1. This is your opinion, and if you want me or anybody else to respect it you need to site specific references.  Otherwise we all think you are full of it.  Stop saying stuff without backing it up Swampy.  That is your biggest problem.

2.  When did they attack the church?  Do you know what for?  Ofcourse they should criticize sugar, sugar is hell on your health, they are the W Health O!  Again, site me references with this last accusation.

Even if all the things you say are true Id say if thats the worst you can come up with against the WHO then they are doing pretty good.  I dont think there is any real bias.  But, as I said Im disregarding what you say unless you give me some specifics.

I cannot get you up to speed on all these issues. I will provide one article to get you started.

The WHO attacked the Catholic Church for teaching church doctrine. It claims that AIDS in Africa should trump a mortal sin in the eyes of the Pope.

Sugar...Really? We have been using sugar for abut 1600 years. Calories and Carbohydrates are all part of the natural digestion system. This is attacking Big Business.

The Gates issue was about who gets to decide how money is spent of vacinations.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966187.stm
http://allafrica.com/stories/201205251058.html

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/15/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):
I cannot get you up to speed on all these issues. I will provide one article to get you started.

The WHO attacked the Catholic Church for teaching church doctrine. It claims that AIDS in Africa should trump a mortal sin in the eyes of the Pope.

Sugar...Really? We have been using sugar for abut 1600 years. Calories and Carbohydrates are all part of the natural digestion system. This is attacking Big Business.

The Gates issue was about who gets to decide how money is spent of vacinations.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966187.stm
http://allafrica.com/stories/201205251058.html

So in your eyes its ok for the sugar industry to lobby for the removal of WHO funding, but its not ok for the WHO to lobby the church to endorse condom use?  OMG right wing enough?

Lets see here should we allow the WHO to decide what vaccinations should be concentrated on or Mr. Windows???  thats a tough decision!

Your bias is so evident its laughable.

So far, so bad...

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/14/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...

By using the stat of life expectancy.  Which I have shown is a joke, because of all the factors that go into that stat, Mr. Butterfield.

Why don't you go look at stats like, how long you have to wait for care after being diagnosed with cancers, of all types.  Survival rates for cancer sufferers in each country.  Waits for care of all types in different countries.  Etc.

You know, you think your system is better, but the reality is that 90% of the people in this country have far superior care.  As to the 10% that don't, the solution is to fix that apsect of the system, not blow it up and go universal, where the aforementioned 90% end up getting worse care.

And simply, when each day the Brit press has horror story about the ******* disaster that is the NHS, and every day a Doc in Canada comes here to practice, don't ******* tell me your system is better.  Because it's not.  Again, if you think waiting months for simple procedures is a good system, well congrats.  Enjoy that.  Because all universal health care does is what I said before: make care mediocre for the great majority, by rationing and waits, and denial of procedures. 

According to this:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancer.org%2Facs%2Fgroups%2Fcontent%2F%40epidemiologysurveilance%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Facspc-027766.pdf&ei=jG30UOT5EqrO0QGgsYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHg4tENghYhx8jJv3WoynrRVzBYEA&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
which is a pdf describing cancer incidence rates and mortality globally the USA is right in the middle roughly for most cancers in terms of mortality, and near the top for incidences.  By the way the link is from cancer.org, so I think its probably pretty accurate, and apolitical.

and this is a link for wait times:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html
Wait times for Canadians for elective surgery is terrible at 25 weeks, but the USA is on par or close to with numerous universal health care countries USA-7 Nehterlands -5 France - 7 New Zealand 8 Germany 5.  There are some other countries with terrible wait times too: Sweden 22 UK 21.
Wait times for seeing a specialist: Canada 59, Sweden 55, France 47, Netherlands 30, UK 28, USA 20, Switzerland 18, Germany 17.

So yes for wait times the USA is at the top (but not by itself) in fact several countries are tied or better then, but Canada does very badly here as do several other universal health care countries.  To be expected really considering how much less we spend on health care I think.

Now for a non partisan comparison of 191 countries health care systems I submit to you all the WHO.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fhealthinfo%2Fpaper30.pdf&ei=-3T0UMm5BqeB0AHluoEY&usg=AFQjCNFVFAcD3TjQCCjHyBhsQnhezUgAHw&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
This is a PDF showing scores for 191 countries with France scoring the highest at .994 Italy next at .991 Spain 7th at .972  Japan 10th .957 Greece 14th .933 UK 18th .925 Canada 30th .881 Chile 33rd .870 USA 37th .838 Slovenia 38th .838 And the bottom few are Central African republic 189th .156 Myanmar 190th .138 and Sierra Leone 191st with a 0.0.

