Medical Drugs in Short Supply - Who to Blame?

[HoosierGuy]

The U.S. government should take over those drugs that the companies do not want to make. The U.S. should make those drugs itself and hire out of work Americans to work at those plants. And the U.S. government should sell those drugs to those that need it at very low cost - not $5,000 a cycle or week or month, not $10,000, not $2,000, but $10.00 a cycle or $2.00 a cycle.

Any company that refuses to make life saving drugs because they are not making enough of a profit are criminal and should be punished.

Some believe (wrongly) that corporations are "people" too. There are laws that say if we are walking down a street and see someone dying from a gunshot wound or was hit by a car or was raped and beat, it is our legal duty to notify the police. We can't simply ignore him/her, we can't close the window and go back to reading the scriptures or watching the football game. We can get in legal trouble if we blatantly ignore the person who needs help.

Those Americans dying from cancer and leukemia are like the victims lying on the street, dying. It is the legal duty of America to help them. Those that can help, the "people" corporations, are refusing to help. Therefore they are breaking the law and should face justice. Now it's up to us to help and we must, it's the humane, right and American thing to

do.

[rameumptom]

I have no problem with "limited" regulation. The problem is, government does not want to be limited, but naturally is disposed to grow ever larger. Just look at how many of the federal programs that were started before as small things have now become giant monsters. Medicare was only supposed to cost a few billion dollars total, but now is threatening us to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded mandates.

[dash77]

For those people who actually think that government run national health care in Canada is poor medicine, or below the standards of the United States, read the link below from a peer reviewed research article.

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array

This study outlines that government universal health care in Canada is equal - and has some additional strengths - to American health care. In this study a group of 17 researchers published a systematic review of 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. The findings of this study concluded that health outcomes are about equal in both countries - with a slight favoring of Canadian health care. Fourteen studies favored Canadian medical services, five favored American medical services, and 19 showed equivalent or mixed results. The difference, of course, is that in Canada all people get great medical services, in the United States there is a real discrepancy depending on insurance companies and wealth.

This view that government is always bad and evil and causes problems is one of the greatest myths in America. The view that the free market system as always bad and evil is also a myth. However, although the issue of drug shortages is always multivariate (as the news article outlines), in the United States the profit margin by pharmaceutical companies, is a key factor, among many why there can be drug shortages.

I simply can’t believe so many Americans actually believe that national government health care in other countries is so awful and actually believe that the only and best system is American free market healthcare. I want to ask them what are they smoking in life? Its time to get educated.

[rameumptom]

Who said it is "so awful"? My concern is our government is not your government, nor can you easily compare a nation of 30 million with one of 300 million so easily. They put together a program that works for Canada. Good for them. Canadians are happy to deal with the pros and cons of their system, and many slip across the border for MRIs, etc., when they don't want to wait a year for one. So they make it work.

Totally different in America. Obamacare and the current regulations we have right now that give insurance companies legal monopolies are not going to help anyone. Our current system is not a free market system, but is highly regulated and allows insurance to make huge profits without any benefits of efficiencies one gets in a real competitive market.

[Jennarator]

Can't we just blame the President, then he blames the president before him for causing the problem? Isn't that the American way?

[MarginOfError]

The U.S. government should take over those drugs that the companies do not want to make. The U.S. should make those drugs itself and hire out of work Americans to work at those plants. And the U.S. government should sell those drugs to those that need it at very low cost - not $5,000 a cycle or week or month, not $10,000, not $2,000, but $10.00 a cycle or $2.00 a cycle.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to take to pay for this?

Any company that refuses to make life saving drugs because they are not making enough of a profit are criminal and should be punished.

Nonsense. If we start requiring corporations to produce products at a loss, we may as well go to a total government controlled state because there will be no such thing as a corporation in this country.

Some believe (wrongly) that corporations are "people" too. There are laws that say if we are walking down a street and see someone dying from a gunshot wound or was hit by a car or was raped and beat, it is our legal duty to notify the police. We can't simply ignore him/her, we can't close the window and go back to reading the scriptures or watching the football game. We can get in legal trouble if we blatantly ignore the person who needs help.

