New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[Grumpy]

Michael

The excrement you spew is copious. So I will only address one of your questions, it's pretty illustrative of the stupidity in the rest.

So, you do not think 'Free' adult American Citizens should be Free to obtain or not obtain healthcare goods and services from one another without any interference from Government so long as there is no fraud involved?!?

Do you want to live in a society that will let you die at the Emergency Room door if you don't have health insurance(or cash up front)? I don't. Thankfully, we don't. If you are injured you receive care. If you receive care and you did not have insurance the rest of us are "raped" by you and your Libertarianism, we have to pay for your care, involuntarily, through the taxes we pay(or we could let the hospital close due to unpaid bills, I guess). You do not have a right to be a Freeloader, therefore we require you to buy insurance to cover your own bills if you get sick or hurt, you must participate in the pool or have several million dollars put aside to cover those bills. Or you could wear a lapel button that says "Do Not Treat, I'm a Freeloader" if you don't want to be a responsible citizen. Or you can leave the country, we don't let Freeloaders use our public facilities or roads, nor do we protect their liberty with our police or military. You certainly won't be receiving any new treatments developed in our Universities through government grants(you get early 20th century medical techniques, good luck with that). Oh, and don't bother calling 911, it was government regulations and funds that developed that system, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way, look the number up for your local hospital, better carry a local phone book. And don't try using your mobile phone to do so, that's government regulated. You'll have to find a pay phone. After you've trekked across country to your local hospital(assuming no Libertarian erected fences and cooperation of all the Libertarian owners allowing you to cross, avoiding all use of common roads and sidewalks. You didn't pay for them, you can't expect to use them), you can start handing over cash, this will be necessary BEFORE you are treated. Since the government insures the banks remain solvent, don't bother getting out your card, cash money on the barrel head is your only option, hope you have a wheel barrow. I guess you can lie bleeding while another Libertarian raids the mattress you have to keep your money in and brings you a boatload, but he will have the same problem coming cross country as you did. And he has to push a wheelbarrow full of cash. Since the police are public, good luck getting that cash to it's destination but don't bother calling, Freeloaders get no protection from roving gangs of Anarchists.

Grumpy

 

[wellwisher]

One thing I don't understand is why we are spending more money on the web site. We already paid close to a billion dollars and did not get what was paid for. Isn't it up the company to deliver based on the agreed amount? It would be like going to have your muffler replaced. You pay and they sort of fix it. Since it still makes noise, you bring it back and they charge you again? Isn't that stealing? Why does Obama encourage stealing and wasting tax payer money. Does he expect them to money launder part of the excess, back to democratic candidates, like is done with tax paid unions?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Could cost a lot more to mend it than to scrap it.
Some programmers are saying it is crap code and will never stand up.
Hackers mainly, but that's what they say.

It cost the UK 12 Billion to fail to set up a new NHS computer system,
and we already have a health service.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ect-failure-Labours-12bn-scheme-scrapped.html

 

[wellwisher]

I don't understand why Obama and the democrats didn't just leave what was working alone, and focus their first cycle effort on the 30-40M uninsured. It is like going to the garage, when the brakes need to be repaired, since that is all that is broken, but then taking the entire car apart. Who would benefit by that other than the garage and the sale men? It looks either idiotic or corrupt. I suppose if you wanted to grow government larger and make it appear more competent than it is, you would do it Obama's way since it eliminates competition and efficiency side by side for comparison.

The analogy is wanting to be the star of a basketball team but lacking the talent. One way would be to break up the team and replace it with hacks so you appear to be the shining star. But on opening day you foul out. You need to ticker more.

If I had been in charge, I would have targeted only the uninsured and interfaced these uninsured with the VA or Veteran's Admin. Let the rest of the system remain self sufficient at no cost to the tax payer. This is a bite size piece you can chew. This is also a good way to get the two main parties to cooperate since both parties benefit by this situation; new social service and military.

This solution will interface the poor and civilian sick with the sick and injured warriors. Both are down on their luck, and they can help each other by being able to relate to loss and limitation. This also provides a possible path for the youth where they can learn training from the new military, and it provides father figures for boys and gals who often lack such a role model in poor inner city families.

