Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=saden1;282632]This discussion isn't going anywhere but lets be clear on one thing, creating and inventing are not the same. To perpetuate the idea that they are the same is a Definist fallacy and disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

I don't think he meant to claim credit for inventing the internet, but he should probably choose his words a little more carefully. Simple slip of the tongue....nothing more.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;282637]I don't think he meant to claim credit for inventing the internet, but he should probably choose his words a little more carefully. Simple slip of the tongue....nothing more.[/quote]
i agree, but this depends on which way you choose to lean. alittle to the left, or alittle to the right

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

He made a slip of the tongue while doing some self promoting and gleefully got called on it by the opposing party.

Does it prove he is a liar? probably not - I mean really, does anyone really believe he would make such a ridiculous claim and expect everyone to belieive it? Does it show he has a slighty inflated sense of his role? maybe, who knows - he may honestly believe he was instrumental in the creation of the internet.

Is it politics as usual in this country? Absolutely - for both major parties.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I don't doubt that Al Gore is right about global warming, it's just that I care a lot more about the poor people in our country getting health insurance than I do about global warming.

If forcing companies to be greener costs them money, they're going to respond by either:

1) Cutting back on benefits
2) Charge the employees more for health insurance
3) Or just flat lay people off or hire fewer people

Our country has a lot more important things to worry about than global warming. Al Gore, do you seriously think I'm going to listen to your bitching and moaning about the environment when we have much more pressing economic challenges at hand? Get your effing priorities straight.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

schneed i totally agree with you about the health care thing. but, there isnt a politician alive that is ready to tacke that fiasco. there is soo much money involved that it would be political suicide

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=FRPLG;282617]I didn't read anyone here say the didn't believe in it.

Anyways there is a not so insignificant portion of people and scientists who don't just question the human cause theory of global warming but the idea of global warming in general.

I find it scary that something that seems so important is treated in such a political way when it needs to be treated in a scientific way first and foremost.[/quote]I believe the earth is warming just not sure that it is man made.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Schneed10;282797]I don't doubt that Al Gore is right about global warming, it's just that I care a lot more about the poor people in our country getting health insurance than I do about global warming.

If forcing companies to be greener costs them money, they're going to respond by either:

1) Cutting back on benefits
2) Charge the employees more for health insurance
3) Or just flat lay people off or hire fewer people

Our country has a lot more important things to worry about than global warming. Al Gore, do you seriously think I'm going to listen to your bitching and moaning about the environment when we have much more pressing economic challenges at hand? Get your effing priorities straight.[/quote]
By what you said I guess that you believe that over 40,000,000 Americans cannot afford health care?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=firstdown;282848]By what you said I guess that you believe that over 40,000,000 Americans cannot afford health care?[/quote]

I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=saden1;281216]Let me get this straight, you think global warming is a big hoax but not all of it? That's a good brain teaser right there.[/quote]

thats what i said. no need to explain it. we still get snow, rain, wind and shit. as long as i'm dead by the time the world is ****ed i could care less.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=dall-assblows;283078]thats what i said. no need to explain it. we still get snow, rain, wind and shit. as long as i'm dead by the time the world is ****ed i could care less.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't natural selection have taken care of you by now?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=dall-assblows;283078]thats what i said. no need to explain it. we still get snow, rain, wind and shit. as long as i'm dead by the time the world is ****ed i could care less.[/QUOTE]

I'm not holding my breath for an explanations. Your remark is self explanatory and lets just say it exposes your competence.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Schneed10;282862]I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.[/quote]


i do part time financial needs analysis, and from what i've personally seen, i have NO reason to doubt scheed or those numbers.

it sucks that those that can't afford basic health care can't even get preventive services, and it's short sighted. (ie, see the post's article on how a kid couldn't get a 80$ tooth extraction, needed 250,000$ worth of medical care (including emergency brain surgery) and still ended up dead. just because he had a cavity and the paperwork and willingness of practioners to deal with it was too much to ask.... for every case like that, 3124 other kids could also get tooth extractions when needed and the taxpayer still comes out ahead, as well as lower income families).

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Half of dockerys sb would still make him a rich man AND pay for alot of tooth extractions.....

I have said it before, NO pro sports player is worth the amount of money these guys are getting. Its really a sad situation.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;283384]Half of dockerys sb would still make him a rich man AND pay for alot of tooth extractions.....