According to the law, corporations are people. And actually, there is no legal liability to respond to a person in duress unless we have a certain level of training and/or certification that requires us to respond. For instance, if I'm leading a scout troop on a hike and some random person from another group falls off a ledge and is bleeding and unconscious at the bottom of the ravine, I'm not going down after them, and I'm under no legal responsibility to do so. If, however, I were a certified wilderness first responder, I might be legally required to render assistance.

Those Americans dying from cancer and leukemia are like the victims lying on the street, dying. It is the legal duty of America to help them. Those that can help, the "people" corporations, are refusing to help. Therefore they are breaking the law and should face justice. Now it's up to us to help and we must, it's the humane, right and American thing to

do.

it is not a legal duty. It is a moral duty. There's a huge difference. But then we could also take this down the rabbit hole and ask if all of those people dying of various cancers upheld their moral duty to us to maintain a healthy lifestyle that may have prevented their condition. Are we morally obligated to save the life of a person who isn't likely to make the lifestyle changes necessary to prevent us from having to save them again?

I know that's cold hearted, but the reality is that we have limited resources and they need to be allocated in the most efficient way.

[HoosierGuy]

How much of a tax increase are you willing to take to pay for this?

According to the law, corporations are people.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes. Tax me and tax me more.

And it's really a mistake that the law says corporations are people. It all goes back to a mistake in the Supreme Court decades ago. Apparently the justices said corporations are not people but the reporter made a mistake and wrote down that they said they are people. The people heard the reporters mistaken report and the rest is history.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said the line separating good and evil runs through every human heart. Those "People Corporations" are not on the good side.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm willing to pay more in taxes. Tax me and tax me more.

How much, and for how long?

Oh, and I would appreciate your certifying to us that you are not one of the 49% of Americans who actually pay no taxes.

And it's really a mistake that the law says corporations are people. It all goes back to a mistake in the Supreme Court decades ago. Apparently the justices said corporations are not people but the reporter made a mistake and wrote down that they said they are people. The people heard the reporters mistaken report and the rest is history.

BS. Published judicial opinions are written by the judges (or their clerks, and edited by the judges) themselves. This was not a mere stenographer's error, and if it were then it's curious that the entire freakin' US Supreme Court chose not to correct this error in last year's Citizens United decision.

[john doe]

I'm willing to pay more in taxes. Tax me and tax me more.

You and Warren Buffett. Oh that's right, he doesn't pay his taxes, does he? If you two could get George Soros on board with paying extra you could put a sizable dent in the national debt. Then we could afford to pay for these extras you guys want us all to have.

[dash77]

When it comes to paying more taxes, I have no problem paying more -- and and for the rest of my life -- to take care of the medically needy. It is what Christ would do and I've made a covenant to be Christ-like.

[john doe]

Let's just bypass the government and start with the people you know. PM me if you're serious about helping people out, and I'll give you my address where you can send the checks.

[Saldrin]

When it comes to paying more taxes, I have no problem paying more -- and and for the rest of my life -- to take care of the medically needy. It is what Christ would do and I've made a covenant to be Christ-like.

No its not, Christ would go out an minister to the medically needy himself. Stay out of my wallet what I make is mine.

[MrShorty]

When it comes to paying more taxes, I have no problem paying more -- and and for the rest of my life -- to take care of the medically needy. It is what Christ would do and I've made a covenant to be Christ-like.

Several years ago, there was an issue in Orem (Ut) that caused me to think about this differently. How do you measure "willingness?"

"I'm only 'willing' if non-payment carries the threat of fines, penalties, and jailtime." aka taxes.

"I'm willing, but you have to make it very convenient for me." If I remember right, the Utah state income tax forms have a couple of entries for voluntary donations (a fund for the blind and another fund for wildlife conservation??). A very convenient way to help the government help people in need without the threat of punishment associated with taxes. I can't say how well those funds are managed, though.

all the way down to, "I will go out of my way to figure out how to help."

At this point I guess I should put in the disclaimer that I don't know of any charities that would fill this need nor have I gone seeking them. I don't even know if the church considers this an appropriate use of Fast Offering funds. This might be a good point to ask if anyone knows of any charities or funds out there that are set up to help people get needed medicines. Maybe the pharmaceutical companies have something set up? Or an insurance company? or someone else? This would help those who are truly "willing" to find some way to help without having to wait for the government to step in and "tax" it out of us.