The VA system is already set up and once operational would provide a place for soldiers to work when the wars end. They can pick up new training and continue to serve civilians in other ways. Since you recycle positions (swords into bandages), much is already pay for, making it cheap by government standards. It will attract youth who only need sporadic treatment at no cost.

The idea is to compete with the private sector not dumb down the private sector to create an illusion.

 

[joepistole]

One thing I don't understand is why we are spending more money on the web site. We already paid close to a billion dollars and did not get what was paid for. Isn't it up the company to deliver based on the agreed amount? It would be like going to have your muffler replaced. You pay and they sort of fix it. Since it still makes noise, you bring it back and they charge you again? Isn't that stealing? Why does Obama encourage stealing and wasting tax payer money. Does he expect them to money launder part of the excess, back to democratic candidates, like is done with tax paid unions?

LOL, it's pretty obvious you have been listening to too much right wing entertainment (e.g. Fox News) and as a result, it is not surprising your numbers are wrong yet again. This reminds me of Bachman's claims about the cost of Obama's state visit to India. What is a 700 billion dollar overstatement between friends?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/25/fox-news-only-overestimated-healthcaregov-cost/196603

 

[joepistole]

I don't understand why Obama and the democrats didn't just leave what was working alone, and focus their first cycle effort on the 30-40M uninsured. It is like going to the garage, when the brakes need to be repaired, since that is all that is broken, but then taking the entire car apart. Who would benefit by that other than the garage and the sale men? It looks either idiotic or corrupt. I suppose if you wanted to grow government larger and make it appear more competent than it is, you would do it Obama's way since it eliminates competition and efficiency side by side for comparison.

The analogy is wanting to be the star of a basketball team but lacking the talent. One way would be to break up the team and replace it with hacks so you appear to be the shining star. But on opening day you foul out. You need to ticker more.

If I had been in charge, I would have targeted only the uninsured and interfaced these uninsured with the VA or Veteran's Admin. Let the rest of the system remain self sufficient at no cost to the tax payer. This is a bite size piece you can chew. This is also a good way to get the two main parties to cooperate since both parties benefit by this situation; new social service and military.

This solution will interface the poor and civilian sick with the sick and injured warriors. Both are down on their luck, and they can help each other by being able to relate to loss and limitation. This also provides a possible path for the youth where they can learn training from the new military, and it provides father figures for boys and gals who often lack such a role model in poor inner city families.

The VA system is already set up and once operational would provide a place for soldiers to work when the wars end. They can pick up new training and continue to serve civilians in other ways. Since you recycle positions (swords into bandages), much is already pay for, making it cheap by government standards. It will attract youth who only need sporadic treatment at no cost.

The idea is to compete with the private sector not dumb down the private sector to create an illusion.

It’s not like this hasn’t been explained to you umpteen times before. What we had before wasn’t working. Our healthcare costs have been growing at twice the growth of income for decades now and as a result,, there has been a lot of healthcare cost shifting. Healthcare costs have been increasingly shifted from individuals & hospitals to government (e.g. Medicaid, Medicare, direct hospital subsidies for care of uninsured, etc.). Employers have been and continue to shift employee healthcare costs onto employees (e.g. terminating retiree healthcare benefits, and by requiring employers to pay a larger and larger share of their health insurance costs. And the US long term debt problems are entirely attributable to the increasingly expensive and less effective and efficient US healthcare system.

Your notion of using the VA to treat all the uninsured reflects a great ignorance on your part. First, the VA is not set up to treat 40-50 million additional people. It cannot even treat all existing veterans. What you are proposing would be incredibly expensive and inefficient. It would be much more expensive and much more disruptive and much more inefficient than the current system or Obamacare.

To give you an idea, the VA has 171 hospitals. That is about 3.5 hospitals per state. I live in a city of about 300k people and we have 4 hospitals in our city. The VA has a little over 350 medical clinics. That is about 7 clinics per state. And you think adding 40-50 million more people into an already overloaded system - a system that cannot even offer care to all veterans - is a good idea? You need to get your head out of right wing entertainment.