I have said it before, NO pro sports player is worth the amount of money these guys are getting. Its really a sad situation.[/QUOTE]

According to free market economics, they're worth every penny.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Beemnseven;283568]According to free market economics, they're worth every penny.[/quote]

Yeah and we both know thats a bunch of horseshit. I would so be in favor of removing the salary cap as a whole but making a cap for players.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;283759]Yeah and we both know thats a bunch of horseshit. I would so be in favor of removing the salary cap as a whole but making a cap for players.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;283759]Yeah and we both know thats a bunch of horseshit.[/QUOTE]

No, it's the way it is. The fact of the matter is, pro athletes ARE worth more than most other professions. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

I think both issues of Global warming and healthcare could be resolved if we spent less money trying to fight someone elses civil war (Iraq)... Don't get me wrong I am all about supporting our troops but I think we can support them best by getting them out of that mess and back home. Our money focus is on shit that is abroad when it should be here. Health Insurance Companies need major regualation and reformation by the government. They are not properly serving the community.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=FRPLG;283762]What do you mean?[/quote]


Well something like a max amount a player can make based on years, ability, starter.... and so on. Remove the total team salary cap, and just cap per player.Say theres a max for the elite players of 15mil. for atleast a 3 year contract, with a sb not to exceed the max. younger or up and coming players have a lower max, but have the incentive to bust their butts to get to elite status pay, in due time. I know this is never going to happen and i know some of you will find alot of flaws with this.
Im not looking to get hammered with all the variables,
pros and cons. Its just insane the way the money increases each year.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=SkinEmAll;283868]Well something like a max amount a player can make based on years, ability, starter.... and so on. Remove the total team salary cap, and just cap per player.Say theres a max for the elite players of 15mil. for atleast a 3 year contract, with a sb not to exceed the max. younger or up and coming players have a lower max, but have the incentive to bust their butts to get to elite status pay, in due time. I know this is never going to happen and i know some of you will find alot of flaws with this.
Im not looking to get hammered with all the variables,
pros and cons. Its just insane the way the money increases each year.[/QUOTE]

I think if you already know the flaws with this idea then I wonder how you could think it is a good idea, or would ever work.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Beemnseven;283832]No, it's the way it is. The fact of the matter is, pro athletes ARE worth more than most other professions. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/quote]

I completely disagree. Am I against pros making alot of money? not at all. I know the supply and demand point you are making, but its still not right. All Im saying is, as a whole when you think of all the problems we have here in our country that need money, it just makes you think a little different.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Let see, people pay good money to watch the NFL. TV companies pay the NFL ridiculous amount of money to broadcast games. The owners make a ton of money and they players get a good cut of that. Some players get a lot of money, others don't.

Nothing is wrong with this picture IMO.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=saden1;283897]Let see, people pay good money to watch the NFL. TV companies pay the NFL ridiculous amount of money to broadcast games. The owners make a ton of money and they players get a good cut of that. Some players get a lot of money, others don't.

Nothing is wrong with this picture IMO.[/QUOTE]

I agree. So the guys who sit and passively watch the value of their teams go up deserve to make money, but the guys whose knees, backs, hands, etc. are going to be wrecked don't? I really don't understand that logic.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;283901]I agree. So the guys who sit and passively watch the value of their teams go up deserve to make money, but the guys whose knees, backs, hands, etc. are going to be wrecked don't? I really don't understand that logic.[/QUOTE]

Most owners have worked hard to have enough money to own a team. They took a lot of risks and came out on top. And running a team isn't cake walk either. You look at the NFL combine and it's pact. All those guys are making a decision to play in the NFL because they'll get a better paycheck than they would elsewhere. It's hard for me to feel sorry for them because they can walk away anytime (a hard decision). They just keep playing and playing.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

My point is simple. There is sickening amounts of money given to the major pro atheletes. Im not saying they dont deserve to make alot of money. But its disgusting to think of the tons of money spent on entertainment in this country with all the problems we have. Im the first to support my team, you guys dont want to know how much I have spent on the redskins over the years, but I also help out with alot of charitys and such. And my whole thing about a 'player cap' instead of a team cap, is that NO player is truly worth making some of these insane amounts of money, which we all know is much more in baseball.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

well then, are you proposing a cap on the income of all people making over X dollars? if not, why pick on athletes and no one else?

if so, you realize that discourages innovation and anyone with half a brain would relocate to whichever country decided to advertise its low taxes afterwards. something similar killed the swedish clock making industry, though i'm sure there are only about 2 million other examples across many socialist nations. Either you let people use their money as they see fit or you tell them how to use it, but the later means you'll be taking 60% of nothing instead of 25% of massive piles of cash.

