|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 12, 2009 10:27:15 GMT -5
1) we already have death panels in the current system it's just determined by your ability to pay for it yourself. 2) We need to stop spending so much money on end of life care. PERIOD. so i'm ok with rationing health care and saying I'm sorry this procedure is too expensive for us to cover, if you want to pay for it your self go ahead but we're not covering it. insurance companies already do this. 3) i have no problem with doctors suggesting things to patients, that doesn't equate to forcing things.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Aug 12, 2009 10:30:24 GMT -5
Right wing fanatacism continues: www.ajc.com/news/cobb/swastika-painted-outside-congressmans-113070.htmlWith conservative commentator Glenn Beck saying that Barack Obama is pursuing policies for the purposes of "reparations" and potential GOP Presidential candidate Sarah Palin calling the health care proposal (of which there is no bill yet, mind you) "evil", is it a surprise that things like this happen? I'm not surprised one bit. It makes me sad that people like these vandals and the town hall screamers refuse to participate in a constructive debate about an issue that certainly needs CONSTRUCTIVE imput from all sides of the political spectrum... minus the crazies. By the way ed, the "death panel" part of the bill is an OPTIONAL service for the elderly that allows them to elect to go over with a health counselor the preparation of a living will that would include decisions concerning how much care to accept in the event of incapacitation. Euthanasia is still banned in all states except Oregon - however, sometimes it is prefereable for a patient to receive pain relief treatments rather than aggressive treatments. The government should not mandate health care providers to continue aggressive treatment if the patient does not want these treatments. P.S. If you read the bottom of the article, commentators on Sean Hannity's radio show suggest that one of Congressman Scott's staffers vandalized the sign to get attention. Absolutely disgusting. Sean Hannity should retract that commentator's statement and issue and apology immediately.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 12, 2009 10:39:44 GMT -5
Has Mr. Obama apologized yet for his claiming an AARP endorsement which does not exist? His ability to sell the big lie is simply staggering. Remember he also has never advocated single payer. Remember that. It never happened. Trust him. Do not believe your own ears and eyes. Trust him.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 12, 2009 11:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,301
|
Post by Cambridge on Aug 12, 2009 12:33:17 GMT -5
America needs to come to terms with death. That's the one thing that has become clear to me in this whole debate. Everyone seems to be petrified of dying. For such a religious nation (compared to the rest of the western world) I find that strange.
Anyways, I agree with the sentiment expressed above by others that the extensive end of life care we currently provide is the albatross we cannot afford in the future. If we have to chose between funding transplants for 80+ year olds and basic healthcare for children, I'm going with children. This isn't to say that I'm in favor of the proposed reforms or the current system, but I acknowledge that change is coming and my ears are deaf to the cries from the elderly about "their" medicare.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 12, 2009 14:13:04 GMT -5
With reference to the small letter passages from the Health Care "Reform" Bill as shown by St. Pete, there is nothing in the words that would forbid a health care provider (government or private) from suggesting to the patient that they should consider taking measures to end their lives rather than obtaining further treatments. There is also nothing that forbids either from refusing to fund treatments in the interest of saving money for the insurance company or government. If the Health Care "Reform" will not have "Death Panels", as the president and others are saying, there are simple solutions to putting this to rest: (1) remove the section completely from the Bill and replace it with a requirement that the insurance company or the government send letters every five years to those on Medicare suggesting they give consideration to end of life options and to seek assistance wherever they desire; or (2) have the Bill categorically forbid any information being given to the patient that even suggests euthanasia, in whatever form it might be stated. For instance, deprivation of intravenous feeding or liquids would be categorically forbidden. Attach to option 2 a mandatory 25 year sentence for any care provider, insurance executive or government official found guilty of suggesting euthanasia in the forms described above. Merely saying "trust me, we won't do it" just doesn't work with me. 1) He's not saying trust me, we won't do it. The use of state funding for assisted suicide/euthanasia is and remains unconstitutional - the Congress cannot do something that is unconstitutional, nor can they fund abortion because of the Hyde Amendment. 