 

[quinnsong]

Brief Note on Liberty



Libertarianism is an interesting, oft-unwieldy beast. To wit, a very common interpretation today is that we ought to set the United States back to a hardscrabble independence circa Frederick Jackson Turner. This is the notion romanticized by the right-wing highjackers we might deride as the "Tea and Crumpets Party".

But where this sort of libertarian sees tyranny in communalism, there is a very simple contrast we might propose.

• It is not hard to imagine what takes place every day, when people across this nation haul themselves to a job they loathe in order to pay the bills, eventually finding career comfort in the paycheck, but never really pursuing their genuine desires. Indeed, this simple reality is part of what set Generations X and Why to whining like babies whose candy has just been stolen. Nor can we say that this is what the Boomers intended, at least consciously. Still, we accept this basic reality as the reality in effect, regardless of how we argue about how to change that reality.

• But imagine a world in which, sure, someone still needs to serve your coffee, or clean the office washroom, but this is not the whole of their existence. When working eighty or a hundred hours in a week gets one wealthy, instead of just worn out. It's one thing to work sixty hours a week because that's what the sector demands, but when we watch musicians, crafters, and even the passionately compassionate flames extinguished in exchange for mere subsistance, does nothing strike us as amiss? Is it really so bad for business that the workers who are also consumers should be able to consume in pursuit of happiness? Maybe the idea of guaranteed housing conflicts with libertarian mcmansion dreams, but when you're the hardworking, average American fretting over mortgage or rent—bottom line, homelessness—food security, health care, and the mere necessities of survival, that all of your passions should be consumed in simply existing, maybe not having to worry where your next meal is coming from, or if you have a roof over your head, or if you can afford to have that weird, knotty lump examined, might seem a greater comfort. Sure, we're conditioned against a nanny state forcing us to survive, but ask Oklahoma about universal preschool, and the difference a meal and some dedicated care can make in a child's learning potential, and it's not hard to see the potential benefits of unleashing the best our citizens have to offer instead of asking them to spend all that dancing on a razor's edge.​

Is your liberty in the right to work full time and still be too poor to see a doctor when you need to? Or is it in the right to actually be able to record that album someday, or afford to spend resources helping other people in need, or finishing that degree so you can teach high school instead of sit in a cubicle and type numbers into a computer all day for the insurance company?

There is reality, and then there are potentials. I don't buy the libertarianism that encourages me to subsistence and serfdom. A better libertarianism? That's kind of like a better communism; sure, I can imagine the idea, but figuring out how it works is a different issue entirely.

Still, though, I think the contrast is clear, and in my opinion the pursuit of that better condition is a far better liberty than the surrender so many of our "libertarian" neighbors propose.

Well said, and closer to the truth than anything our libertarian friends have offered up here. I often think of a book called Jennifer Government whenever I read Michael's rantings.

 

[Tiassa]

Fact and Narrative

Want to see what a demagogue looks like? Someone who can happily say anything to anyone to get elected. To obtain power. It's estimated that 1 in 25 Americans could be clinically diagnosed with a level of sociopathy.

Something about market outcomes goes here.

No, really, about all of it. What say we expect of politicians, what we actually vote for, what people actually have to do to find success in society ... it's a pretty cold marketplace, so distal, gelid outcomes should not be a surprise.

[Video: Obama was against mandatory health insurance before he was before it ....]

Is it the fact or some aspect of narrative you're after here?

As to the issue of fact, you're not reminding us of anything new; indeed, you remind of a truth many of Obama's critics refuse, that the PPACA is not some liberal, socialist monster but, rather, a conservative proposal. And while this certainly serves your anti-sheeple rants about both parties being one giant conspiracy or otherwise part of the same operation, it actually has greater value in that strange marketplace called reality.

With the issue of fact, it's not like liberals have forgotten when Obama scrapped the liberal plan and committed himself to the opposition. Tactically, even strategically, it was easy enough to see what was happening. But Democratic supporters still remember their disappointment, and why. Hell, it was only last month I was discussing this point with Asguard.