Now this is interesting the USA is tied with Slovenia, is behind such powerhouses like Chile, Canada, Greece (Bankrupt nation!) and Spain (also nearly bankrupt).  What does this say?  the USA doesnt get bang for its buck.  France really really really does, and once again Canada is better then the USA.

How about that Baker, I think with these links I have conclusively proven that dollar for dollar the USA is at best no better then the rest of us, and according to WHO is worse then the vast majority of 1st world countries.

Eat it Baker.

Link #1:  incident rates have nothing to do with healthcare.  Mortality does.  But the reality is that with many types of cancer, mortality is the conclusion.  The question is, how long do people have to live after diagnosis in each country?  That is your test of a healthcare system.  But I know  you want to avoid this question, as the US is #1 in almost every type of cancer.  If you get cancer, and you live here, you have longer to live than in any other country.  Why?  Because our care is superior. 

As to wait times, no matter what country you are in, there are going to be wait times for elective procedures.  Many factors go into this, such as type of surgery, number of people wanting said surgery, doctors who can perform said surgery, etc.  What about procedures that are not "elective"?  Another question you just don't want to talk about.  Because when you need something done in our system, it gets done.  You do not have to wait.

Link#2: That study is biased in favor of nationalized healthcare.  But thanks for playing.

You still don't get it, do you greeny?

Good news everyone!  Because of Ocare, we may have to send our women folk to Mexico to deliver their babies:

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20603065/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries

Swamp suffers from BBW syndrome. Thinking because they are heavier and die sooner and have more health problems than anyone else, that makes them better at judging what is healthy. The silent majority eats McDonalds every now and again, leaves Swamp 100% ready to eat it for every meal.

*imagine the scene*
Swamp enters the fast food joint, breathing heavily because waddling around 400 lbs is way too much for his fitness level. Gasping, he orders 4 big macs, a large fry, and a milkshake. Alone, in the chair (can't sit in the booth, as it doesn't have enough room), he slinks onto his phone to say how religion should be able to do whatever they want, how sugar is better for you than unprotected sex, and sucks down next, his 64 ounces of diet coke.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/16/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/14/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...

By using the stat of life expectancy.  Which I have shown is a joke, because of all the factors that go into that stat, Mr. Butterfield.

Why don't you go look at stats like, how long you have to wait for care after being diagnosed with cancers, of all types.  Survival rates for cancer sufferers in each country.  Waits for care of all types in different countries.  Etc.

You know, you think your system is better, but the reality is that 90% of the people in this country have far superior care.  As to the 10% that don't, the solution is to fix that apsect of the system, not blow it up and go universal, where the aforementioned 90% end up getting worse care.

And simply, when each day the Brit press has horror story about the ******* disaster that is the NHS, and every day a Doc in Canada comes here to practice, don't ******* tell me your system is better.  Because it's not.  Again, if you think waiting months for simple procedures is a good system, well congrats.  Enjoy that.  Because all universal health care does is what I said before: make care mediocre for the great majority, by rationing and waits, and denial of procedures. 

According to this:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancer.org%2Facs%2Fgroups%2Fcontent%2F%40epidemiologysurveilance%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Facspc-027766.pdf&ei=jG30UOT5EqrO0QGgsYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHg4tENghYhx8jJv3WoynrRVzBYEA&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
which is a pdf describing cancer incidence rates and mortality globally the USA is right in the middle roughly for most cancers in terms of mortality, and near the top for incidences.  By the way the link is from cancer.org, so I think its probably pretty accurate, and apolitical.

and this is a link for wait times:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html
Wait times for Canadians for elective surgery is terrible at 25 weeks, but the USA is on par or close to with numerous universal health care countries USA-7 Nehterlands -5 France - 7 New Zealand 8 Germany 5.  There are some other countries with terrible wait times too: Sweden 22 UK 21.
Wait times for seeing a specialist: Canada 59, Sweden 55, France 47, Netherlands 30, UK 28, USA 20, Switzerland 18, Germany 17.

