Universal Health Care

[Awful_Things]

I read your post and I find a whole raft of unsupported assertions right out of talk-radio talking points.

And I find this response to be right out of the liberal blog handbook, which is to minimize another’s viewpoints by dismissing them as talking points.

I think you will find through investigation that, very few of the reasons you cite have any meaningful impact on health care costs.

Let’s take a look.

Also I’m afraid you are quite mistaken about my assessment of the reasons for the extraordinarily high cost of health care. It isn’t greed on anyone’s part. It is primarily a result of two factors, cutting edge technology and the large number of uninsured people who receive their primary care through emergency rooms.

You are right in that you didn’t mention greed specifically. I was reacting to a more general accusation, which isn’t fair to your point. I’ll address cutting edge technology below, though I’m more than willing to admit it is a factor. The uninsured using emergency rooms is a problem, but I think it is a problem caused by the factors below, which has pushed insurance out of their reach, so this is not a contradiction, but indication of a spiral. This spiraling effect will be important later when you are addressing defensive medicine.

You are correct that businesses opted to offer health insurance to their employees because of a wage freeze by the government, what you fail to mention is that the wage freeze was a measure the government enacted to fight World War II. Even then the wage controls were removed shortly after WWII (60 years ago!!).

I don’t believe I ever said wage controls lasted beyond that. My point was that the demand for employer-provided health care did. There is no noticeable decline in it after wage controls, which were irresponsible, disappeared.

The “administration and paperwork” is a bit of a red herring as well. Both Medicaid and Medicare have much lower administrative costs. Only about 5% of Medicare spending is administrative compared to 9% for private insurers (17% if you count marketing and commision costs!!). So that dog won’t hunt.
cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf

That dog will continue to hunt. Not only is the 5% estimate, itself, an example of hidden administrative costs, but any reduction is also the result of sloppy distribution of funds, which further burdens tax payers.

“Overuse of insurance”, I’ve never heard this one. I’ve heard that ER use is too high, generally because of the number of people who use the ER as their PCP and because insured folks often don’t find the hours of their PCP convenient to meet their “urgentish” needs. My understanding was that the rise of the “Doc-in-a-box” had largely addressed the second groups, but the first group was still a problem. Given the constant preaching about preventative care being cheaper than treatment, I’d be surprised if insurers actually wanted their insureds to visit the doctor’s less often. If you have any data on this I’d love to see it.

I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it, since it pops up so much in analysis. The last book I read on the subject was Medicare Myths by Dennis Furlong, the former New Brunswick Health Minister, who writes about the Canadian system.

“Fear of malpractice suits” Oh! I remember this one! This was the one the Malpractice Insurers trotted out a few years ago when that wave of “tort reform” swept the US. Well, the cost of insurance certainly isn’t a issue accounting for less than 2% of health care costs in the US.
makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

The 2% is a reference to increased costs due to insurance increases, themselves, and does not take into consideration the overuse of all that expensive new technology you mentioned earlier. While anecdotal evidence only goes so far, I’ve had my share of it from friends who are X-Ray technicians at both of our local hospitals and attest to the rise just over the last decade in such technology for very frivolous reasons by doctors who are consistently overly cautious.

As far as defensive medicine, the absolute highest estimate I’ve ever seen is that $210B (out of total spend of $2.1T) is spent on defensive medicine, which would account for ~10% of spending, but doesn’t explain the year over year increases at all.
blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/wasted-medical.html

It doesn’t explain it by itself, especially as this article does not tell us if that is a consistent number or if it is the average over a number of years, which might mean that an increase is visible with a year-to-year breakdown. In addition, we should be looking at increases over extended periods of time. It might be more realistic to look at a broader period than year-to-year. As a parent can attest, one sees the growth more realistically when you measure your kids once a year, not once a week.

 

[Awful_Things]

Now we’ve got state regulation. Here we may part company philosophically. But lets look at the best (worst?) case. Even the Heritage Foundation (a source I would imagine you’d approve of) estimates that the maximum cost of state regulation is about $2,000 per year. And of course that begs the question of who would be dong the regulating (I think even you would concede that
b some
regulation is necessary?). And what happened to this belief in “states rights” that all you conservatives were supposed to consider so sacrosanct?

