Health Care Reform Idea...

[PoliticalChic]

suggestion 2 allow insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines.

Do you agree with the Health Insurance Exchange that was proposed? I think that is an excellent idea.

Then again you are the healthcare expert who claimed that when these mandates are added to the price of a healthcare insurance policy,

1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending


the price of the policy would go down.

Based on same, I'll take your view with a grain of salt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

These are excellent suggestions but I have a far more cynical view of what HR3200 is about. It's just another nail in the coffin of capitalism.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

And the folks who 'claim' not to see this, and view it as a healthcare plan are viewing through the prism of their political aims.

The proof?

The single largest factor in the cost of US healthcare is not the mythical money grabbing CEOs and insurance companies, but is the threat of lawsuits by trial lawyers.

The defensive medicine being practiced in this country costs fifteen- that is 15- times the amount of profit the industry makes.

And nowhere in the Democrat 'plan' is the tort reform that would obviate this.


While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

 

[The T]

so folkes this whole thread was a waste of time.....Midcant....the smartest guy in the world just said so.....your all a bunch of procrastinators and cave dwellers...with a bad attitude....Midcant the Sphincter dweller has spoken....

And of course that poster cites the EU? (And how many times have we pulled thier collective asses out of the fire for Liberty sake)?

.....:

The EU? None.

Nevermind (and I highlighted it for you), I meant EU as in Europe as a whole. So please? Correct yourself?

 

[Diuretic]

And of course that poster cites the EU? (And how many times have we pulled thier collective asses out of the fire for Liberty sake)?

.....:

The EU? None.

Nevermind (and I highlighted it for you), I meant EU as in Europe as a whole. So please? Correct yourself?

Don't be embarrassed, it was a minor error.

Europe, the EU, easy to conflate. I mean Europe is a continent while the EU is an economic union of some of the countries on the continent of Europe.

Russia isn't in the EU but it's in Europe (and Asia).

During WWII Russia, as the Soviet Union, fought the Great Patriotic War against Hitler's Germany. The rest of Europe was either Axis, occupied or neutral. Britain, now part of the EU but back then not thinking of itself as being part of Europe ("Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off"), was a combatant nation but unoccupied (except for the Channel Islands).

The beginning of the end for the German forces in occupied Europe and for her Axis allies was Operational Overlord where substantial forces from the United States, Britain, Canada and other Allied nations invaded the Normandy beaches (Xenophon is good on this stuff). There were casualties on all sides as you would expect.

There are some very good books about this as well as some terrific documentaries.

The history of the EU is a bit bland, save for the boofhead de Gaulle and his famous "non" as a response to Britain's request for entry to the European Common Market at it was called at the time.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The EU? None.

Diuretic, you'll confuse them if you mention facts. Also I think in WWII they forget Russia's role but that sort of thinking confuses the wingnuts who get their information from the likes of Palin and Limbaugh.

why dont you go suck some Neo-leftist balls asshole....people with hateful attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with them are destroying this country....and your definatly one of them...the only difference is you come from the far left....FUCK YOU....

 

[veritas]

why dont you go suck some Neo-leftist balls asshole....people with hateful attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with them are destroying this country....and your definatly one of them...the only difference is you come from the far left....FUCK YOU....

Colbert? Izzat you?

 

[oreo]

I think everybody will agree that the majority of the American population wants to see some form of health care reform. Health insurance is either too expensive, or nearly so, for a great many people in the general population. Hospital cost, doctor's fees, and just about anything associated with medical practice here in America is through the roof in cost. People who don't have insurance are being treated and that cost is being pushed off to patients that do have insurance. For whatever reason, be it unemployed, or the company you work for doesn't provide health insurance, a large group of people don't have health insurance. Many don't have it out of personal choice. Health care in general is a problem in this country. It's been that way for probably 30 years or more.