2) The bill doesn't give out material that suggests euthanasia. It suggests that you might want to get a "power of attorney" to allow a loved one to make decisions that are in your best interest when you are in a coma or otherwise incapacitated. That's a tool that many people should consider. It's not mandating that you chose euthanasia - in fact it has nothing to do with it. 3) The closest that the bill would come to "euthanasia" would be giving people information that they can create a "do not resuscitate" instrument or an instrument that directs that certain extraordinary measures not be used. That's a personal health care choice that a person should have the option of making and many people make every day. The bill only says that you get information about it, it doesn't say that you are forced to do it. 4) The fact that conservatives feel that you shouldn't give someone information regarding a medical procedure when it involves end-of-life issues, but that State governments should give people all kinds of information regarding abortion requires a level of cognitive dissonance that is simply astounding. 5) You are confusing "measures to end their lives" with the language of the bill. These are largely estate planning tools that make sure that your family knows your wishes when you are so ill that you can't communicate with them. There's nothing wrong with letting a terminally ill person choose to go to a hospice or choose to let someone who is in a coma let another person manage their financial affairs. There is nothing in the language quoted from the bill regarding taking steps to affirmatively end your life. Its about planning for what you would want if you were in that situation. You are ignoring the language of the bill and just seeing what you want to see.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 12, 2009 14:14:54 GMT -5
Right wing fanatacism continues: www.ajc.com/news/cobb/swastika-painted-outside-congressmans-113070.htmlWith conservative commentator Glenn Beck saying that Barack Obama is pursuing policies for the purposes of "reparations" and potential GOP Presidential candidate Sarah Palin calling the health care proposal (of which there is no bill yet, mind you) "evil", is it a surprise that things like this happen? I'm not surprised one bit. It makes me sad that people like these vandals and the town hall screamers refuse to participate in a constructive debate about an issue that certainly needs CONSTRUCTIVE imput from all sides of the political spectrum... minus the crazies. By the way ed, the "death panel" part of the bill is an OPTIONAL service for the elderly that allows them to elect to go over with a health counselor the preparation of a living will that would include decisions concerning how much care to accept in the event of incapacitation. Euthanasia is still banned in all states except Oregon - however, sometimes it is prefereable for a patient to receive pain relief treatments rather than aggressive treatments. The government should not mandate health care providers to continue aggressive treatment if the patient does not want these treatments. P.S. If you read the bottom of the article, commentators on Sean Hannity's radio show suggest that one of Congressman Scott's staffers vandalized the sign to get attention. Absolutely disgusting. Sean Hannity should retract that commentator's statement and issue and apology immediately. I don't think you get it. To a conservative - mass murder of 6 million Jews = competitive health care markets with government regulation What was so hard to get about that?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 12, 2009 15:25:34 GMT -5
With reference to the small letter passages from the Health Care "Reform" Bill as shown by St. Pete, there is nothing in the words that would forbid a health care provider (government or private) from suggesting to the patient that they should consider taking measures to end their lives rather than obtaining further treatments. There is also nothing that forbids either from refusing to fund treatments in the interest of saving money for the insurance company or government. If the Health Care "Reform" will not have "Death Panels", as the president and others are saying, there are simple solutions to putting this to rest: (1) remove the section completely from the Bill and replace it with a requirement that the insurance company or the government send letters every five years to those on Medicare suggesting they give consideration to end of life options and to seek assistance wherever they desire; or (2) have the Bill categorically forbid any information being given to the patient that even suggests euthanasia, in whatever form it might be stated. For instance, deprivation of intravenous feeding or liquids would be categorically forbidden. Attach to option 2 a mandatory 25 year sentence for any care provider, insurance executive or government official found guilty of suggesting euthanasia in the forms described above. Merely saying "trust me, we won't do it" just doesn't work with me. 1) He's not saying trust me, we won't do it. The use of state funding for assisted suicide/euthanasia is and remains unconstitutional - the Congress cannot do something that is unconstitutional, nor can they fund abortion because of the Hyde Amendment. 