States rights shouldn’t be taken by federal overrule. But individual rights trump both, and that is what you and I are both discussing, so the remark about conservative views is also a red herring.

So lets review the bidding. Discarding the wage control as true but irrelevant, discounting the mythical excessive administrative fees of Medicare and Medicaid, we’re left with defensive medicine at most! 10% and “state regulation” at $2,000/year.
The original quote was $12,000 per year, discounting that to 90% to eliminate “defensive medicine” we get $10,800, knocking off another $2,000 for state regulation we’re still left with $8,800 per year. In a society where 40% of households earn less than $40,000, (and the median is $50K) census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
that’s simply not affordable my anyone’s definition.

No, but this is dismissing many factors I mentioned which still are dismissable.

I suppose you could take the Social Darwinist position that people who can’t afford health insurance shouldn’t get health care, I suppose you could even believe that people shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford to provide them with health insurance, but I think both of these positions are inconsistent with Catholic philosophy and theology.

Nope, I wouldn’t take that position. To propose I would is a Zero Sum proposition, that I either concede your point or all of our sick go to hell. There are plenty of free market propositions. I would suppose that since you hadn’t heard the criticism of overuse, your research is incomplete. cato.org is a good start.

And none of this explains why the costs keep increasing so danged fast!

I think it does.

 

[Appleby]

The US is a democratic republic. Lets review - individuals vote (democracy) for people to represent them in govt (republic). Its that simple.

…and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands… There is nothing in the Constitution (and yes I know that is from the Pledge to the Flag) that says the USA is a democracy of any kind. It is a Republic.

Let us not condescend to others, please, even if we imagine that the others are merely ignorant Canadians; I am an American citizen, although I have lived up here for 11 years.

 

[BillP]

…and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands… There is nothing in the Constitution (and yes I know that is from the Pledge to the Flag) that says the USA is a democracy of any kind. It is a Republic.

This is quite simply wrong.

First lets define “democracy”

1 a**:** government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b**:** a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them** directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections**
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

My emphasis.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Now lets look at the US Constitution:

Article 1 Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several State

Article 1 Section 3 (as amended) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

15th Amendment: 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

These passages clearly demonstrate the fact that supreme power in the US is invested in the people.

I think where you’re making a mistake is this notion that “democracy” and “republic” are somehow mutually exclusive. In fact, a “republic” is a subset of “democracies”. Which is to say that all “republics” are democracies (they have to be or they’re not republics, but oligarchies).

 

[celticcrusader]

This is quite simply wrong.

First lets define “democracy”

My emphasis.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Now lets look at the US Constitution:

These passages clearly demonstrate the fact that supreme power in the US is invested in the people.

I think where you’re making a mistake is this notion that “democracy” and “republic” are somehow mutually exclusive. In fact, a “republic” is a subset of “democracies”. Which is to say that all “republics” are democracies (they have to be or they’re not republics, but oligarchies).

BILL, I do not want to sideline this thread but these statements you make are wrong and I do not want people to be misinformed more than they are! I do not think the Founding Fathers of our great Nation looked to a dictionary to define what type of Govt. they wanted. Our GOVT. is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC , a system where the U.S.Constitution is the supreme law and citizens elect representatives to govt. that will protect you. The Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. went to great measures to ensure that our new Nation was not a Democracy! I thank them for having this expertise and foresight ,Now it is our job to KEEP it.

 

[Jean_1958]

Catholic Health Association Call on Congress to Expand Health Coverage to Millions of Uninsured

WASHINGTON (March 12, 2003) – Calling the fact that one in seven Americans does not have health insurance “morally unacceptable,” three national Catholic organizations are pressing Congress to increase access to affordable health care to the millions of uninsured in the United States.

In a letter to the leadership of the Senate and House Budget Committees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) urged Congress to dedicate at least $89 billion over the next 10 years to expand coverage for the uninsured, the amount set aside by President George W. Bush in his fiscal 2004 budget proposal.