So yes for wait times the USA is at the top (but not by itself) in fact several countries are tied or better then, but Canada does very badly here as do several other universal health care countries.  To be expected really considering how much less we spend on health care I think.

Now for a non partisan comparison of 191 countries health care systems I submit to you all the WHO.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fhealthinfo%2Fpaper30.pdf&ei=-3T0UMm5BqeB0AHluoEY&usg=AFQjCNFVFAcD3TjQCCjHyBhsQnhezUgAHw&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
This is a PDF showing scores for 191 countries with France scoring the highest at .994 Italy next at .991 Spain 7th at .972  Japan 10th .957 Greece 14th .933 UK 18th .925 Canada 30th .881 Chile 33rd .870 USA 37th .838 Slovenia 38th .838 And the bottom few are Central African republic 189th .156 Myanmar 190th .138 and Sierra Leone 191st with a 0.0.

Now this is interesting the USA is tied with Slovenia, is behind such powerhouses like Chile, Canada, Greece (Bankrupt nation!) and Spain (also nearly bankrupt).  What does this say?  the USA doesnt get bang for its buck.  France really really really does, and once again Canada is better then the USA.

How about that Baker, I think with these links I have conclusively proven that dollar for dollar the USA is at best no better then the rest of us, and according to WHO is worse then the vast majority of 1st world countries.

Eat it Baker.

Link #1:  incident rates have nothing to do with healthcare.  Mortality does.  But the reality is that with many types of cancer, mortality is the conclusion.  The question is, how long do people have to live after diagnosis in each country?  That is your test of a healthcare system.  But I know  you want to avoid this question, as the US is #1 in almost every type of cancer.  If you get cancer, and you live here, you have longer to live than in any other country.  Why?  Because our care is superior. 

As to wait times, no matter what country you are in, there are going to be wait times for elective procedures.  Many factors go into this, such as type of surgery, number of people wanting said surgery, doctors who can perform said surgery, etc.  What about procedures that are not "elective"?  Another question you just don't want to talk about.  Because when you need something done in our system, it gets done.  You do not have to wait.

Link#2: That study is biased in favor of nationalized healthcare.  But thanks for playing.

You still don't get it, do you greeny?

I can tell you didnt bother looking at link #1 because it shows mortality rates as well as incidence rates for several different cancers comparing many different countries the US always being there.  And guess what?  your mortality rates are just about in the middle for EVERY cancer in that link, and remember its from cancer.org not  IHATETHEUSA.org

So you have this idea that when a GSW comes into an ER up here in Canada that he has to wait his turn?  You really think that?  You are frickin crazy if you honestly believe a 1st world heck even a 3rd world country when a person comes in with life threatening injuries that he has to wait any amount of time at all.  Granted the USA should have better outcomes in emergency medicine then any 3rd world country, and likely is better then most other 1st world countries too, but I cant see anything on the internet that tells me one way or the other.

the WHO is in favour of nationalized healthcare?  really eh?  You sound just like Swampy here, you make a big claim like that and back it up with nothing.  Heck, Swamp actually gave me a couple links, neither of them are compelling, but Ill give him that at least.  You two are peas in a pod.

Apparently I dont get it Baker, I admit it, you are the grand pooba, and Im a lowly sheep herder compared to you in your vast knowledge of everything.     

Posted by greeny9 on 1/15/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/15/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):
I cannot get you up to speed on all these issues. I will provide one article to get you started.

The WHO attacked the Catholic Church for teaching church doctrine. It claims that AIDS in Africa should trump a mortal sin in the eyes of the Pope.

Sugar...Really? We have been using sugar for abut 1600 years. Calories and Carbohydrates are all part of the natural digestion system. This is attacking Big Business.

The Gates issue was about who gets to decide how money is spent of vacinations.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966187.stm
http://allafrica.com/stories/201205251058.html

So in your eyes its ok for the sugar industry to lobby for the removal of WHO funding, but its not ok for the WHO to lobby the church to endorse condom use?  OMG right wing enough?

Lets see here should we allow the WHO to decide what vaccinations should be concentrated on or Mr. Windows???  thats a tough decision!

Your bias is so evident its laughable.

The sugar industry has the right to present a fair vew of its product. Sugar is just another type of food and if you eat too much you get fat. The left is in a war with major food corporations growers because they blame capitalism for world hunger.