[dash77]

No its not, Christ would go out an minister to the medically needy himself. Stay out of my wallet what I make is mine.

The issue of paying to help the needy is at the very core of our baptismal covenants and why we partake of the Sacrament every Sunday. We covenant to bear other burdens and to help those in need. I can understand not wanting to pay greater taxes for certain types of societal programs, such as NASA or road infrastructure. But the medically needy are people who have diagnosed medical needs by trained medical professionals.

There are all types of justification and excuses that people can make, but we really do covenant to help the needy when we partake of the Sacrament and when we withhold finances – and usually make excuses that medical doctors and licenses therapists do not know what they are doing – we are not following through on our covenants and are not following the law of sacrifice. By global standards in the United States we live in filthy wealth and I honestly think one day we will account to the Lord regarding how so much of our financial needs go toward bettering ourselves.

Saldrin, so how would you go about helping a person who by no fault of his own gets into a car accident, has a serious spinal cord injury or brain injury, will end up disabled, and because of his medical insurance, has to still pay 20% deductable which means he has to sell his house to pay huge medical needs. My answers is that if all people – especially those that claim to be Christ-like – would be willing to pay more for taxes (or medical insurance premiums) that we can actual help this person and family recover and not have to go bankrupt and lose his house in the process. What is your solution – you would go to the hospital and minister to him and then what? Would you give him a priesthood blessing and then just leave and let the person go bankrupt? How would you help? In fact, in both Church Handbooks it clearly outlines the need to use competent medical professionals in times of mental or physical health crises.

In all honesty, I am shocked at how many so-called Christians will point the finger and blame everyone so that they do not have to pay more money to help the medically needy. Simply read Mosiah 4: 16-19 and start living it!

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, helpin' folks is usually a worthy goal. However, removing consequences from them usually isn't. When I think about what America's obesity epidemic costs this country, and when I think it's due to people not making wise choices, it makes me wonder why I need to foot the bill for their choices.

Or, if you want something a little more smarmy: I feel good knowing that no matter how poorly I maintain my health, no matter how many double-big-macs I eat every week and how little I exercise, no matter how many drugs I do, or how recklessly I drive, or how dangerously I live my life - people are advocating higher taxes for other folks to pay my medical bills. Tell me - do you also want to socialize dental care? I can feel good about not brushing my teeth too.

Remember - I'm "Medically Needy"! I pass through the only gate you've offered! It doesn't matter to you that it's my own dang fault - I ain't got no job, so you people gotta pay for my rehab, or insulin, or cholesterol-induced repetetive strokes, or my new liver after I ruined mine with abuse. All hail being "medically needy"! It means I have judgement-free claim on your support! Anyone who says otherwise, is sure to shock the Christians!

Edited September 29, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[LittleWyvern]

Yeah, helpin' folks is usually a worthy goal. However, removing consequences from them usually isn't. When I think about what America's obesity epidemic costs this country, and when I think it's due to people not making wise choices, it makes me wonder why I need to foot the bill for their choices.

Or, if you want something a little more smarmy: I feel good knowing that no matter how poorly I maintain my health, no matter how many double-big-macs I eat every week and how little I exercise, no matter how many drugs I do, or how recklessly I drive, or how dangerously I live my life - people are advocating higher taxes for other folks to pay my medical bills. Tell me - do you also want to socialize dental care? I can feel good about not brushing my teeth too.

Remember - I'm "Medically Needy"! I pass through the only gate you've offered! It doesn't matter to you that it's my own dang fault - I ain't got no job, so you people gotta pay for my rehab, or insulin, or cholesterol-induced repetetive strokes, or my new liver after I ruined mine with abuse. All hail being "medically needy"! It means I have judgement-free claim on your support! Anyone who says otherwise, is sure to shock the Christians!

It's often said that "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for life" or something like that. Often people use this to claim that giving somebody a fish is bad because it's temporary and won't solve a problem. I usually agree with this, but if you meet somebody who is starving, it might be a good idea to give him a fish first and then teach him how to fish.