As to the issue of narrative? Well, in that case, the problem you face is that your narrative is incoherent, seemingly driven by an angry need to feel moral satisfaction in hard words and necessarily problematic interpretations:

Washington Times: Obama brag, in new book: I'm 'really good at killing people' with drones

On the right, it's a brag. Left of center, it's a tragic reality. You need that brag in order to buttress a narrative in which sociopathy is artificially proscribed in its potential manifestations. Certes, there can be sociopaths obsessed with an abstract notion of their own benefit—e.g., religious faith—whose manifestation includes feeding the hungry. In Obama's case, we can no more say it must be because it can only be than if we were talking about Ted Cruz, or Ron Paul.

Naturally, we can dismiss any good Obama does as a cold calculation if he must necessarily be a sociopath and can only manifest according to these specific dimensions. Such dehumanization of politicians is the sort of thing appropriate in allegory—

Tanya, why? "They made a deal with me. If I capture you, they will grant me a position with them,
and that was the rational choice."​

—but not for any reasonable attendance of reality.

Dehumanization of one's declared enemy is a fundamental, even animalistic behavior in the human psyche. It is not a healthy passion, and writes naught but the bleakest and most dystopic of narratives.
____________________

Notes:

Kornacki, Steve. "Playing politics saps Heritage credibility". The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. November 27, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 29, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/playing-politics-saps-heritage-credibility-75064899532

 

[Write4U]

Michael, you have consistently made the argument that,

"Government is defined as a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent."

Now that is an extraordinary claim and you MUST provide legitimate proofs of such a claim. Show me a link that has this "definition" of government. If you cannot provide a valid argument for such a claim, the basis for you copious narratives completely disappears.

Where did you find the definition "Government is defined as a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people"?
That definition is false. It is nowhere to be found in any description of government of any kind, including dictatorships. That definition does not exist.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

 

[Gage]

Now that is an extraordinary claim and you MUST provide legitimate proofs of such a claim. Show me a link that has this "definition" of government. If you cannot provide a valid argument for such a claim, the basis for you copious narratives completely disappears.

 

[iceaura]

Again, your argument is this:

No, my observation was that once again you had posted errors of physical fact - in this case you had the correlation between reliance on market forces and prevalence of gross inefficiency in medical care delivery backwards.

(a) This is immoral. Initiating force against innocent people IS IMMORAL. This is simple logic.

Freeloaders are not innocent people. People who get together as a community and decide to provide everyone medical care at everyone's expense are not acting immorally.

(b) Restricting civil liberty, forcing people to act against their free will is, by definition, a LESS prosperous nation. By definition. Again, simple logical deduction.

It's false. When deduction leads you to falsehood, the correct response is to amend or reject your assumptions.

(c) If free people desire high quality healthcare at a low cost - then in a free society with sound money, the free market will respond to this demand and provide it.

That is also false - in theory, as well as observation.

You keep insisting on obvious falsehoods. You seem unable to describe, of even recognize, physical situations. Why?

 

[Michael]

Do you want to live in a society that will let you die at the Emergency Room door if you don't have health insurance(or cash up front)? I don't. Thankfully, we don't. If you are injured you receive care.

In short, you are happy to live in a world where the only reason members of society would help one another is if they are threatened and coerced by the State. Yet, this same society is a democratic republic and in theory law must reflect the will of the populace. Thus, it's not possible for Law to ensure everyone is treated in ER unless it is the will of the majority. This of course means there would never be a time in a where anyone was left to die at the ER door because most people WANT to see everyone treated at ER. But hey, don't let logic get in the way of a good delusion.

Here's how Grumpy thinks: Grumpy has an emotional response. Grumpy then makes up a post-hoc rationalization to justify his emotional response.