The Catholic Church needs to promote its values. If you follow Catholic doctrine you will not need condoms and if you are not following Catholic Doctrine what difference does the opinion of the Pope matter?

Again if the WHO was an unbiased spreader of good health it wouldnt be an issue. There is evidence it isnt.

Bias or insight??

If only the sugar association used proper science in defending its claims.  They say that a person can eat 25% sugar without any side effects.  Does that sound right to you?  Why do so many people have diabetes?  Because they eat too much sugar!  blood sugar levels that are too high is a major cause.  You love to say stupid **** that nobody actually does dont you?

The catholic church ***** with peoples lives.  And when the people they are ******* with are severely poor and under nourished.  If I were worried that my lifeline would take away my benefits if I didnt follow their teachings wouldnt I think twice about that?

The evidence you give is BS!  I havent seen one compelling bit of evidence.  Do you know what evidence is?  It is: Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.  You present no evidence because you dont back it up with proof, you present your opinions as evidence.  Your opinions dont hold water around here.

Stop wasting our time with your homegrown opinions that have no relevance to reality.  If you start actually showing us proof that compels us to believe what you have to say maybe you would get **** on a whole lot less Swampy.  Do yourself a favour!

Posted by greeny9 on 1/16/2013 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/16/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/14/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 1/14/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
And that article explained what exactly?  that Obamacare (which has nothing whatsoever to do with universal healthcare) that I have never argued for is expensive?  Imagine that Obamacare is expensive.  All I have said is that universal healthcare is far superior to your private healthcare.

You have YET to explain anything at all Baker.  I said that our systems are cheaper because they are universal.  Your turn Baker...

By using the stat of life expectancy.  Which I have shown is a joke, because of all the factors that go into that stat, Mr. Butterfield.

Why don't you go look at stats like, how long you have to wait for care after being diagnosed with cancers, of all types.  Survival rates for cancer sufferers in each country.  Waits for care of all types in different countries.  Etc.

You know, you think your system is better, but the reality is that 90% of the people in this country have far superior care.  As to the 10% that don't, the solution is to fix that apsect of the system, not blow it up and go universal, where the aforementioned 90% end up getting worse care.

And simply, when each day the Brit press has horror story about the ******* disaster that is the NHS, and every day a Doc in Canada comes here to practice, don't ******* tell me your system is better.  Because it's not.  Again, if you think waiting months for simple procedures is a good system, well congrats.  Enjoy that.  Because all universal health care does is what I said before: make care mediocre for the great majority, by rationing and waits, and denial of procedures. 

According to this:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cancer.org%2Facs%2Fgroups%2Fcontent%2F%40epidemiologysurveilance%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Facspc-027766.pdf&ei=jG30UOT5EqrO0QGgsYDoAQ&usg=AFQjCNHg4tENghYhx8jJv3WoynrRVzBYEA&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
which is a pdf describing cancer incidence rates and mortality globally the USA is right in the middle roughly for most cancers in terms of mortality, and near the top for incidences.  By the way the link is from cancer.org, so I think its probably pretty accurate, and apolitical.

and this is a link for wait times:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/06/08/index.html;jsessionid=as008die826bn.delta?contentType=&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-59-en&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&accessItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en&mimeType=text/html
Wait times for Canadians for elective surgery is terrible at 25 weeks, but the USA is on par or close to with numerous universal health care countries USA-7 Nehterlands -5 France - 7 New Zealand 8 Germany 5.  There are some other countries with terrible wait times too: Sweden 22 UK 21.
Wait times for seeing a specialist: Canada 59, Sweden 55, France 47, Netherlands 30, UK 28, USA 20, Switzerland 18, Germany 17.

So yes for wait times the USA is at the top (but not by itself) in fact several countries are tied or better then, but Canada does very badly here as do several other universal health care countries.  To be expected really considering how much less we spend on health care I think.

Now for a non partisan comparison of 191 countries health care systems I submit to you all the WHO.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fhealthinfo%2Fpaper30.pdf&ei=-3T0UMm5BqeB0AHluoEY&usg=AFQjCNFVFAcD3TjQCCjHyBhsQnhezUgAHw&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.dmQ
This is a PDF showing scores for 191 countries with France scoring the highest at .994 Italy next at .991 Spain 7th at .972  Japan 10th .957 Greece 14th .933 UK 18th .925 Canada 30th .881 Chile 33rd .870 USA 37th .838 Slovenia 38th .838 And the bottom few are Central African republic 189th .156 Myanmar 190th .138 and Sierra Leone 191st with a 0.0.