2) The bill doesn't give out material that suggests euthanasia. It suggests that you might want to get a "power of attorney" to allow a loved one to make decisions that are in your best interest when you are in a coma or otherwise incapacitated. That's a tool that many people should consider. It's not mandating that you chose euthanasia - in fact it has nothing to do with it. 3) The closest that the bill would come to "euthanasia" would be giving people information that they can create a "do not resuscitate" instrument or an instrument that directs that certain extraordinary measures not be used. That's a personal health care choice that a person should have the option of making and many people make every day. The bill only says that you get information about it, it doesn't say that you are forced to do it. 4) The fact that conservatives feel that you shouldn't give someone information regarding a medical procedure when it involves end-of-life issues, but that State governments should give people all kinds of information regarding abortion requires a level of cognitive dissonance that is simply astounding. 5) You are confusing "measures to end their lives" with the language of the bill. These are largely estate planning tools that make sure that your family knows your wishes when you are so ill that you can't communicate with them. There's nothing wrong with letting a terminally ill person choose to go to a hospice or choose to let someone who is in a coma let another person manage their financial affairs. There is nothing in the language quoted from the bill regarding taking steps to affirmatively end your life. Its about planning for what you would want if you were in that situation. You are ignoring the language of the bill and just seeing what you want to see. St. Pete, don't lecture me on what's involved in Advanced Medical Directives and other "Estate Planning Documents" since this is a real issue to me, not some textbook treatment of it. I'm in that age group, have some serious medical problems, and my wife and I both have these directives. That's not the issue. The President has said there will not be "death panels" making decisions on what is to be approved and what is not. That's a lie. There will be (and they already exist) groups of people that make such decisions under the House plan, mostly for cost considerations, and some of the posters above say they have no problem with not giving extensive treatment to aging and ailing people. This is not the "consultations" required or optional contained in the small fonts quoted. What I am asking of the president and the congressional leaders is honesty. There will be "death panels" but they will go under some covert name or go un-named. Sarah Palin's statements are closer to the truth than the President's on this issue. I'll delay posting about the pros and cons of making those decisions based on cost and age.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 12, 2009 15:30:21 GMT -5
I am not educated enough on this issue to have an opinion, so I'll leave the debate to whether or not these bills are good or bad to you guys.
But I do have one question, if this president and this supermajority Congress (which I do not believe can be sustained passed the next election cycle) can't get their agendas through now, when do we begin to entertain the notion the American political system might be incappable of dealing with an albatross like healthcare?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 13, 2009 9:32:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 13, 2009 9:40:39 GMT -5
1) He's not saying trust me, we won't do it. The use of state funding for assisted suicide/euthanasia is and remains unconstitutional - the Congress cannot do something that is unconstitutional, nor can they fund abortion because of the Hyde Amendment. 2) The bill doesn't give out material that suggests euthanasia. It suggests that you might want to get a "power of attorney" to allow a loved one to make decisions that are in your best interest when you are in a coma or otherwise incapacitated. That's a tool that many people should consider. It's not mandating that you chose euthanasia - in fact it has nothing to do with it. 3) The closest that the bill would come to "euthanasia" would be giving people information that they can create a "do not resuscitate" instrument or an instrument that directs that certain extraordinary measures not be used. That's a personal health care choice that a person should have the option of making and many people make every day. The bill only says that you get information about it, it doesn't say that you are forced to do it. 4) The fact that conservatives feel that you shouldn't give someone information regarding a medical procedure when it involves end-of-life issues, but that State governments should give people all kinds of information regarding abortion requires a level of cognitive dissonance that is simply astounding. 5) You are confusing "measures to end their lives" with the language of the bill. These are largely estate planning tools that make sure that your family knows your wishes when you are so ill that you can't communicate with them. There's nothing wrong with letting a terminally ill person choose to go to a hospice or choose to let someone who is in a coma let another person manage their financial affairs. There is nothing in the language quoted from the bill regarding taking steps to affirmatively end your life. Its about planning for what you would want if you were in that situation. You are ignoring the language of the bill and just seeing what you want to see. St. Pete, don't lecture me on what's involved in Advanced Medical Directives and other "Estate Planning Documents" since this is a real issue to me, not some textbook treatment of it. I'm in that age group, have some serious medical problems, and my wife and I both have these directives. That's not the issue. The