Extending this analogy to your example, you seem to be creating a false dilemma: either you can give everybody fishes (i.e. support everybody in their bad choices and let everybody do what they want) or teach everybody to fish (i.e. tell everybody to stop being lazy/druggies/stupid/etc.). I think we can strike a balance here by doing a bit of both. If we tie education into helping the needy, we can give people fish without worrying that they're going to become dependent on our fish. I think condemning giving people fish because doing so doesn't teach them how to fish is a little short-sided.

Of course, I think we can find the best example of how to do welfare and helping others right is the LDS welfare program. I've seen on my mission a few less-active LDS members down on their luck and basically living on the streets using this program and it's amazing what it does. The focus first is on meeting the person's immediate physical needs, then works on making that person independent. They'll usually get a job at the DI and get job training. They'll learn life skills that they never had the opportunity to learn before. And, they'll almost always leave the program a much better person than they started. So, I think we can achieve both dash77's goal of helping others and your goal of helping people become self-reliant simultaneously. We just have to find a balance between giving and teaching.

Edited September 29, 2011 by LittleWyvern
Seriously, does anybody know how to spell simultaneously?

[dash77]

Yeah, helpin' folks is usually a worthy goal. However, removing consequences from them usually isn't. When I think about what America's obesity epidemic costs this country, and when I think it's due to people not making wise choices, it makes me wonder why I need to foot the bill for their choices.

Or, if you want something a little more smarmy: I feel good knowing that no matter how poorly I maintain my health, no matter how many double-big-macs I eat every week and how little I exercise, no matter how many drugs I do, or how recklessly I drive, or how dangerously I live my life - people are advocating higher taxes for other folks to pay my medical bills. Tell me - do you also want to socialize dental care? I can feel good about not brushing my teeth too.

Remember - I'm "Medically Needy"! I pass through the only gate you've offered! It doesn't matter to you that it's my own dang fault - I ain't got no job, so you people gotta pay for my rehab, or insulin, or cholesterol-induced repetetive strokes, or my new liver after I ruined mine with abuse. All hail being "medically needy"! It means I have judgement-free claim on your support! Anyone who says otherwise, is sure to shock the Christians!

Loudmouth:

Read Mosiah 4:16-19 because it addresses the very argument you are suggesting - -whihc is we are still to help the needy even when "the man has brought upon himself his misery"

[NeuroTypical]

We just have to find a balance between giving and teaching.

I think we differ as to what gets taught. For someone interested in having someone else pay their bills, you show up with a bunch of pamphlets and seminars and informational commercial campaigns and public education units taught in health class and free healthcare, he has been succesfully taught that he has free healthcare, and kicks back on his sofa with his 38 grams-of-fat 3000-calorie dinner. They have pills that lower cholesterol.

If you want to teach someone to take care of themselves, tell them about how they own the consequences of their actions. Then do not keep them from their consequences.

Read Mosiah 4:16-19 because it addresses the very argument you are suggesting - -whihc is we are still to help the needy even when "the man has brought upon himself his misery"

Yes he does - King Mosiah addressed his people on how the Lord wanted them to act. King Mosiah was not justifying higher taxes so the government could do it for them, which is what is being proposed on this thread.

I've been a ward financial clerk. It has been a great blessing to see how my fast offerings go to pay medical and other bills. I've also watched healthcare and insurance evolve and change in our country and others over the decades, as well as the healthcare needs of various populations. I have definite opinions about the harm we chose to do to ourselves when we are secure in the knowledge that the financial consequense will be borne by other people. Church welfare makes you work for it.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[john doe]

I'm still waiting on those PMs. Come on, do as Jesus and King Mosiah taught and step up.

[Saldrin]

The issue of paying to help the needy is at the very core of our baptismal covenants and why we partake of the Sacrament every Sunday. We covenant to bear other burdens and to help those in need. I can understand not wanting to pay greater taxes for certain types of societal programs, such as NASA or road infrastructure. But the medically needy are people who have diagnosed medical needs by trained medical professionals.

There are all types of justification and excuses that people can make, but we really do covenant to help the needy when we partake of the Sacrament and when we withhold finances – and usually make excuses that medical doctors and licenses therapists do not know what they are doing – we are not following through on our covenants and are not following the law of sacrifice. By global standards in the United States we live in filthy wealth and I honestly think one day we will account to the Lord regarding how so much of our financial needs go toward bettering ourselves.

