I know that there are a number of people here that know more about this stuff than I do.
Basically, one judge (so far) has ruled that the Health Care Bill (or at least part of it) is unconstitutional. So what does that mean right now? And what does that mean in the long term?
I don't know whether I know that much about any of it, and IANAL, but my impression that it doesn't mean much, at least not in the short term. The provision in question was (IIRC) to take effect in 2014. It's virtually guaranteed to hit the Supreme Court before then, and I think any long-term implications will come of what is decided when it does.
I do believe that even supporters of the law would largely agree that it no longer makes sense without mandatory insurance for all.
I know that there are a number of people here that know more about this stuff than I do.
Basically, one judge (so far) has ruled that the Health Care Bill (or at least part of it) is unconstitutional. So what does that mean right now? And what does that mean in the long term?
Ack! Is it too late to put "Serious" at the front of this topic so those who are against serious topics know to stay out(although the political footer kinda dos the same)????!?!
I am unsure. I don't think it stops right there unless other judges chime in. Also, to my knowledge, the judge has problems with parts of the bill, not the whole thing, although I could be wrong.
I know that there are a number of people here that know more about this stuff than I do.
Basically, one judge (so far) has ruled that the Health Care Bill (or at least part of it) is unconstitutional. So what does that mean right now? And what does that mean in the long term?
I don't know whether I know that much about any of it, and IANAL, but my impression that it doesn't mean much, at least not in the short term. The provision in question was (IIRC) to take effect in 2014. It's virtually guaranteed to hit the Supreme Court before then, and I think any long-term implications will come of what is decided when it does.
I do believe that even supporters of the law would largely agree that it no longer makes sense without mandatory insurance for all.
I tend to agree. I find it a promising start, but I'm not holding out much hope. Even if SCOTUS overturns some or all of the bill the legislature will find some other way to circumvent the constitution and impose its will on the people.
Again, just give me the insurance equivalent that's good for the politicians on Capitol Hill. Why isn't that easy to figure out?
*sighs*
|
What is Needed is Free but Compulsory Medical Treatment for All because Health of the Workforce is Tied to its Economic Strength. The More people Sick the Greater the rate of Workforce Decline during changes in Population Stability.
Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.
If you want to get ugly - All Corporations should be required to provide Corporate Barracks Housing for its Employees (as part of their income).
Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.
I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.
|
Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.
Uh...I don't think he's being sarcastic.
Uh...I don't think he's being sarcastic.Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.
It's always hard to tell with YD; that's why I'm so conflicted when I find one of his points valid. Did he make a very good point or am I agreeing with a satirical point. It's all kind of confusing which is the YD way.;)
The bill needs a serious re-work anyways. A single-payer system is probably the best option in the end, otherwise you end up with a "worst of all worlds" scenario.
This is one of my many problems with compromise being seen as such a good thing in politics. It's often said that a compromise bill is better than nothing. I rarely agree. I think we very often wind up with the worst elements of both sides while the politicians boast that they got something done. Every one loses, and the politicians take credit. How is this progress?
Uh...I don't think he's being sarcastic.Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.
No, I'm pretty sure nobody thinks it's a good idea to utterly demolish our upper-lower and lower-middle classes with a 50% tax rate, as well as wipe out every small business which may bring in over $100,000 but has enough expenses, such as paying employees, high property taxes, and being able to support their own families, that they are in no shape to lose 50% of their income. Even if this was just a tax on net income, it'd be debilitating for companies to lose half of their profits, which they couldn't use to grow their companies, research new products, or improve their current products.
Also, this system would make it worse for people who make between $30,000 and about $50,000 or $60,000(depending on what the tax rate would be for those who make less than $30,000), such as a majority of kids fresh out of college who already struggle to pay the loans they have to take out to pay the growing education costs.
|
I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I'd call goalpost-moving, but I don't think you and eye are going to see eye to eye on this one.
|
|
I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I think the pitch is akin to the SS ponzi-like scheme where everyone is required to pay via a tax. The only problem is that this regulating the purchase of an actual product via commerce clause.
This whole thing was unconstitutional from the get go.
I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I find it sad that driving on the roads my taxes paid for so that I can go to work and pay more taxes is a privilege. This seems dreadfully perverse to me.