“We consider access to adequate health care to be a basic human right, necessary for the development and maintenance of life and for the ability of human beings to realize the fullness of their dignity. A just society is one that protects and promotes the fundamental rights of its members – with special attention to meeting the basic needs of the poor and underserved, including the need for safe and affordable health care,” wrote Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of the Archdiocese of Washington, and chair of USCCB’s Domestic Policy Committee, Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities USA, and Rev. Michael D. Place, STD, CHA’s president and chief executive officer.

In their letter, which was copied to all members of the committees, the organizations also called on Congress to provide immediate fiscal relief to states for their Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provide health coverage to millions of low-income adults and children. In dire fiscal straits, state and local governments are slashing their Medicaid and other health care budgets. “We urge Congress to act quickly to provide immediate relief for these programs and prevent the erosion of coverage to our most vulnerable beneficiaries,” said the letter.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 42 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2001. Eight out of 10 were from working families. In most cases, the main wage earners in these families either had jobs that offered no health coverage or their premiums were unaffordable.

“People who lack health insurance are far less likely to receive basic health care services, and are generally in poorer health as a result,” wrote Cardinal McCarrick, Fr. Place, and Fr. Hehir. "Studies show they delay seeking care even when in need of medical attention, do not fill prescriptions and have trouble paying medical bills. The uninsured have more difficulty obtaining primary care and access to essential medication, and have a higher rate of hospitalization for treatable conditions such as hypertension, asthma or diabetes.

The letter is available online at chausa.org/publicpo/03030…_Uninsured.pdf.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Domestic Policy Committee speaks for the U.S. bishops on health care and other social and economic programs. For more information, visit www.usccb.org.

The St. Louis-based Catholic Health Association of the United States is the national leadership organization of the Catholic health ministry, engaged in the strategic directions of mission, ethics, and advocacy. CHA’s more than 2,000 members form the nation’s largest group of not-for-profit health care sponsors, systems, facilities, health plans, and related organizations. For more information, visit the CHA Web site at www.chausa.org.

Catholic Charities USA’s members—1,640 local agencies and institutions nationwide—provide help and create hope for more than seven million people a year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds. For more than 275 years, local Catholic Charities agencies have been providing a myriad of vital services in their communities, ranging from day care and counseling to food and housing. For more information, visit www.catholiccharitiesinfo.org.

For media inquiries, e-mail us at commdept@usccb.org
Department of Communications | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

 

[Awful_Things]

Catholic Health Association Call on Congress to Expand Health Coverage to Millions of Uninsured

WASHINGTON (March 12, 2003) – Calling the fact that one in seven Americans does not have health insurance “morally unacceptable,” three national Catholic organizations are pressing Congress to increase access to affordable health care to the millions of uninsured in the United States.

In a letter to the leadership of the Senate and House Budget Committees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA) urged Congress to dedicate at least $89 billion over the next 10 years to expand coverage for the uninsured, the amount set aside by President George W. Bush in his fiscal 2004 budget proposal.

“We consider access to adequate health care to be a basic human right, necessary for the development and maintenance of life and for the ability of human beings to realize the fullness of their dignity. A just society is one that protects and promotes the fundamental rights of its members – with special attention to meeting the basic needs of the poor and underserved, including the need for safe and affordable health care,” wrote Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of the Archdiocese of Washington, and chair of USCCB’s Domestic Policy Committee, Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities USA, and Rev. Michael D. Place, STD, CHA’s president and chief executive officer.

In their letter, which was copied to all members of the committees, the organizations also called on Congress to provide immediate fiscal relief to states for their Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provide health coverage to millions of low-income adults and children. In dire fiscal straits, state and local governments are slashing their Medicaid and other health care budgets. “We urge Congress to act quickly to provide immediate relief for these programs and prevent the erosion of coverage to our most vulnerable beneficiaries,” said the letter.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 42 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2001. Eight out of 10 were from working families. In most cases, the main wage earners in these families either had jobs that offered no health coverage or their premiums were unaffordable.

“People who lack health insurance are far less likely to receive basic health care services, and are generally in poorer health as a result,” wrote Cardinal McCarrick, Fr. Place, and Fr. Hehir. "Studies show they delay seeking care even when in need of medical attention, do not fill prescriptions and have trouble paying medical bills. The uninsured have more difficulty obtaining primary care and access to essential medication, and have a higher rate of hospitalization for treatable conditions such as hypertension, asthma or diabetes.