Saldrin, so how would you go about helping a person who by no fault of his own gets into a car accident, has a serious spinal cord injury or brain injury, will end up disabled, and because of his medical insurance, has to still pay 20% deductable which means he has to sell his house to pay huge medical needs. My answers is that if all people – especially those that claim to be Christ-like – would be willing to pay more for taxes (or medical insurance premiums) that we can actual help this person and family recover and not have to go bankrupt and lose his house in the process. What is your solution – you would go to the hospital and minister to him and then what? Would you give him a priesthood blessing and then just leave and let the person go bankrupt? How would you help? In fact, in both Church Handbooks it clearly outlines the need to use competent medical professionals in times of mental or physical health crises.

In all honesty, I am shocked at how many so-called Christians will point the finger and blame everyone so that they do not have to pay more money to help the medically needy. Simply read Mosiah 4: 16-19 and start living it!

You start living it you hypocrite go out and help them yourself. There are organizations that are not government that accept donations to help people like the one in your dishonest example. The medical community DOLES out charitable medical care and you know what? they don't need tax money to do it. IHC here in salt lake has so much earmarked as company policy to give out in charitable care hare dare you act like people have no alternatives but a Government hand out, stolen from me or it citizens. No matter how much you want it to be you are not Christ like by paying more taxes. you are Christ like by being willing to go out and help people your lazy self, even if its just writing a check to a Private charitable organization, who really will use the money more efficiently. Charity is the answer and taxes are not charity!

[LittleWyvern]

I think we differ as to what gets taught. For someone interested in having someone else pay their bills, you show up with a bunch of pamphlets and seminars and informational commercial campaigns and public education units taught in health class and free healthcare, he has been succesfully taught that he has free healthcare, and kicks back on his sofa with his 38 grams-of-fat 3000-calorie dinner. They have pills that lower cholesterol.

If you want to teach someone to take care of themselves, tell them about how they own the consequences of their actions. Then do not keep them from their consequences.

I think where we really differ is that you have a much more pessimistic view on human nature than I do. I think if people are educated properly that they'll learn to cooperate with society rather than try to take advantage of it. If we both came up with a curriculum to, say, help people become financially independent, we'd probably come up with something similar. It would probably be along the lines of "ok, these are job skills," "this is what it means to be frugal," "spend less than you earn," etc. Basic financial skills. Where we differ, though, is your assumption that as soon as someone learns of a welfare program they'll come to the conclusion that they can be lazy/stupid/etc. all they want with no consequences. Not only do I think that's a rather harsh view of human nature, I think that leaves out human dignity as well. It's easy to blame people for being poor by saying that "oh, they made bad decisions so that's why they are where they are." I've found that most people on the streets (in San Bernardino and Colton, at least) really do want to get out of the bad situation they're in. Only very few people really want to be on welfare and live in the projects, and if they do, that's because it's all they know. Some people just need a second chance (or sometimes more than 2) to get going on the right path. So, I've concluded that most people by nature are capable of doing good and being self-sufficient if only given the chance to develop those skills. Therefore, it doesn't help these people by telling them that they're lazy and will always take advantage of the system. I don't advocate keeping people from their consequences indefinitely, but giving them an environment to learn where if they make mistakes they can get back up and going fairly easily. Yes, this does keep them from consequences, but these consequences in most cases are so difficult to progress past that most people lose hope (as the homeless have done). If we're going to teach somebody how to fish we have to be willing to catch a few fish for them until they learn the skill.

However, if we take your view of human nature, this is all meaningless. According to your model no matter how many opportunities we give them to succeed, they'll always just game the system and never take any steps to progress. I think at least the LDS welfare system proves that view in most cases wrong.

[NeuroTypical]

I think where we really differ is that you have a much more pessimistic view on human nature than I do. I think if people are educated properly

...

If we both came up with a curriculum to, say,

...

I've concluded that most people by nature are capable of doing good and being self-sufficient if only given the chance to develop those skills.

Actually, I would guess that my positive vew on human nature more closely resembles yours than it would seem. I think where we differ, is that I understand the deceptive comfort provided by that tiny innocent looking word "if". The comfort is a lie.

Yes indeed, if everybody was educated properly, if there was an appropriate curriculum for everybody, and if everybody had the chance, then everything would be all better.