I find it sad that driving on the roads my taxes paid for so that I can go to work and pay more taxes is a privilege. This seems dreadfully perverse to me.I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
|
|
I find it sad that driving on the roads my taxes paid for so that I can go to work and pay more taxes is a privilege. This seems dreadfully perverse to me.I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
I actually kind of agree with the requirement for having a license to drive. Blind people, for one, shouldn't be driving. and, were driving an actual right, we'd have to bend heaven and earth to accommodate blind drivers under the ADA.
I don't even mind the insurance requirement. I've had a car totaled by someone without insurance, and I was screwed (and car-less) for nearly a year.
What I do find absolutely abhorrent is what happened with our stretch of I-10 here. They upgraded the road with Federal funds, then turned two lanes in each direction into toll lanes. Now, one of the two each way is an HOV lane for six hours each day, but anything built with tax dollars requiring users to pay an extra fee is ridiculous. See: every other road in New Jersey.
I find it sad that driving on the roads my taxes paid for so that I can go to work and pay more taxes is a privilege. This seems dreadfully perverse to me.I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
It's not about privilege.
Insurance is to help those cases where the person in the car comes into the emergency care unconscious - maybe unidentified.
Should the hospital wait to treat the patient until the person is identified and whether or not they can cover medical expenses is determined?
Should the hospital depend on EMTALA (*sarcasm* which has done -so- well *sarcasm*)?
Mandated auto insurance is a way to keep a bad situation from getting worse.
The thing is, though, that mandated auto insurance limits are set by the state, not the federal government.
I've got no problem with states setting mandated health insurance. But I certainly do have a problem with the federal government doing it.
Constitutional issues aside, is there any evidence that compulsory insurance has done what you want?
|
|
So what's going to happen when I'm in a car wreck and the person doesn't have car insurance because it's no longer constitutional to require them to buy it?
How does unpaid ER visits costing 10's of billions of dollars every year have no impact on interstate commerce? Looks like one of them thar "activist judges" wanted to stir the pot a bit.
If the "mandate" is ruled unconstitutional there are very serious potential implications that need to be thoroughly considered.
You are now 2cp richer.
Constitutional issues aside, is there any evidence that compulsory insurance has done what you want?I find it sad that driving on the roads my taxes paid for so that I can go to work and pay more taxes is a privilege. This seems dreadfully perverse to me.I guess it means at least one judge in America can read the Constitution. Nothing in the document gives government the power to mandate anyone to be forced to buy a service or product.
And don't bring up auto insurance. No one is required to buy it, only people who wish to enjoy the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads need to buy insurance. And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.
It's not about privilege.
Insurance is to help those cases where the person in the car comes into the emergency care unconscious - maybe unidentified.
Should the hospital wait to treat the patient until the person is identified and whether or not they can cover medical expenses is determined?
Should the hospital depend on EMTALA (*sarcasm* which has done -so- well *sarcasm*)?
Mandated auto insurance is a way to keep a bad situation from getting worse.
The thing is, though, that mandated auto insurance limits are set by the state, not the federal government.
I've got no problem with states setting mandated health insurance. But I certainly do have a problem with the federal government doing it.
I don't know
But I see how it would fail to
In my personal experience compulsory insurance resulted in substantial price increases in auto insurance that forced even more drivers to drive without insurance in Colorado to be able to get to work. Compulsory insurance criminalized those drivers who wanted insurance but could not afford it, but they had to use the "privilege" of driving to get to work and provide for their families. Compulsory auto insurance penalized the working poor, and it failed meet its stated objective, but it enriched the auto insurance industry through rent seeking. In my experience an idea that sounded good hurt everyone involved while enriching a powerful interest group. Everyone involved lost except the rent seekers, and the political class got to take credit for "doing something". I don't see how the government helped anyone except for the insurance lobby.
This sound a lot like Obamacare to me.
So what's going to happen when I'm in a car wreck and the person doesn't have car insurance because it's no longer constitutional to require them to buy it?
How does unpaid ER visits costing 10's of billions of dollars every year have no impact on interstate commerce? Looks like one of them thar "activist judges" wanted to stir the pot a bit.
If the "mandate" is ruled unconstitutional there are very serious potential implications that need to be thoroughly considered.
You are now 2cp richer.
In your model what do the working poor do? They lose no matter what.
If they have to choose between car insurance and feeding their kids then their kids don't eat.
If you get hurt by an uninsured driver the government picks up the tab in the current socialist model.