Now, along comes the government and wants to change a 30 year old problem almost overnight by trying to push off onto America a bill that few of the Congressmen have even read and there are several versions of the bill being tossed around in Congress - all of which none of the Congressmen have read. We are told that members of their staff have read portions of it. The President is going around trying to sell a bill that hasn't even been completely written, yet alone read by anybody in it's entirety. Members of Congress are all up in arms saying that if you disagree with them you are somehow unAmerican or a Nazi. A bill to revise health care in America is trying to be rammed through Congress just as fast as it can be just so the politicians can say during the 2010 elections that they were responsible for making it happen for America.

Well, like the refs at a football game, the whistles have been blown and the yellow flags are flying. The support for this health care reform idea is loosing popularity more and more every day. People are leary and distrust Congressmen on this issue and rightfully so. What's the big rush? Health care in this country has been a chronic long-term problem that can't be fixed over night. If congress continues to try, any attempt will fail. Nothing will be solved.

My idea is simply this. Put this issue on the back burner for a month or so and let everybody take a deep breath and relax a little bit. Then throw everything that has been written to date in terms of HR 3200 into the trash can. Begin the process over but this time think about what you want to accomplish and do it in a reasonable and more acceptable way for the citizens of America. Everybody wants change. The thing that Washington is ignoring is that we want that change to be reasonable and something we can all afford. No secrets. No bait and switch sales tactics. Everything above board and out in the open. Have the Congressmen read the bill so they will know what they are talking about when they try to sell the idea to America. This is how you get reform. Not the way it is being handled now. All that is happening right now is the dividing of America on this issue.

I agree with you. They need to scrap this HR3200--come up with different private options like co-ops--do tort reform--for real effective reform--& then go back to the American public with different options & choices.

If they need too have a national vote--so we the people--can choose our own health care plan--then do it.

 

[veritas]

If they need too have a national vote--so we the people--can choose our own health care plan--then do it.

hmmm.......don't we have a representational republic instead of a true democracy? Seems to me that is what I heard somewhere.......

 

[Skull Pilot]

If they need too have a national vote--so we the people--can choose our own health care plan--then do it.

hmmm.......don't we have a representational republic instead of a true democracy? Seems to me that is what I heard somewhere.......

then let's put this issue to a vote. i would rather see a ballot initiative on this so we can see what the people really want and not what our so called representatives tell us we want.

we do the same for a number of issues on the state level, so why not let the people vote.

after all this bill is giving government unprecedented control over our lives and I'm sure not trusting my scum bag reps to do what i want.

 

[veritas]

then let's put this issue to a vote. i would rather see a ballot initiative on this so we can see what the people really want and not what our so called representatives tell us we want.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Do you actually know how our government is set up?

 

[Skull Pilot]

then let's put this issue to a vote. i would rather see a ballot initiative on this so we can see what the people really want and not what our so called representatives tell us we want.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Do you actually know how our government is set up?

So. It's time for people to take control from the government and assert our will.

Why would you be against this?

People have been trying for years to do this very thing.

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm

People ask for Constitutional amendments for the most trivial shit such as the definition of marriage but when it comes to putting more power in the hands of the people on proposed laws that increase government control we balk

 

[Emma]

suggestion 2 allow insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines.

Do you agree with the Health Insurance Exchange that was proposed? I think that is an excellent idea.

Then again you are the healthcare expert who claimed that when these mandates are added to the price of a healthcare insurance policy,

1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending


the price of the policy would go down.

Based on same, I'll take your view with a grain of salt.

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you agree with the Health Insurance Exchange that was proposed? I think that is an excellent idea.

Then again you are the healthcare expert who claimed that when these mandates are added to the price of a healthcare insurance policy,

1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending


the price of the policy would go down.

Based on same, I'll take your view with a grain of salt.

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

 

[veritas]

then let's put this issue to a vote. i would rather see a ballot initiative on this so we can see what the people really want and not what our so called representatives tell us we want.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution. Do you actually know how our government is set up?

So. It's time for people to take control from the government and assert our will.

Why would you be against this?

People have been trying for years to do this very thing.

National I&R

Against it? That wasn't what we were talking about. Methinks you didn't know that national referendums weren't a part of the US Constitution and went looking for something to bolster your position after I brought it to your attention.