Now this is interesting the USA is tied with Slovenia, is behind such powerhouses like Chile, Canada, Greece (Bankrupt nation!) and Spain (also nearly bankrupt).  What does this say?  the USA doesnt get bang for its buck.  France really really really does, and once again Canada is better then the USA.

How about that Baker, I think with these links I have conclusively proven that dollar for dollar the USA is at best no better then the rest of us, and according to WHO is worse then the vast majority of 1st world countries.

Eat it Baker.

Link #1:  incident rates have nothing to do with healthcare.  Mortality does.  But the reality is that with many types of cancer, mortality is the conclusion.  The question is, how long do people have to live after diagnosis in each country?  That is your test of a healthcare system.  But I know  you want to avoid this question, as the US is #1 in almost every type of cancer.  If you get cancer, and you live here, you have longer to live than in any other country.  Why?  Because our care is superior. 

As to wait times, no matter what country you are in, there are going to be wait times for elective procedures.  Many factors go into this, such as type of surgery, number of people wanting said surgery, doctors who can perform said surgery, etc.  What about procedures that are not "elective"?  Another question you just don't want to talk about.  Because when you need something done in our system, it gets done.  You do not have to wait.

Link#2: That study is biased in favor of nationalized healthcare.  But thanks for playing.

You still don't get it, do you greeny?

I can tell you didnt bother looking at link #1 because it shows mortality rates as well as incidence rates for several different cancers comparing many different countries the US always being there.  And guess what?  your mortality rates are just about in the middle for EVERY cancer in that link, and remember its from cancer.org not  IHATETHEUSA.org

So you have this idea that when a GSW comes into an ER up here in Canada that he has to wait his turn?  You really think that?  You are frickin crazy if you honestly believe a 1st world heck even a 3rd world country when a person comes in with life threatening injuries that he has to wait any amount of time at all.  Granted the USA should have better outcomes in emergency medicine then any 3rd world country, and likely is better then most other 1st world countries too, but I cant see anything on the internet that tells me one way or the other.

the WHO is in favour of nationalized healthcare?  really eh?  You sound just like Swampy here, you make a big claim like that and back it up with nothing.  Heck, Swamp actually gave me a couple links, neither of them are compelling, but Ill give him that at least.  You two are peas in a pod.

Apparently I dont get it Baker, I admit it, you are the grand pooba, and Im a lowly sheep herder compared to you in your vast knowledge of everything.     

I can only assume you have reading comprehension problems.

I can only assume you have reading comprehension problems too.

Posted by greeny9 on 1/16/2013 8:34:00 PM (view original):
If only the sugar association used proper science in defending its claims.  They say that a person can eat 25% sugar without any side effects.  Does that sound right to you?  Why do so many people have diabetes?  Because they eat too much sugar!  blood sugar levels that are too high is a major cause.  You love to say stupid **** that nobody actually does dont you?

The catholic church ***** with peoples lives.  And when the people they are ******* with are severely poor and under nourished.  If I were worried that my lifeline would take away my benefits if I didnt follow their teachings wouldnt I think twice about that?

The evidence you give is BS!  I havent seen one compelling bit of evidence.  Do you know what evidence is?  It is: Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth, and therefore is presumed to be true and related to a case.  You present no evidence because you dont back it up with proof, you present your opinions as evidence.  Your opinions dont hold water around here.

Stop wasting our time with your homegrown opinions that have no relevance to reality.  If you start actually showing us proof that compels us to believe what you have to say maybe you would get **** on a whole lot less Swampy.  Do yourself a favour!

What exact evidence didnt I produce.

These incidents happened. I am sorry that I dont have the tapes that prove why they did it. I can only use circumstantial evidence in this case.

Broke the law yet again and didn't submit a budget by the deadline.

Etc:

"With pump prices at their highest level on record for this time of year, the stage is set for an even greater climb in gasoline prices and expenditures than in 2012. Retail gasoline prices have surged 17 cents in a week to top $3.50 a gallon on average, posting the highest prices on record for the beginning of February."

www.cnbc.com/id/100431822