In your example the government subsidizes emergency care so everyone must be penalized because a federal program has turned out to be inefficient. The government makes a stupid choice, and now we have to give more power and money to our oppressors to "fix" their mistake. Then when the latest fix turns out to be a disaster we have to pay billions more to "fix" that and so on. Is there any point where we realize that the government we elected to help us is shafting us? What does it take?
In my personal experience compulsory insurance resulted in substantial price increases in auto insurance that forced even more drivers to drive without insurance in Colorado to be able to get to work. Compulsory insurance criminalized those drivers who wanted insurance but could not afford it, but they had to use the "privilege" of driving to get to work and provide for their families. Compulsory auto insurance penalized...You make a very good point, BT, which I have no counter to.
I wonder, though, if that problem might go away if there were more competition in the auto industry.
I am all in favor of more competition. I think one of the options the insurance industry should have to compete with is "none of the above".
I think it is insane not to have some kind of insurance protection when driving. Heaven forbid someone hit a small child who ran into the street at the last second. What if their parents don't have health insurance? I want my insurance to cover the medical and property costs, but what if I'm going through a rough patch like a divorce or seriously ill child? Should I be a criminal because I missed my insurance payment? Missing my insurance payment could have terrible consequences in this scenario. Some would argue that this is why we should have universal care or compulsory insurance, but none of the compulsions come without a cost.
I get the impulse to create some kind of system where everyone is protected and no one falls through the cracks, but it seems to me that government has not shown the ability to create such a system that we can afford.
Setting aside the fact that I don't trust the government with this kind of power, does history and evidence show that the government can do this in an effective way?
|
|
So what's going to happen when I'm in a car wreck and the person doesn't have car insurance because it's no longer constitutional to require them to buy it?
How does unpaid ER visits costing 10's of billions of dollars every year have no impact on interstate commerce? Looks like one of them thar "activist judges" wanted to stir the pot a bit.
If the "mandate" is ruled unconstitutional there are very serious potential implications that need to be thoroughly considered.
You are now 2cp richer.
Your first example is irrelevant, as no one requires you to drive. But, the current health care bill does require you to purchase something from a private vendor just for being alive.
The second situation only exists because of another (probably unconstitutional) unfunded Federal mandate requiring hospitals to care for patients regardless of ability to pay. Furthermore, since insurance companies are prohibited from actually engaging in interstate commerce (an insurance company in California cannot offer insurance in Texas, for instance, without opening a shell company in Texas, which has to be financially separate from the parent company). Therefore, insurance is, actually, not interstate commerce by law.
Ergo, there will be no "repercussions", as it affects the status quo on several other issues not one whit.
|
|
So what's going to happen when I'm in a car wreck and the person doesn't have car insurance because it's no longer constitutional to require them to buy it?
How does unpaid ER visits costing 10's of billions of dollars every year have no impact on interstate commerce? Looks like one of them thar "activist judges" wanted to stir the pot a bit.
If the "mandate" is ruled unconstitutional there are very serious potential implications that need to be thoroughly considered.
You are now 2cp richer.
In your model what do the working poor do? They lose no matter what.
If they have to choose between car insurance and feeding their kids then their kids don't eat.
If you get hurt by an uninsured driver the government picks up the tab in the current socialist model.
In your example the government subsidizes emergency care so everyone must be penalized because a federal program has turned out to be inefficient. The government makes a stupid choice, and now we have to give more power and money to our oppressors to "fix" their mistake. Then when the latest fix turns out to be a disaster we have to pay billions more to "fix" that and so on. Is there any point where we realize that the government we elected to help us is shafting us? What does it take?
No, in my model I pay more because I carry uninsured motorist insurance to cover the (very real) possibility that if I get into a wreck the other driver might not have insurance. If I didn't have this coverage, the government wouldn't pay me for my car...I'd have to (pointlessly) sue the other driver for the damages. I don't collect and I'm out a car.
As for EMTALA, what is your suggestion? That hospitals be allowed to turn away critically injured and/or women in active labor in order to save a buck? Everyone wins when everyone has insurance...the more people in the pool, the less everyone pays.
Also, under the current regulations, how do the expenditures incurred under EMTALA not fall under the purview of the interstate commerce clause?
Moff, the decision means only that the entire thing will get heard by the Supreme Court. Which was gonna happen anyways.