People ask for Constitutional amendments for the most trivial shit such as the definition of marriage but when it comes to putting more power in the hands of the people on proposed laws that increase government control we balk

People propose stupid crap and not so so stupid crap all the time. We still don't have an equal rights amendment either, even though people think we got it. [don't get me started about that one] But what you propose would be a two parter, amend the entire process then vote on whatever. That's not the way things are set up. And it is a ridiculous argument to foist when the prospect is so unlikely. I still think you really didn't know. But now you do, so you learned something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The EU? None.

Diuretic, you'll confuse them if you mention facts. Also I think in WWII they forget Russia's role but that sort of thinking confuses the wingnuts who get their information from the likes of Palin and Limbaugh.

why dont you go suck some Neo-leftist balls asshole....people with hateful attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with them are destroying this country....and your definatly one of them...the only difference is you come from the far left....FUCK YOU....

We lost 6,000 guys and several women, give or take, at Normandy at D-Day, in a war that ended with atomic weapons. That 6,000 was the average every day on the Eastern Front from June 22, 1941, to the fall of Berlin at the end of April/first of May, 1945.

Emma, you are an idiot, plain and simple. Even a kook like Elvis can learn, but you simply, along with Avatar, sit on your parrot perch squawking.

 

[veritas]

Then again you are the healthcare expert who claimed that when these mandates are added to the price of a healthcare insurance policy,

1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending


the price of the policy would go down.

Based on same, I'll take your view with a grain of salt.

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

You are so typical of the "I got mine, so screw you" mindset. Just lumping the uninsured into medicare would lower the overall risk significantly. The pool would be larger so the income would increase. Medicare is concerned with mainly geriatric medicine and those practitioners that specialize in that field. If the pool was enlarged to include younger people, then more and other different practitioners would be in the mix. Just because I have insurance doesn't mean all of a sudden I am going to start utilizing it at the rate an older person does, quite the opposite is true. In fact, other than having children, I haven't needed much medical services at all in my lifetime so far. I used to have a dangerous occupation, [I have never been a skydiver] so you want to leave people with dangerous occupations out of the mix? I was never injured doing what I did, but only when helping one of my employers do what she wanted to do as a favor. Things happen. She paid for it, it was her fault and I didn't receive much care at all even though we went to Chevy Chase to the most expensive osteopath in the DC area. I muddled through and fixed myself. And what of my employer? She was doing almost the same level of what I was doing for pleasure, should the insurance company have ramped up her premiums? Excluded her?

Then there are victims of violent crime and motor vehicle accidents caused by people with inadequate [or uncooperative] insurance. There is no healthcare available past the shock trauma part of those types happenstances. And so what if "some guy" gets foreclosed upon because he was sick or injured, doesn't affect you does it? Well yes it does, it means less state and local taxes are getting paid and states aren't allowed to run deficits like the Federal government. So on which end would you like to take up the slack? The one that goes in a positive direction or the one that says screw you? You're only an accident away from being on the other side of this argument, perilously close unless you've got a million in cash stuffed in the couch.

 

[veritas]

Jake said:

Emma, you are an idiot, plain and simple. Even a kook like Elvis can learn, but you simply, along with Avatar, sit on your parrot perch squawking.

What'd I miss?

 

[Emma]

Then again you are the healthcare expert who claimed that when these mandates are added to the price of a healthcare insurance policy,

1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending


the price of the policy would go down.

Based on same, I'll take your view with a grain of salt.

I really couldn't care less.

The point I made on at least 2 other threads was that this would produce savings in the long-term. I believe I also provided data regarding the cost of complications of chronic diseases, (and the complications of those complications), lost productivity, disability, etc. So if you're going to attribute something to me, at least be honest about what I said, and put it in context.

But aside from that, it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies.

"I really couldn't care less."
No, you couldn't know less.

Adding every possible kind of coverage will cause the cost to go down, pretty absurd.

But it is consistent with the pie-in-the-sky thinking that also says increasing the number covered by millions, with no comensurate increase in healthcare providers will result in
a) no rationing
b) better quality of care
and, your favorite,
c) lower costs.