I mean, yeah it sucks that some people make obscene amounts of money and could care less about anyone else, but that's not the player's fault, that's how the system is set up. If anything you should be looking to blame the capitalist system that allows that kind of transfer of money, or you should blame someone truly worthy of being called greedy, like the waltons, who make these $50 and $100mill deals look like peanuts.

personally, i don't mind letting people try to get what they're perceived to be worth or care to see capped allowable income.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=saden1;283910]Most owners have worked hard to have enough money to own a team. They took a lot of risks and came out on top. And running a team isn't cake walk either. You look at the NFL combine and it's pact. All those guys are making a decision to play in the NFL because they'll get a better paycheck than they would elsewhere. It's hard for me to feel sorry for them because they can walk away anytime (a hard decision). They just keep playing and playing.[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone has to feel sorry for NFL players - they've got the best jobs in the world, albeit ones that can result in horrible physical ailments. My only point was that the players deserve the share in the pie. All of the owners are making boatloads of money that make players' salaries look ridiculously small. So I don't support decreasing players' salaries. Who would the additional money go to, the owners?

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Schneed10;282862]I suppose you are quoting the estimates that say 40 million people in our country are uninsured or underinsured.

Yes I do believe those numbers. If you want to argue them with me, be my guest, but I have to warn you you're stepping right into my wheelhouse. I'm a financial analyst for the biggest provider to uninsured/underinsured patients in Pennsylvania: Temple University Health System.

That was in the interests of full disclosure. Did you know that as of July 1 2007, there will be only 5 hospitals delivering babies within Philadelphia city limits? Obstetrics is such a financial loser that hospitals have closed the program down.

Since 2002, 9 hospitals within Philadelphia city limits have closed. No new ones have opened.

What's driving this? Underinsured patients don't reimburse hospitals; they have no money and no insurance, and consequently hospitals don't get paid. So in low-income areas, like the part of Philly I work in, hospitals are suffering financially and are forced to cut programs. The end result? Not only do these people not have the money for health care, they don't even have enough places nearby that can provide the care.[/quote]
I believe the numbers if you want to just use a #. 10 million of those are very temp. while people are changing jobs. So if I quit one job on 3/05/07 and then take a week off between jobs I'm counted on that list. If I'm a younger person who decides I do not need health insurance. I'm on that list. From those two things from what I've read the number would drop to around 25 million. Now how many of those drive new cars have HBO, Cell phones and everything else and just don't buy health insurance? I'd say that number is around 5 to 10 mill easy but no one knows the answer to that part. Now we are down to around a real number of 20 to 15 million uninsured Americans because I do not count the above. That is still a big number but now I'd have to get into the poor and all of that stuff which I will avoid getting into.

The reason doctors do not want to deliever babies is they are always getting sued. Malp. Ins is way up and the doctors and Hosp. just don't want to deal with it anymore. Its a shame.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=That Guy;283301]i do part time financial needs analysis, and from what i've personally seen, i have NO reason to doubt scheed or those numbers.

it sucks that those that can't afford basic health care can't even get preventive services, and it's short sighted. (ie, see the post's article on how a kid couldn't get a 80$ tooth extraction, needed 250,000$ worth of medical care (including emergency brain surgery) and still ended up dead. just because he had a cavity and the paperwork and willingness of practioners to deal with it was too much to ask.... for every case like that, 3124 other kids could also get tooth extractions when needed and the taxpayer still comes out ahead, as well as lower income families).[/quote]
I'm not sure what its called but the goverment does provide health insurance for children from poor families. The problem in our area is that the parents are too lazy or do not know they have to sign the children up. I'd also like to know the dentist that will do an $80.00 tooth extraction.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

This thread made quite a strange progression. From Al Gore to health insurance, to NFL players getting paid too much.... Wow.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;284605]This thread made quite a strange progression. From Al Gore to health insurance, to NFL players getting paid too much.... Wow.[/QUOTE]

You're a salty vet, you know how these things go.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=firstdown;284594]I believe the numbers if you want to just use a #. 10 million of those are very temp. while people are changing jobs. So if I quit one job on 3/05/07 and then take a week off between jobs I'm counted on that list. If I'm a younger person who decides I do not need health insurance. I'm on that list. From those two things from what I've read the number would drop to around 25 million. Now how many of those drive new cars have HBO, Cell phones and everything else and just don't buy health insurance? I'd say that number is around 5 to 10 mill easy but no one knows the answer to that part. Now we are down to around a real number of 20 to 15 million uninsured Americans because I do not count the above. That is still a big number but now I'd have to get into the poor and all of that stuff which I will avoid getting into.