What happens there? Who knows. I can't see how the individual mandate is in any way constitutional, but I can see where other pieces would be upheld. After all, we have a freaking Ponzi scheme as the national retirement program. Benard Madoff went to jail for copying the Social Security investment strategy.
Strangely enough, during the primaries, Prez-BO disagreed with Hillary Clinton when she said an individual mandate was the only way to effectively do this deal. I know, a politician who can't tell the truth? Shocking.
|
|
Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.
I'm being Serious. You want the Good Life, you fix the problem for everyone, and make it better for yourself in the long run. If people are no longer sick and desperate, there will be less of them committing crimes.
If you can fix health, it fixes the other problems too.
Then all you need is a fixed 50% Tax on all Corporation and Business income above $100,000, and 50% Tax on all private income above $30,000 to pay for it.I don't want to comment on this because I'm pretty sure you're being completely sarcastic, right? It seems obvious that you're being sarcastic but this is the internet and it's hard to judge tone so I wanted to make sure.I'm being Serious. You want the Good Life, you fix the problem for everyone, and make it better for yourself in the long run. If people are no longer sick and desperate, there will be less of them committing crimes.
If you can fix health, it fixes the other problems too.
Yes, because cutting everyone making $40k a year down to $20k a year won't make them desperate at all, neither will ensuring that everyone with student loans who can't find a high paying job will suddenly be defaulting on their loans. What about the loss of buying power when suddenly half of your income is gone, who is out pumping cash into the economy if they can't afford to live on their suddenly worthless $50k per year job?
So far, living in a studio apartment in a low housing cost city and eating sparingly we've spent $8,757 a year. Now how does he get to work? He doesn't own a car, no way he'd afford one or the insurance, so he takes the bus. We'll say he's lucky and pays a total of $50 a month on transportation only, or $600 a year. He has to have a cell phone or home phone, some way of getting in touch with work, family, friends, but he is able to get a deal for only $25 a month($300 a year), including the cost of the phone, and no hidden fees or overages of any kind. He doesn't own a TV, or if he does he doesn't watch it, and while he has a computer and internet so he can get emails from his bosses, he sticks with a $25 a month($300/yr) dial up plan, including all fees and cords, and he uses a basic computer that cost him $100 and can just run his web browser and basic office tools for work, no gaming for this guy. Total now spent is at $10,057.
Clothing is next. Working a typical office job he needs to be presentable, but we'll say that for $200 he is able to get every item of clothing and shoes he will need(average cost for clothing a month according to http://www.leavingthefolks.com/cost.php is $58/month in Texas, so this is low). Now we get into the real expensive stuff, student loans. According to Project for Student Debt, and the answer I found here, average student loan debt works out to around $21,000 dollars, which is paid back at $242.82 a month. Rounding that up to $250 to be easier to calculate gives our poor guy $3,000 a year in loan debt to pay back for close to 10 years assuming a very low interest rate, and that's assuming he didn't go to a private school and doesn't have any credit card debt. Up to $13,257 spent of his $20k brought home. Finally, we'll say he plays the percentages and smartly saves 10% of his take home income for retirement, the minimum amount recommended for 20-somethings to save if they plan on living on 80% of their retirement once they retire(here). That's $2,000 a year and will not be enough unless his income starts increasing in a hurry or he is able to supplement that somehow.
I don't want to look for average costs of toiletries, haircuts, laundry, and other incidentals, so I'll completely wave those and say that our fantasy guy only spends $15,257 a year on everything. That's great right, leaves him with almost $5k left of his paycheck, but this is a guy who spends absolutely nothing on books or games, never goes on dates, has no gym membership and does no physical activity requiring any sort of equipment, has no television, internet, movies, furniture, or clothes beyond the bare minimum needed to be presentable and function at work. He takes no vacations, never goes out with his office buddies, has no car, no house, no assets. He has no life insurance, but since he has no dependents that doesn't matter so much, and while his health is covered he has no dental coverage. Also, I've low-balled everything, especially the housing since if he paid the average for an apartment even in Austin, 7% below the national average, that would add $200 a month to his expenses.
And what if this guy had kids, or wanted to get married, or had a child? What if he had to commute to work, as the majority of people in the DFW area I know do, and needed a car to survive? Or what if he made less than $40k a year, lots of my friends are making in the low $30s as they juggle living and paying off student loans, and they pay a fraction of the taxes your plan would call for.