"it makes sense that competition and a larger consumer base will drive down the cost of policies."
This is only true if you remove the myriad mandates that liberal states have shoveled into policies. The idea is dirctly from a list of suggestions that I posted, several times.

Where do you find this in the ObamaCare plan? Nowhere. The opposite is true: more mandates, you know, the ones you claim will lower costs. Absurd.


No matter that every other universal care plan as shown the opposite: less care, rationing, making it illegal to buy additional coverage out of your own pocket, far, far, higher costs.

And you seem not to be aware of the reasons for trying to rush the plan through (before folks actually know what is in it), and the reasons for declining to give Americans access to courts when they get a big "NO" for care from bureaucrats.

Since you are not stupid, the only explanation must be that you want what you want, and will turn a blind eye to expericence and logic.

So typical of what has been come to be called the '60's generation'.

I can't wait for the adults to be back in charge.

Sorry you can't see beyond the immediate. Like I said (multiple times), I'm looking at long-term savings. Not that either one of us will ever be proven right, as it isn't going to pass regardless.

 

[Emma]

Jake said:

Emma, you are an idiot, plain and simple. Even a kook like Elvis can learn, but you simply, along with Avatar, sit on your parrot perch squawking.

What'd I miss?

Yeah, that was a bit confusing.

 

[Emma]

You are so typical of the "I got mine, so screw you" mindset. Just lumping the uninsured into medicare would lower the overall risk significantly. The pool would be larger so the income would increase. Medicare is concerned with mainly geriatric medicine and those practitioners that specialize in that field. If the pool was enlarged to include younger people, then more and other different practitioners would be in the mix. Just because I have insurance doesn't mean all of a sudden I am going to start utilizing it at the rate an older person does, quite the opposite is true. In fact, other than having children, I haven't needed much medical services at all in my lifetime so far. I used to have a dangerous occupation, [I have never been a skydiver] so you want to leave people with dangerous occupations out of the mix? I was never injured doing what I did, but only when helping one of my employers do what she wanted to do as a favor. Things happen. She paid for it, it was her fault and I didn't receive much care at all even though we went to Chevy Chase to the most expensive osteopath in the DC area. I muddled through and fixed myself. And what of my employer? She was doing almost the same level of what I was doing for pleasure, should the insurance company have ramped up her premiums? Excluded her?

Then there are victims of violent crime and motor vehicle accidents caused by people with inadequate [or uncooperative] insurance. There is no healthcare available past the shock trauma part of those types happenstances. And so what if "some guy" gets foreclosed upon because he was sick or injured, doesn't affect you does it? Well yes it does, it means less state and local taxes are getting paid and states aren't allowed to run deficits like the Federal government. So on which end would you like to take up the slack? The one that goes in a positive direction or the one that says screw you? You're only an accident away from being on the other side of this argument, perilously close unless you've got a million in cash stuffed in the couch.

For the record, this is what I previously posted that she is referring to:

Common sense tells you that preventative/maintenance health care is cost-effective. The direct and indirect costs of just one condition alone, diabetes (lol), costs $174 billion a year (that was from 2007, most likely has increased). Treatment itself is expensive, of course, but add to that the cost of all the complications (every system in the body is affected), lost work days and lost productivity from earlier death, disability, etc.

I'm not even for sure they factored in the extended costs of those complications... the complications of the complications, as it were.

I'm constantly amazed that people who wouldn't think of allowing their automobile to run until it broke down, never changing the oil or getting a tune up or whatever, think it's just fine that for far too many we're practicing crisis management instead of healthcare in this country.

I don't believe it's going to be the utopia that many on the left seem to put forth; I also don't believe it's going to bring about all the horrors the right keeps ranting about. But I do believe it will be an improvement over what passes for a healthcare system now.

Also, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (again, not all) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

So I guess my short answer is I'm looking ahead, not just at the immediate effects but long-term, and I like what I see. I don't believe this will pass, however. And I will be pissed.