In summery:
In Grumpy's mind, if it weren't for State forcing medical professional to care for the sick, then we'd see little children brought in to ER from a road accident and left to bleed out on the ER floor if they didn't have insurance. In Grumpy's mind no one would bother to lift a finger to save a child's life because people are just that callous. Now I'm curious - Is this something YOU would allow happen? You'd let a child bleed out in ER when you had the ability to do something about it? You wouldn't VOLUNTEER your time and resources to help a dying child?!?!

This is what you accuse the rest of society of being like.

How pathetic, go back to your insane asylum and leave the rest of us who WOULD and DO lift a finger to help those around us without monetary recourse live our lives without you sociopaths. We don't want to live in your 'Socialist Paradise' where the only reason anyone does anything to help one another is because the State forces them to do so. What a sad sad little existence you paint the world as. No wonder you don't believe in voluntarism.

 

[paddoboy]

How pathetic, go back to your insane asylum and leave the rest of us who WOULD and DO lift a finger to help those around us without monetary recourse. We don't want to live in your 'Socialist Paradise' where the only reason anyone does anything to help one another is because the State forces them to do so. What a sad sad little existence.

You really are a laugh a minute Michael. You my dear friend, is the one who is in the minority here, with your way out extremist right wing bull shit.
You can preach and rave and preach some more....and then more again. But your unreal model will never be considered for obvious reasons.

 

[Michael]

Now that is an extraordinary claim and you MUST provide legitimate proofs of such a claim. Show me a link that has this "definition" of government.

Firstly, change the 'definition' of State to strawberry flavoured cup cakes doesn't change the role of the State. The definition is there to ensure the words are used with their correct meaning. The State, whether it's a North Korean Communist/Socialist Paradise, Democratic Republic or Gulf Kingdom is defined as a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent other groups of humans within a geographic location. Secondly, no other group of humans in society has this legal obligation or ability. You may legally respond with force against another group of humans to defend yourself. But only the State can initiative force against innocent humans (see; War on Drugs, Income Tax, ObamaCare - as examples).

Gewaltmonopol des Staates
Princeton: Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force
The definition of the state (1919) expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation and which has been predominant in Philosophy of Law and Political Philosophy in the twentieth century. It defines a single entity, the State , exercising authority on violence over a given territory (as territory was also deemed by Weber to be a characteristic of state). Importantly, such a monopoly [on violence] must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the state's use of violence.



One more definition, prosperity is free time + civil liberty. Thus, the more free time you have to enjoy at your leisure together with your freedom to enjoy it peacefully without impinging upon other's freedoms is prosperity. ObamaCare reduces our civil liberties and therefore makes us a less prosperous nation.


I think the best option here is peacefully State succession. Those who want to live with Joe, where he will use the State to prevent you from choosing to obtain or refrain from healthcare goods and services (along with everything from how to wipe your arse to how many plug outlets you're allowed on a wall) - you can go do so. Those of us who choose to live as adults taking care of one another voluntary and using social institutions like home owners insurance companies and competition to determine how we wipe our arse and how many sockets per wall and what sort of changes in insurance rate (if any) the freedom to choose the *gasp* little amenities - we'll live in our States.

I'm greatly looking forward to the mass of welfare queens and warfare chicken hawks flooding over to your "Socialist Paradise". Fine by me. But, for those who want to work, want to use sound money, respect the property rights and law and want a society based on non-aggression - come on over

 

[Michael]

You really are a laugh a minute Michael. You my dear friend, is the one who is in the minority here, with your way out extremist right wing bull shit.
You can preach and rave and preach some more....and then more again. But your unreal model will never be considered for obvious reasons.

For thousands of years abolitionists were the minority - but their argument was also morally sound. In the end, there is no Slavery.

 

[Michael]

Freeloaders are not innocent people. People who get together as a community and decide to provide everyone medical care at everyone's expense are not acting immorally.

What do you mean 'freeloader'? Is there any moral violation with being a 'freeloader' if people are voluntarily providing them with goods and services? How did this person become a 'freeloader'? I'm presuming 'freeloaders' don't just pop into existence.

People who get together as a community and decide to provide everyone medical care at everyone's expense are not acting immorally.

I have no problem with this so long as everyone agrees.