I respect your opinion, and understand that you feel universal health care is worth doing, but I can't agree that the idea you presented is in any way feasible. I really need to stick out of political threads though, so I'll just post this example/rant that I wasted so much time writing and leave it at that.
|
|
Your first example is irrelevant, as no one requires you to drive. But, the current health care bill does require you to purchase something from a private vendor just for being alive.
Is it really irrelevant? If we had a public transportation infrastructure like that of other countries, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that we don't (and probably won't). Thanks to "urban sprawl" most areas require you to drive if you're going to work, get groceries, etc.--all of the day to day necessities.
The second situation only exists because of another (probably unconstitutional) unfunded Federal mandate requiring hospitals to care for patients regardless of ability to pay. Furthermore, since insurance companies are prohibited from actually engaging in interstate commerce (an insurance company in California cannot offer insurance in Texas, for instance, without opening a shell company in Texas, which has to be financially separate from the parent company). Therefore, insurance is, actually, not interstate commerce by law.
So I will again pose the question...is allowing hospitals to turn away critically injured/ill patients and/or women in active labor a better solution?
Ergo, there will be no "repercussions", as it affects the status quo on several other issues not one whit.
I disagree...I think if the mandate portion of this is overturned it will affect many other things. In all reality, this could be creatively extrapolated to auto insurance, taxes, medicare/caid, social security, etc. I mean you have to make money to live, right? And they're forcing you to pay, right?
|
Another difference between the whole "car insurance" vice "health insurance" - car insurance is mandated by state, with different states doing different things. The health insurance requirement is (with this bill) set at the federal level. Personally, I fall on the side of "this is an overextension of the gov'ts powers and a violation of the Constitution".
|
|
I spent a year walking to work, the grocery store, etc. So, it's certainly possible to live without a car. I estimate that I was walking more than 50 miles a week during that time. It was a bit inconvenient, but not bad.
Not saying it's not inconvenient, but depending on the area it could be impossible. Housing costs vary by area within cities and the house/apt a person can afford might not be within possible walking/public transportation distance.
Who should pay for it and how do you get them to pay? We've got a problem right now where half a person's pay check goes to taxes. This means that, in many two parent houses, both parents have to work. Kids, then, are raised eating crap. Childhood obesity is sky high in this country. This leads to lifelong medical expenses which, I guess, you are okay with passing onto the taxpayer, which will lead to even more of a person's paycheck going to taxes which will cause them to have to work longer hours which will lead to their kids spending even more time taking care of themselves, etc. At what point do you stop and ask yourself, "is this really such a good idea?"
I'm not talking about long-term illnesses. I'm talking about emergency care. Life, limb, eyesight, etc. Yes, under the current model people use the ER for non-life threatening injuries...but that's because they don't have insurance. Requiring hospitals to treat emergency patients is a good thing...othewise you end up with ambulances driving all over town to find a hospital because they can't definitively say whether or not a patient has insurance (unconcious, no wallet, etc.).
|
|
Requiring hospitals to treat emergency patients is a good thing.Hospitals are already required to treat emergency patients under EMTALA (which is a federal mandate). In case you're not aware, it's been harming hospitals - they're going bankrupt.
Some might be, but others make up for the costs of EMTALA by charging more for other services received by insured patients.
Also, what alternative do you propose to EMTALA?
|
|
The fact of the matter is, the government has the power to do absolutely anything it wants to anyone (or everyone) it wants, at any time it wants. And since it has more guns than you, or any of us, there's not much we're going to do about it but comply.
...and there's the ultimate point: In spite of all the noise being made by a mewling public, the fact of the matter is we will always comply with whatever we are told, because we always do.
Wolverines!
|
|
So, your solution is to people being uninsured is to drive up the cost of insurance to make sure that more people are uninsured?
I'm not saying it's a good solution, just that I don't think as many hospitals as you think are going bankrupt.
That's like asking "I've got something in my eye, so I'm going to use scissors to get it out. What alternative would you suggest?"
Well, I'd start by not using scissors.
So hospitals shouldn't be required to treat critical patients? It's OK for people do die because it costs them/you some money? If that's not your position please let me know, but that's how it comes across.
|
|
I would prefer that.
As for EMTALA, what is your suggestion? That hospitals be allowed to turn away critically injured and/or women in active labor in order to save a buck?
So a member of your family is injured/ill and you're OK with them possibly dying so a hospital can save some money? That's just...wow...