Those "if"s are just that - hypothetical idealistic constructs. They are not reality. Go work on your "if"s - I'll probably join you if you come up with a way. In the meantime, I will fight your attempts to take money from my family to pay for someone else.

John Doe is making a joke out of it - but yes indeed - my wife can't afford to go to college because of our high medical bills. We have insurance, and will still be out almost $7000 this year. She desperately wants to go back - but we don't make enough money to cover both health costs and tuition. Now you want to take more of it. That is an assault on the financial health of my family, and I will fight you. I will fight you at the ballot box, and on forums of public discourse like this board.

[dash77]

Yes he does - King Mosiah addressed his people on how the Lord wanted them to act. King Mosiah was not justifying higher taxes so the government could do it for them, which is what is being proposed on this thread.

I've been a ward financial clerk. It has been a great blessing to see how my fast offerings go to pay medical and other bills. I've also watched healthcare and insurance evolve and change in our country and others over the decades, as well as the healthcare needs of various populations. I have definite opinions about the harm we chose to do to ourselves when we are secure in the knowledge that the financial consequense will be borne by other people. Church welfare makes you work for it.

You are exemplifying the very thing I am suggesting, you are adding an ideological framework to the scriptures to justify not paying more money to the medically needy -- its about you saving money. Mosiah 4: 16-19 is very plain and simply -- we help people in need and in modern day America the vehicle for helping the medically needy is the medical system. Don't try to use the churches welfare system to trump medical needs in order to save money in your wallet. Serving as the ward clerk does not give you some addtional insights into helping the medically needy and both Church Handbooks clearly outline the need for competent medical professionals to make medical assessments.

[Sali]

John Doe is making a joke out of it - but yes indeed - my wife can't afford to go to college because of our high medical bills. We have insurance, and will still be out almost $7000 this year. She desperately wants to go back - but we don't make enough money to cover both health costs and tuition. Now you want to take more of it. That is an assault on the financial health of my family, and I will fight you. I will fight you at the ballot box, and on forums of public discourse like this board.

But you wouldn't be in that financial situation with just a little raised taxes to form a universal healthcare. You wife would receive her healthcare and could afford to go to college. The taxes that are gathered to run a universal healthcare system are not crippling. They are a lot more affordable than the few hundred dollars each month we shell out on health insurance, which doesn't even cover 100%, never mind the deductible.

Oh and someone mentioned that in Canada and the UK you have to wait a year for MRI and CT scan. I don't know where that information came from but it is simply not true. I know because I have lived in the system and have had CT scans and MRIs. In fact, it seems to be a similar wait to see a specialist here in the US as it is in England. My son has been waiting for a few months to see an Endocrinologist. Please try not to buy into all of the horror stories, as they are really not reality. There are deficiencies in both systems.

[NeuroTypical]

But you wouldn't be in that financial situation with just a little raised taxes to form a universal healthcare. You wife would receive her healthcare and could afford to go to college. The taxes that are gathered to run a universal healthcare system are not crippling. They are a lot more affordable than the few hundred dollars each month we shell out on health insurance, which doesn't even cover 100%, never mind the deductible.

Basic math still operates. The laws that govern the universe don't change based on the existence of a government program.

I can't believe why so many people fall into this trap. "If the govt took it over, it would get cheaper and more plentiful" is offensive to reason and the historical record. For every country that has tried it. Always. Heck, even wars were a lot cheaper back when counties and states provided local militias.

Arguments about social justice and equal rights and appeals to King Mosiah at least carry some weight. Baseless ideology, disproven countless times, doesn't.

What would happen, is my wife eventually doesn't qualify for her $1200/month prescription, (or it's no longer available except through illegal channels if HoosierGuy gets his way), and she dies within a few years. Or maybe she's shuffled off to a less-effective treatment. Her quality of life suffers. Assuming the govt program is about as well put together as it can be, someone else's wife could then go to college.

Another indisputable fact: No matter how cool Canadian healthcare is, there are lots of ferries that run wealthy sick people across Lakes Erie and Ontario. They're coming from Canada, and floating into Buffalo for treatment, not the other way around. Moving the US to a more Canada-like system will kill that off pretty well.