President has said there will not be "death panels" making decisions on what is to be approved and what is not. That's a lie. There will be (and they already exist) groups of people that make such decisions under the House plan, mostly for cost considerations, and some of the posters above say they have no problem with not giving extensive treatment to aging and ailing people. This is not the "consultations" required or optional contained in the small fonts quoted. What I am asking of the president and the congressional leaders is honesty. There will be "death panels" but they will go under some covert name or go un-named. Sarah Palin's statements are closer to the truth than the President's on this issue. I'll delay posting about the pros and cons of making those decisions based on cost and age. Didn't mean to lecture, sorry if it was taken as such. Glad to hear you have an advanced directive, more people should have them - no matter what they think of end-of-life issues its important that you make sure your views are respected and if you can save your family any anguish at those times, I think you should do it. I think you're missing the issue here. The government is creating a regulated marketplace for insurance plans to compete and then allowing certain consumers to select from those plans. The government may have a plan in there, it may not. If it does, the idea is to encourage competition based on service - the plan is designed to avoid people getting dropped when they need specialized or expensive treatment. If you're uncomfortable with selecting the government plan, you don't have to choose it. A couple of other points: 1) I'm sure that since you have such a strong stance against this legislation, you've also been picketing BlueCross, Aetna, Cigna, etc. for years ... 2) What's the alternative? If you do nothing, then you're going to wind up with Medicare/Medicaid collapsing and then all seniors will lose coverage entirely. I think one criticism that is well-founded is that the government has no profit motive - which is a double-edged sword - they can cover more treatments because they're the government, but they can also harm competition by doing so. So I'd like to see a final bill that either a) states the the government option can't be the lowest price in the market, or b) fixes the price of the government plan at an average of the prices of the other plans in the marketplace. Overall, I support the health care reform with the caveat outlined above because its good economics. Here's why: Historically the government has contained costs better than Private Insurance - between 1970 and 2000 the growth in annual cost per Medicare enrollee was 9.7%, over the same period the growth in cost per private insurance enrollee was 11.1% (source: Cristina Boccuti and Marilyn Moon (2003) “Comparing Medicare And Private Insurers: Growth Rates In Spending Over Three Decades” Health Affairs, 22(3): 230-237). In the short run, it would increase the economic well-being of the uninsured substantially more than the costs of insuring them. While, I'll grant you that in the medium to long-term that's ambiguous because of potential legislative oversight distortions. In the long run, extending insurance to the uninsured will mean that they do not have to go into the emergency room for treatment, in addition, the costs of treating these persons will be spread over a larger pool of persons (presumably all taxpayers), so you will see charges for emergency care drop in the long-run. In the long run, extending insurance to the uninsured removes a major reason for bankruptcies and foreclosures removing the costs to courts in overseeing bankruptcy proceedings and the economic enifficiencies of bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. In the long run, extending health insurance to the uninsured makes the labor market more efficient because people don't have to take lower paying jobs simply to get health insurance. For example, a person who is more qualified for other work may take a job as a barista at Starbucks because Starbucks provides their employees with medical insurance. If workers can choose employers based on wages, their own skills, and the overall work environment, this will lead to more efficiency labor market than if individuals would need to choose jobs based on the health plans offered. In addition, in the long run extending insurance to the uninsured would increase small business innovation. Workers would be more attracted to small business if they knew they could receive insurance from the government.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 13, 2009 10:02:44 GMT -5
plus businesses wouldn't move as many jobs oversees where they don't have to pay for health care for their workers.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 13, 2009 10:04:59 GMT -5
Why, because she snowed you with footnotes? It's a stupid and unreasonable line of attack on an issue that is real and bankrupts families. It's also not a necessary piece of reform. I'd say take it out if it'd shut up the paranoid loons, but we all know it won't.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 10:10:44 GMT -5
This is mostly to St. Pete, but these are reall my comments in general:
First to vcjack - this is a big issue. However, it's also lots of smaller issues. Piecemeal reform of some items may take some items off the table so that what once weighed a million tons now weighs half that and is easier to conceive of.