Here's a problem: getting 51% of the people to agree everyone has to be forced at gun point to pay for healthcare when 49% do not want to and are happy to either go without or organize themselves in a voluntary manner to provide for their healthcare needs.

There's MILLIONS of competent good students who didn't get lucky this year - they won't be allowed to practice. Could they? Sure. There's thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of poorly educated medical doctors. Statistically ~1 in 25 are incompetent and ~1 in 75 are sociopathic and are murdering and/or purposely harming people. Want to know why? Because of people like yourself who are incapable of understanding society can organize itself without a gun in the face.

 

[madanthonywayne]

.

Where did you find the definition "Government is defined as a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people"?
That definition is false. It is nowhere to be found in any description of government of any kind, including dictatorships. That definition does not exist.

I believe Michael is referring to the statement by Weber that government is the entity with a monopoly on the use of physical force within a given geographic area

A monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (sometimes referred to as the state's monopoly on violence) is the conception of the state expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919).
According to Weber, the state is that entity which "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."[1] Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on force has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.
Weber defines the state as a community successfully claiming authority on legitimate use of physical force over a given territory; territory was also deemed by Weber to be a prerequisite feature of a state. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.
.

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean 'freeloader'? Is there any moral violation with being a 'freeloader' if people are voluntarily providing them with goods and services? How did this person become a 'freeloader'? I'm presuming 'freeloaders' don't just pop into existence.

People who get together as a community and decide to provide everyone medical care at everyone's expense are not acting immorally.

I have no problem with this so long as everyone agrees.

It is Law enacted by congress, you know, the place where the freely elected representatives of the people vote. Not everyone is required to agree, as long as a majority agrees.

Here's a problem: getting 51% of the people to agree everyone has to be forced at gun point to pay for healthcare when 49% do not want to and are happy to either go without or organize themselves in a voluntary manner to provide for their healthcare needs.

51% is the majority and 49% have had their chance to make their argument, but lost. Kinda like what is happening here. You are in the minority. Now you are pouting and "branding" people with ad hominem labels. It is you who is trying to use "force" to get your way. Filibustering is a form of force.
Just like the obstructionists in congress who refuse to bring proposals to the floor for a vote. That is a use of negative force, which deprives others from their rights to be represented.

There's MILLIONS of competent good students who didn't get lucky this year - they won't be allowed to practice. Could they? Sure. There's thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of poorly educated medical doctors. Statistically ~1 in 25 are incompetent and ~1 in 75 are sociopathic and are murdering and/or purposely harming people.

The rants of a unbalanced mind.

know why? Because of people like yourself who are incapable of understanding society can organize itself without a gun in the face.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that US society HAS organized itself without a gun in the face. Am I to understand you reject the Constitution and Bill of Rights? You know that this was a voluntary social contract with built-in checks and balances and still stands as a shiny example of fair and balanced governance for a Nation of 300,000,000 people.
Of course there are problems that face the Nation but it is not Programs like ACA, based on Law which will benefit all, not a select few..
If you want your voice to be heard, volunteer and help elect honest and principled people to congress. The Nation will do just fine with voluntary cooperative efforts. A "voting ballot" is not "a gun in the face".

 

[Write4U]

I believe Michael is referring to the statement by Weber that government is the entity with a monopoly on the use of physical force within a given geographic area

Yes, we had a Civil War between the federal government and several State governments over the concept of the right by an individual to use physical force on another individual (slavery). within a demographic area. The Federal government had the perfect right to enforce National Federal Law against good, upstanding, innocent slave owners, in spite of state sovereignty.

I know what Michael is referring to, but his definition, as written, is pure nonsense.

Analyze it carefully. ""Government is defined as a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people"? :shrug:

 

[paddoboy]

For thousands of years abolitionists were the minority - but their argument was also morally sound. In the end, there is no Slavery.

The archaic and morally wrong systems of the past have disappeared as we matured as a species, and more maturity and insight will see further desired improvements in the future, I'm sure...But the acceptance and implementation of what you propose will never eventuate.