The reason doctors do not want to deliever babies is they are always getting sued. Malp. Ins is way up and the doctors and Hosp. just don't want to deal with it anymore. Its a shame.[/quote]


That's somewhat misleading. Lots of independent contractors and/or sole proprietors don't have health insurance, they simply cannot afford it. Im 34, and the last quote I got for health insurance was $650 a freakin month! I cant afford that. People take for granted health insurance provided by their employers. In addition, I think its crap that an insurance company pays such a reduced amount, while someone without insurance gets stuck with the full bill. There was a Dateline story on this recently. Someone without insurance goes in for surgery and gets hit with a $100k bill, but when someone else who has insurance goes in, their insurance company pays like half that amount. Shouldn't the guy without insurance get at least as good a rate as the insurance company when its coming out of his own pocket? Just doesn't seem fair.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;284619]That's somewhat misleading. Lots of independent contractors and/or sole proprietors don't have health insurance, they simply cannot afford it. Im 34, and the last quote I got for health insurance was $650 a freakin month! I cant afford that. People take for granted health insurance provided by their employers. In addition, I think its crap that an insurance company pays such a reduced amount, while someone without insurance gets stuck with the full bill. There was a Dateline story on this recently. Someone without insurance goes in for surgery and gets hit with a $100k bill, but when someone else who has insurance goes in, their insurance company pays like half that amount. Shouldn't the guy without insurance get at least as good a rate as the insurance company when its coming out of his own pocket? Just doesn't seem fair.[/quote]
I have never heard this but if its true than something needs done about it. That sure sounds like discrimination(sp?) to me.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

This the little thread that could. Almost aweek and only 72 replies but constantly on the front page.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=gibbsisgod;284640]I have never heard this but if its true than something needs done about it. That sure sounds like discrimination(sp?) to me.[/quote]

No actually it's called fee scheduling and it's 100% legal.

There is an agreed upon rate for medical services, medical equipment, etc.

Insurance companies never pay the full amount, I guess you can say it's a bulk discount rate.

Or you could look at it from the other side and say medical providers are overcharging those without insurance. Don't always be so quick to blame the big bad insurance companies.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;284619]That's somewhat misleading. Lots of independent contractors and/or sole proprietors don't have health insurance, they simply cannot afford it. Im 34, and the last quote I got for health insurance was $650 a freakin month! I cant afford that. People take for granted health insurance provided by their employers. In addition, I think its crap that an insurance company pays such a reduced amount, while someone without insurance gets stuck with the full bill. There was a Dateline story on this recently. Someone without insurance goes in for surgery and gets hit with a $100k bill, but when someone else who has insurance goes in, their insurance company pays like half that amount. Shouldn't the guy without insurance get at least as good a rate as the insurance company when its coming out of his own pocket? Just doesn't seem fair.[/quote]

Pssst... little secret from the corporate guy who works at a major urban hospital chain...

If you don't have insurance and you need surgery, yes we would charge you way more than we'd get paid by Blue Cross or Aetna if you were covered. But guess what, we'd be very happy if you came to us and said listen clowns, there's no way in hell I'm paying $100K for that surgery. But I will pay you whatever Blue Cross or Aetna would have paid you ($25,000). We'd take that in a heartbeat, because we know you're like 90% likely to skip out on the $100,000 bill anyway. I mean if your credit is going to be ruined, why pay any of that insane bill, right? We'd never see a dime in most cases. But if you negotiate, we'd drop the charge down and keep your credit free and clear if you paid us a negotiated rate.

Little secret of the healthcare system.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Mattyk72;284684]No actually it's called fee scheduling and it's 100% legal.

There is an agreed upon rate for medical services, medical equipment, etc.

Insurance companies never pay the full amount, I guess you can say it's a bulk discount rate.