The letter is available online at chausa.org/publicpo/03030…_Uninsured.pdf.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Domestic Policy Committee speaks for the U.S. bishops on health care and other social and economic programs. For more information, visit www.usccb.org.

The St. Louis-based Catholic Health Association of the United States is the national leadership organization of the Catholic health ministry, engaged in the strategic directions of mission, ethics, and advocacy. CHA’s more than 2,000 members form the nation’s largest group of not-for-profit health care sponsors, systems, facilities, health plans, and related organizations. For more information, visit the CHA Web site at www.chausa.org.

Catholic Charities USA’s members—1,640 local agencies and institutions nationwide—provide help and create hope for more than seven million people a year regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds. For more than 275 years, local Catholic Charities agencies have been providing a myriad of vital services in their communities, ranging from day care and counseling to food and housing. For more information, visit www.catholiccharitiesinfo.org.

For media inquiries, e-mail us at commdept@usccb.org
Department of Communications | 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 | (202) 541-3000 © USCCB. All rights reserved.

okay

 

[gron0083]

I’m replying to the OP…but I do feel it necessary to mention, Awful Things, you did a fantabulous job at summarizing the reasons for skyrocketing costs!

Is universal health care a moral obligation on the United States? The US is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. It has more millions and billionaires than every other nation combined. Isn’t there a gospel mandate to love your neighbor and care for the sick and poor amonst us?

Personally I think that health care should be a right. That said, I have no idea how to fund it without rationing. I like the idea of increasing funding and availability of community health centers, that at least should help the uninsured get access to primary care. But personally I’m caught between saying “let’s have a government run single payer plan and the rich can pay for the rationed services out of their own pocket” and “let’s open it up to the free market more and hope that it lowers costs.”
I guess I think that it should be a right for the same reason that I believe in vaccination. I believe that the health of one person in society inevitably affects the health of another person (whether their illness be contagious or not). It seems very inhumane to allow people to suffer if there are resources available that could alleviate their suffering.
IMHO…

 

[KeepTrying]

I do believe everyone should have needed healthcare.
In the United States WE THE PEOPLE have some role to play in encouraging this.

I don’t believe anyone should be denied needed healthcare.

 

[celticcrusader]

Hi , Keep Trying, always good to see new people here, what is a confused lapsed catholic?

 

[Ceil-1]

If we went to Universal Health care, we couldn’t sue the doctor for our every hangnail.

 

[Jean_1958]

If we went to Universal Health care, we couldn’t sue the doctor for our every hangnail.

Is that all people think about in this country is suing someone else? I think we’re too sue happy in this country.

Jean

 

[Awful_Things]

If we went to Universal Health care, we couldn’t sue the doctor for our every hangnail.

I guess I’m ignorant on this, but how does tax-payer-funded health care prevent lawsuits?

 

[srlucado]

Is universal health care a moral obligation on the United States?

No. Aside from the fact that there is no way to alleviate the basic conundrum of finite supply vs. nearly infinite demand, there are people who don’t want health insurance, and they should not be forced to have it.

(For that matter, citizens should not be forced to contribute to Social Security, either.)

Remember, the Constitution says government’s responsibility is to “*promote *the general Welfare”, not *provide *it.

 

[Jean_1958]

No. Aside from the fact that there is no way to alleviate the basic conundrum of finite supply vs. nearly infinite demand, there are people who don’t want health insurance, and they should not be forced to have it.

(For that matter, citizens should not be forced to contribute to Social Security, either.)

Remember, the Constitution says government’s responsibility is to “*promote *the general Welfare”, not *provide *it.

There are many things that we have to do in life whether we want to or not. Contributing to Social Security is one of them. Social Security is for the greater good of the people. It helps supplement an eldery person’s income, as pension alone is not enough.

There are many countries where the government does not provide for the general welfare of its people. Their governments are generally corrupt and their people are oppressed. That is why people from those countries like to immigrate here, if given the opportunity.

I think it is our government’s responsibility to not only promote but to provide to its citizens and to help look out for their general welfare. It is the right and Christianly thing to do.