My proposal to take a chunk out of that comes from St. Pete - breaking the tie between employment and health insurance. Raise my salary by a few bucks and pull my healthcare. There is no reason to tie the two. It's growing especially important as the internet allows more people to become self-employed - yet, if you are self-employed, health insurance now is really expensive. Most people drive to work, yet auto insurance doesn't come through employment.
Oh, and if you're employed, you get two or three options if you're lucky. That's it. Occasionally, if you'd prefer a managed care approach, your employer may not offer it. Or, you may hate the managed care provider in your are and be willing to spend more money to talk to your primary care physian.
And heaven help you if you change jobs (increasingly more common) or your company decides that the needs of the many outweigh your needs and switches your plan. It may become impossible to see doctors whom you're used to.
The standard concerns about breaking the tie is that people with preexisting medical conditions can't get coverage. Continuing the auto insurance analogy, however, almost all drivers - even the really bad ones - get insured. If you're really concerned, Congress or HHS can regulate what must be covered.
The other argument is that people will get tricked. Not necessarily - I'm assuming that a few private companies will emerge as the defaults, providing most basic services for the majority of the population. People who want to do more research may end up with a better plan, but the vast majority won't get hosed.
Most importantly, this plan will ensure that people see the rising cost of health care. My job provides me with health insurance for a pittance of a premimum. If I looked at my bills every month, however, and noticed that, instead of $40 a month raising 5%, my bill of $450 was raising 5%, I'd be more likely to press the company - and the government - for answers. And I'd probably be more likely to get fewer name-brand prescriptions and more generics.
Conservatives should love this plan, since it's free market at its best. Insurance companies should love this plan, since they still get to exist (and will get a way to get money from all the people in the country who aren't insured). Liberals should love this plan since it allows for the potential future introduction of a government plan to compete along all the rest. Unions should hate it, since health care plans are usually a big plum.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 13, 2009 10:47:00 GMT -5
First to vcjack - this is a big issue. However, it's also lots of smaller issues. Piecemeal reform of some items may take some items off the table so that what once weighed a million tons now weighs half that and is easier to conceive of. The problem, as you say, is getting people from Point A to Point B - and doing it safely. You just can't sell this plan today with the system we have now. This sort of system demands more regulation (to protect people from getting undersold / sold stuff that is worthless) and to make sure that everyone has access, and more faith in the insurers to do the right thing. Look at Wyden's exchange plan - that has firewalls built in to try to phase us from Point A to Point B.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 13, 2009 12:09:47 GMT -5
First to vcjack - this is a big issue. However, it's also lots of smaller issues. Piecemeal reform of some items may take some items off the table so that what once weighed a million tons now weighs half that and is easier to conceive of. The problem, as you say, is getting people from Point A to Point B - and doing it safely. You just can't sell this plan today with the system we have now. This sort of system demands more regulation (to protect people from getting undersold / sold stuff that is worthless) and to make sure that everyone has access, and more faith in the insurers to do the right thing. Look at Wyden's exchange plan - that has firewalls built in to try to phase us from Point A to Point B. Agreed. With that said, every plan - save minor tinkering - will need its own sets of laws. Oh, and I forgot to mention that health care does need to be "fixed". I will say, however, that it sort of struck me that the plan I put forward is plausible - I could see explaining it to people, and, more importantly, envisioning a world in which it might occur. You know what makes me most uncomfortable about the variety of Democratic plans floating around out there? I don't know what they are. The Obama administration and the Democratic leadership have done an awful job of explaining what this is in a paragraph or two. And I don't believe in the B.S. that the American people can't understand anything greater than a soundbite - if someone can't cogently explain why the new system is different than what I have now, I don't think that they understand it. And I don't believe that "the bill is still getting worked out" is an excuse. If the generics are getting worked out, then you shouldn't be selling anything yet, because you sell a vacation in the desert differently than you sell a vacation in a jungle. If everybody agrees on most of the general terms now, then tell me what they are. This, more than any other reason, seems to be why the Obama administration is losing this fight. Until they put something up there, people don't know what it is - and it makes it perfectly legitimate for people to take some broad statements and compare it to the UK or Canadian system.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 13, 2009 12:20:26 GMT -5