Or you could look at it from the other side and say medical providers are overcharging those without insurance. Don't always be so quick to blame the big bad insurance companies.[/quote]

See here's the problem...

Hospitals get paid by basically 3 sources:

- Federal government pays decently for Medicare patients. We basically break even on Medicare patients.

- State governments pay terribly for Medicaid patients. We lose our shirts on Medicaid patients.

- Commercial insurance companies pay very well, on the whole. But the bigger the insurance company, the lower their payments. If I'm an insurance company who covers five million people in the Washington DC area, hospitals NEED to contract with me, or I'll tell my customers that they can't go to XYZ hospital because they're not part of the network. If a customer goes to an out-of-network hospital, they'll have to pay some out of pocket costs. But if they go to an in-network hospital, they pay nothing. No brainer, right? No patient would go to the out-of-network hospital. So if I'm a hospital, I have no choice but to reach an agreement with the big insurance company. I can't just do without access to 5 million lives. So as the hospital, I'm forced to take it up the rear and accept low payment rates from the big insurance company. Now, a little insurance company comes along, with say 100,000 customers, the hospital is licking its' chops. The hospital has all the leverage, they say we don't care about your 100,000 customers, either pay us a big rate, or find another hospital to deal with. And all the hospitals treat the little insurance company that way, and they have no choice but to pay through the nose.

So... since hospitals are breaking even on Medicare, and losing money on Medicaid, and barely making anything off the big insurance companies, they've got no choice but to rape the little insurance companies and overcharge uninsured patients. It's either that, or the hospital goes out of business. It's a crying shame, but it's reality.

People like to blame the hospitals, but really, show me a hospital that makes money. They only exist in the plush suburbs where median household income is 100,000 or higher. Blaming the hospitals isn't the answer, if they didn't catch as catch can, they'd all go out of business. And then nobody in the city could find a hospital when they needed it.

It's not the providers, and it's not the insurers. It's the system.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

[quote=Schneed10;284714]Pssst... little secret from the corporate guy who works at a major urban hospital chain...

If you don't have insurance and you need surgery, yes we would charge you way more than we'd get paid by Blue Cross or Aetna if you were covered. But guess what, we'd be very happy if you came to us and said listen clowns, there's no way in hell I'm paying $100K for that surgery. But I will pay you whatever Blue Cross or Aetna would have paid you ($25,000). We'd take that in a heartbeat, because we know you're like 90% likely to skip out on the $100,000 bill anyway. I mean if your credit is going to be ruined, why pay any of that insane bill, right? We'd never see a dime in most cases. But if you negotiate, we'd drop the charge down and keep your credit free and clear if you paid us a negotiated rate.

Little secret of the healthcare system.[/quote]


Sometimes that does work, sometimes it doesn't. Ive contacted hospitals for my clients without insurance and been told to basically piss off. I guess it depends on the amount of the bill. Hospitals aren't as bad as independent docs and, of course, chiropractors, but they do have their moments.

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

Sooooooooo, who's at fault? We live in a country that has a health care crises. I pay $987 p/mo for my family for ...................ok coverage. A REAL KILLER.
Millions of American's go without. They become a burden for the system because they don't pay for the services they recieve. The hospitals close as a result of constant red lining? I assume the doc's have to become more creative to realize the same profits as were seen a few years ago (see more patients, with decrease in quality of care per each).

And yes Matty, the only one I can see actually benefiting in all this is the Big Bad Insurance companies. They just pass along the bad news to the insured, in ever-increasing premiums?

REALISTIC solution is?????????

Yes, Interesting thread

Re: An Inconvenient Truth
 

The problem we have in this country when it comes to healthcare is a desire to have the benfits of a market efficient system, but only if doesn't cost too much or deny care.

In an efficient market products and services are paid for by customers at a price they are willing to pay. If soemthing becomes too expensive then eventually some other guy or girl comes along and offers the same service for less. Thus balancing out the market.

The healthcare system doesn't work well in this way since there are so many barriers to entry and nobody wants to see other suffer because of market economics.

The problem is that as soon as we make it less market effiicient that motivation for smart people and innovative companies to get involved, the ones who would provide the best care and medicine, becomes too low.

It is a hard question.

I am wondering if maybe as a society we need to adjust our views and desires for the healthcare system since there in't a system that will meet all of our needs. There just isn't.