Jean

 

[srlucado]

There are many things that we have to do in life whether we want to or not. Contributing to Social Security is one of them. Social Security is for the greater good of the people. It helps supplement an eldery person’s income, as pension alone is not enough.

There are many countries where the government does not provide for the general welfare of its people. Their governments are generally corrupt and their people are oppressed. That is why people from those countries like to immigrate here, if given the opportunity.

I think it is our government’s responsibility to not only promote but to provide to its citizens and to help look out for their general welfare. It is the right and Christianly thing to do.

Jean

Nice sentiments, but nothing in the Constitution supports it. The Constitution should either be changed or followed–but ignoring it hardly seems proper *or *legal. And we’re still a nation of laws, aren’t we?

 

[Toughguy]

Jean_1958;5214291]

There are many things that we have to do in life whether we want to or not. Contributing to Social Security is one of them. Social Security is for the greater good of the people. It helps supplement an eldery person’s income, as pension alone is not enough.

Or even when it IS enough.

I think it is our government’s responsibility to not only promote but to provide to its citizens and to help look out for their general welfare. It is the right and Christianly thing to do.

Ok. So how much extra money have YOU sent into the IRS, other than general taxes? You are free to do so any time you wish. Lead by example, if you will.

I think it is our government’s responsibility to **not only promote but to provide **to its citizens and to help look out for their general welfare

That’s what YOU think. The Founders thought differently.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

promote:

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish;

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Provide for the general welfare of the UNITED STATES, not necessarily something specific to everyone in it.

 

[nancit]

Is universal health care a moral obligation on the United States? The US is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. It has more millions and billionaires than every other nation combined. Isn’t there a gospel mandate to love your neighbor and care for the sick and poor amonst us?

First off, everyone in the United States does have access to healthcare…what you are trying to ask though, is does the government have a moral oblligation to provide healthcare INSURANCE…the answer is simple…NO!

The government provides an environment where all have access to medical care when in need…which already exists here in the US.

As for how many millionares or billionares there may be…that’s irrelevant. It is NOT the government’s duty to take from one to “give” to another. That is ONLY an individual requirement/act…it is for me to give and to help those who I feel are in need…when I can, period!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

First off, everyone in the United States does have access to healthcare…what you are trying to ask though, is does the government have a moral oblligation to provide healthcare INSURANCE…the answer is simple…NO!

The government provides an environment where all have access to medical care when in need…which already exists here in the US.

As for how many millionares or billionares there may be…that’s irrelevant. It is NOT the government’s duty to take from one to “give” to another. That is ONLY an individual requirement/act…it is for me to give and to help those who I feel are in need…when I can, period!

Nancit, Varc & everyone else:

I think a lot of Catholics haven’t been taught that we aren’t going to be judged for whether or not we got our government to tax others to take care of the poor or to provide medical insurance to the uninsured. We haven’ been taught that our Lord made us personally and as the Body of Christ, responsible for those described in these passages:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'And the King will answer them,‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?'Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.'And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

**Matt. 25: 31-46 ESV

**Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. James 1:27 ESV

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17 ESV
That Mandate is given, not to government and to unbelievers, but to the Church and to believers. The government and unbelievers won’t be judged for failing to provide for those in need. We will.

Because WE don’t TITHE, and haven’t been taking care of our fellow Christians, we’ve tried to “palm it off” on the government, on unbelievers. This isn’t the Government’s job. it’s OUR job. It’s our job in our Extended Families, our Churches and our Local Communities to take care of the needs of our neighbors who can’t take of themselves. Except for schools, emergency services, libraries, parks and other Community Services and necessary government regulation, Government shouldn’t need to get involved in helping individuals unless local and community resources simply can’t do the job.

I think our failure to Tithe has forced us to make unacceptable moral compromises, to accept government funded health care that would pay not only for Contraception and Artificial Insemination but for Abortion and Euthanasia. We will rue the day we made these compromises, because the “Conscience Clause” exemptions will prove to be a “Fig-Leave” easily removed at the whim of a capricious government that will never recognize the concept of a “God-Given Right”.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[celticcrusader]

Very well stated Michael, you will get no argument from me only agreement.