the end of the day (week, month whatever) a filibuster can't last forever.
As for things like deem/pass, we need to just decide if it's legal or not legal. The more I think about it, I'm less against using it for this bill if it becomes necessary (reminding me of your other thread, 'when do ends justify means?' lol). After all that conversation needs to be had as well. It's no less disgusting with a bill that is getting a lot of attention than it is on the sly when nobody is looking. Might as well have that out, and either decide we want to keep it or make it illegal.
 
I doubt it. What sort of work will they get instead? Flip burgers somewhere? Or maybe not be able to find ANY work elsewhere like a lot of people are having trouble doing these days. They may have to change their lifestyles and maybe tighten the belt a little bit, but I doubt anyone is going to just throw away a career they have trained for years to get established within to MAYBE get a job that will likely pay far less than what they would currently be making, even with a pay cut.

Yeah, that's what they are SAYING, but it's really just crying "WOLF!!" to scare people from attempting to cut back the high cost of medical care.

Well, the foreign born doctors are saying they will go home and practice there instead, where the cost of living is lower and they may be able to get out from under the need to pay the student loans. Those who are close to retiring ARE already retiring. Others are trying to get jobs in research, pharmaceutical companies, or are busy going to law school or MBA programs on a part-time basis.

I think you overestimate how much money physicians make, Rich. Primary care physicians make $100,000 to $150,000 before taxes. If pay goes below that level, lots of other jobs start looking pretty comparable. I do, however, think you have a good point with regard to the current state of the economy and whether it will be easy for them to find other work.

I am not hearing this from Republicrats who are working to keep the status quo. I am hearing this from physicians. The real drivers of the high cost of health care are not, for the most part, the payments to physicians who are making $250,000 a year or more. The real cost drivers are more about the amount of expensive, aggressive, invasive care people who have coverage expect to get or expect to have done for their loved ones. The technology gets more & more expensive every year, and people want more OF it, even though the gain in diagnostic accuracy is small & so is the gain in survival time.

We CAN solve the cost issues, but it will take a social dialogue in which both health care workers and everyone else participates, so that we can reduce the amount of stuff done at very high cost that produces very little benefit. Most physicians would be fine with that, I think. You have only to look at places like Group Health or the Mayo Clinic to see that it can be done & that physicians will happily work in such systems.
 
Well, Tom, I'm with Wade on this one. Put it out there on the table. Examine it. Everybody (legislator) vote on it. A roll call vote would not be unacceptable to me. Then move on.

And thanks for remembering my poor "does the end justify the means thread". It indeed was meant to embrace issues like this in life, big and small. Although I was thinking more sociological/philosophical than 'capitol hill' when I started it.
 
Don't get me wrong though Eric, I'd still like to see it NOT be a possibility. It's just the strategic aspect that bites me in the behind. Democrats need to take a page from the Republican book in that regard (more than one actually- we could use a little more solidarity).. I mean, sometimes the Democrats are a little bit too wussy with things. If it's in the rules it plays. And if we don't like it, do away with the rule. I am just sick of a Democratic majority that can't do nothing because they are being too 'nice'.
I certainly won't try as hard again to vote in a Democratic majority if they just can't do anything they promised.

Change is a funny thing in that regard, it's vague enough that everybody heard what they wanted. What _I_ heard and voted for was healthcare, dumping the Bush tax cuts, ending the war in Iraq, and getting green. I'm sure Obama knows that playing nice guy is getting old with some of us that wanted results. :shrugs:
 
Matthew, I have no illusions nor doubts that republicans are equally as practiced in such tactics, above and below the table. I have been observing both fronts since Nixon was president. Thanks for the tutorial, though. ;)
Nor do I believe I should not complain now, because others have done it when/while I have not complained.
Until now, I had never heard of this "pass and deem" tactic. And I would be posting my awakened awareness of this, no matter which side of the congressional isle was performing the hocus-pocus.

Obama as first african american president, and Pelosi as first lady speaker of the house,...led us to believe that new horizons would be striven for...and old tactics would be moved away from. It has become abundantly clear that this "honeymoon" is over. In Obama's house, and in Pelosi's house.
Sorry if I am late crying foul. But it would be all too perpetuating of wrongness if I remained silent for the sake that "...well the republicans have been doing the same thing all along, too...".
I can't find it in me to apply playground tit for tat...to capitoline edumacated adults.

Eric, my comments weren't directed towards you specificilly but more to the editorial you posted and towards so many from the right who are crying foul only when that person has a "D" next to their name. There are plenty who just didn't pay attention when the Republicans did it or maybe just weren't engaged, I'm not talking to them (or in your case just didn't know about it). I'm talking about the people who incessantly defended the Republicans forcing their agenda through Congress who are now crying foul when the Democrats do it.

Really its just me venting about the hyper-partisanship in Washington. You're right that the honeymoon is over (if there ever really was one). Obama has reneged on too many campaign promises and the Republicans are playing dirty.

I had high hopes for Obama - I still honestly believe he thought he could change Washington, and I believe he still thinks he can (i.e. having that open forum with Republicans was a good 1st step). Maybe he still can, I don't know. But with Pelosi and her ilk controlling Congress and the other side still unwilling to have honest debates/discussions or compromise, its just going to be more of the same.
 
Thanks for the post, Matthew. We agree on very much.
Many in my profession are still smarting down here in Louisiana from a slight of hand regarding our present governor (republican). He is an intellectual young man who has lived a pampered life. He twice turned down overtures from McCain as a running mate, declined Obama's offered stimulus to Louisiana (a seemingly 'noble' deed), and has demonstrated in his most recent budget cuts his lack of sympathy for the demographic that I work with...and thereby people in my field. The general consensus, among many of my colleagues across the state, is that he is looking at (setting himself up for) a more serious sure-thing in position 1 or position 2 in 2012.

And yes, I wish I could have blacked out that title of the editorial, it was indeed highly inflammatory. Much more so than what I was able to strain out of the article itself.
 
Thanks for the post, Matthew. We agree on very much.
Many in my profession are still smarting down here in Louisiana from a slight of hand regarding our present governor (republican). He is an intellectual young man who has lived a pampered life. He twice turned down overtures from McCain as a running mate, declined Obama's offered stimulus to Louisiana (a seemingly 'noble' deed), and has demonstrated in his most recent budget cuts his lack of sympathy for the demographic that I work with...and thereby people in my field. The general consensus, among many of my colleagues across the state, is that he is looking at (setting himself up for) a more serious sure-thing in position 1 or position 2 in 2012.

And yes, I wish I could have blacked out that title of the editorial, it was indeed highly inflammatory. Much more so than what I was able to strain out of the article itself.

Unfortunately that's just the nature of politics. Both sides are always positioning to further their political career. It's pretty much always party first, country 2nd with these people.
 
Well, I've been trying to get back to this/my thread all day to say something positive.
The H of R voted openly, fair and square, and with that I am content...as that satisfies the gripes and worries I tried to articulate in the OP.

I do not know what the future holds, but I hope it is good. On a personal level, metaphorically, I suppose I am paraphrasing what I have heard others say...in that those who once had "Cadillac" healthcare will maybe now have buick or pontiac insurance. And those that had no healthcare will at least have volkswagen beetle or Nissan Versa insurance. LOL. I am sure that is a vast oversimplification. (I am no politician or economist, so anyone who understands this all better, please feel free to express it better and more precisely than I have.)
I hope I heard wrong that people who fail to acquire insurance will be subject to fines. That just didn't sound right.

I know Lauren (Hypancistrus) started a newer thread on the healthcare subject.
 
Back
Top