The problem, as you say, is getting people from Point A to Point B - and doing it safely. You just can't sell this plan today with the system we have now. This sort of system demands more regulation (to protect people from getting undersold / sold stuff that is worthless) and to make sure that everyone has access, and more faith in the insurers to do the right thing. Look at Wyden's exchange plan - that has firewalls built in to try to phase us from Point A to Point B. Agreed. With that said, every plan - save minor tinkering - will need its own sets of laws. Oh, and I forgot to mention that health care does need to be "fixed". I will say, however, that it sort of struck me that the plan I put forward is plausible - I could see explaining it to people, and, more importantly, envisioning a world in which it might occur. You know what makes me most uncomfortable about the variety of Democratic plans floating around out there? I don't know what they are. The Obama administration and the Democratic leadership have done an awful job of explaining what this is in a paragraph or two. And I don't believe in the B.S. that the American people can't understand anything greater than a soundbite - if someone can't cogently explain why the new system is different than what I have now, I don't think that they understand it. And I don't believe that "the bill is still getting worked out" is an excuse. If the generics are getting worked out, then you shouldn't be selling anything yet, because you sell a vacation in the desert differently than you sell a vacation in a jungle. If everybody agrees on most of the general terms now, then tell me what they are. This, more than any other reason, seems to be why the Obama administration is losing this fight. Until they put something up there, people don't know what it is - and it makes it perfectly legitimate for people to take some broad statements and compare it to the UK or Canadian system. Agreed its a messaging issue. I know its not supposed to be news, but Colbert had a very cogent critique - the bill is about as long as a Harry Potter novel. It can be explained and people can understand it.
|
|
HoyaSC
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 514
|
Post by HoyaSC on Aug 13, 2009 13:53:10 GMT -5
Whether you have private insurance or government insurance, it seems clear that an incentive exists to deny care to sick people. Call it profit for private insurance, or call it cost-cutting for government insurance, it is the same thing.
So that gets you to the incentives of the individual employees of either insurer who will be making decisions on what care patients get......
In the private insurance company, your incentive is to deny as much care as you can because the more money you make the company, the more likely you are to get promoted and make more money for yourself.
Contrast this with the government employee. This employee's incentive is just to do as little work as possible. So you have to pester her into approving your procedure. Probably not much financial incentive into denying your operation--- it probably happens from laziness.
No matter what we do, it's going to be bad. You're going to have to fight one of these two people to get your health care. I'd rather fight the lazy employee than the ambitious, clever employee.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 13, 2009 14:34:13 GMT -5
It just gets better and better:
When asked at his town hasll meeting if he would commit to opting out of his Navy Veteran and congressional coverage and into the public option, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) answered that he would "if it would provide for my daughter".
Isn't that a question he, a Member of the House of Representatives, ought to know the answer to?
To call these clowns rank amateurs is to slander rank amateurs everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 13, 2009 15:17:39 GMT -5
I find it to be a measured response since it is unclear what the final nuts and bolts of this legislation will be. Considering his daughter's medical condition, it is reasonable to wait and see before making some hasty decision.
That said, there are dingbats on both sides of the aisle in Congress. That goes without saying.
|
|