Young people today deserve more credit for being able to make informed decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKGAUdinK2o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKGAUdinK2o)
LOL! :D
She's adorable, I want to adopt her!
Quote from: Nikko on January 16, 2014, 02:43:11 PM
LOL! :D
She's adorable, I want to adopt her!
Too bad I already beat you to it and I'm writing her into my will! :D :icon_ballbounce:
Julie is so good ,I recommend taking the time to watch it.
Only one flaw. Well two. First, making it affordable for all does mean all have to participate. Deciding old people don't get care because they need it more and have little funds is wrong. Consider if she goes bankrupt the day before her health takes a nasty turn. Then no young people agree to join in and pay for her old person health.
It would take a bit to define this better, but the risk pool thing matters, so does coverage. These are details that do need to be figured out. I hated policies that would cover maternity care but no form of birth control. She hates having all forms of birth control covered. There is middle ground.
Quote from: LordKAT on January 17, 2014, 01:17:04 AM
Only one flaw. Well two. First, making it affordable for all does mean all have to participate. Deciding old people don't get care because they need it more and have little funds is wrong. Consider if she goes bankrupt the day before her health takes a nasty turn. Then no young people agree to join in and pay for her old person health.
It would take a bit to define this better, but the risk pool thing matters, so does coverage. These are details that do need to be figured out. I hated policies that would cover maternity care but no form of birth control. She hates having all forms of birth control covered. There is middle ground.
It will probably come down to that! I still prefer to be able to get a policy tailored to my personal needs, what would I at seventy years old need birth control and maternity coverages for? It isn't going to fly under any circumstances and is so flawed on so many levels. Young healthy productive people aren't going to buy into it, youth just never considers getting sick or old or of dying. As it stands they would prefer people like that to just die. I was watching one of those "Man on the street" interviews of young adults and was surprised at the number who were in favor of euthanasia for old people and those who were chronically ill rather than paying to support them. I'm getting the feeling that those like myself and the entire boomer generation will be considered a financial drain on society in spite of having lived productive lives and when the younger generation is forced by repressive government action through ObamaCare into paying the freight to carry all that dead weight on their backs, their resentment will be high and we will be regarded as financial deadbeats and useless eaters and Sarah Palen's seemingly ridiculous predictions of a "Death Panel" will no longer be such a joke. (Next we give you Soilent green!) :D
Quote from: Shantel on January 17, 2014, 08:37:09 AM
I was watching one of those "Man on the street" interviews of young adults and was surprised at the number who were in favor of euthanasia for old people and those who were chronically ill rather than paying to support them.
Even though this post is several days old, I just saw this thread and I just wanted to speak about that point in particular. I am always amazed at the utter stupidity of that mentality. Even when I was in my late teens/early 20s, I thought these attitudes were dumb as hell. Unless you get snuffed out at an early age, chances are you (you being that age group) will get old one day. Would you want to be 70 or 80 years old, laying in a hospital bed and some young punk thinks that it is just peachy keen if you are put to death to "save money" or whatever screwed up logic they can think of in their moronic damn heads?
Hell no, you wouldn't.
It's a classic case of the "me" mentality mixed with sub-par I.Q's.
social security also depends on young working people to work. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. They will get old and die. I would love to come back and say sorry, you wouldn't pay when young so you pay through the nose now or the youngsters let you die.
Quote from: LordKAT on January 26, 2014, 06:09:34 PM
social security also depends on young working people to work. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. They will get old and die. I would love to come back and say sorry, you wouldn't pay when young so you pay through the nose now or the youngsters let you die.
Sure until you start compiling the list of crap that's on the back of the young:
16T in debt.
Exponentially rising tuition costs.
Increased Medicare/Medicaid Costs
ObamaCare
Social Security
Increasing taxes
This is generational theft at it's finest. Not only are we making it more difficult for young people to enter the workforce, but when we do,
we are taxing the crap out of them. In no way is this moral or proper policy.
Some estimates have the average person at 25 losing 30-40% of the their entire earnings consumed by taxes of some sort. That means, if you start a job jan 1st, you aren't making any money for yourself until May. That is redonkulous.
It's one thing to help people and its a whole different thing to lose roughly half of your earnings to help people who didn't plan for their own future. So, how about this, let me plan for my future so I don't have to steal from my kids or grandkids.
Sorry your life sucks, you only had your entire life to figure it out.
-AM
Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 10, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
Sure until you start compiling the list of crap that's on the back of the young:
16T in debt.
Exponentially rising tuition costs.
Increased Medicare/Medicaid Costs
ObamaCare
Social Security
Increasing taxes
That is redonkulous. :D
Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 10, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
Sorry your life sucks, you only had your entire life to figure it out.
-AM
LordKat, myself and many others don't deserve any undue BS, we have all paid our dues. Unfortunately the economy is in the tank, some can't find work, some wouldn't work if they could and the administration is abysmally feckless in terms of doing the right things to change the direction this Titanic we're on is headed. It is indeed stressful for everyone!
Quote from: LordKAT on January 26, 2014, 06:09:34 PM
social security also depends on young working people to work. I don't see it as a bad thing necessarily. They will get old and die. I would love to come back and say sorry, you wouldn't pay when young so you pay through the nose now or the youngsters let you die.
It's a bad thing. It's what happens when government runs things. I design these systems for a living, the government should be sued for everything it owns. I want Utah!
The concept of a cohort is crucial to retirement benefits, along with mortality, etc., etc. Each cohort's retirement savings have been raided by greedy-ass-low-life-not-worthy-of-life politicians. Sorry, it's a fact. The funds for each age group of participants (ie, all of America) should've been invested in safe low yield funds and paid out as needed for each retiree as needed. Social security is a form of insurance. Retiree's should get much more out than they pay in because many participants have passed on, but had they not, they would've been secure in their retirement. This makes me so angry. Ignorance is bliss, I wish I didn't know what is being done to everyone, it's pure evil.
Because it's been mismanaged, young people have to now pay in a lot more than they'll ever get back. They'll likely get back nothing. If you're 40 or younger, you'll likely get nothing. I'm so sorry to inform you all of this. But knowledge is power.
First step: Stop voting for people who are screwing you!
Quote from: Shantel on February 10, 2014, 06:23:35 PM
That is redonkulous. :D
LordKat, myself and many others don't deserve any undue BS, we have all paid our dues. Unfortunately the economy is in the tank, some can't find work, some wouldn't work if they could and the administration is abysmally feckless in terms of doing the right things to change the direction this Titanic we're on is headed. It is indeed stressful for everyone!
That wasn't directed at Lordkat or any particular person, poorly worded on my part.
The "you" was an ambiguous person who is at retirement, didn't plan properly, and now I along with millions of other youth, are getting taxed to death for.
And now I just botched my nails. >:(
-AM
Quote from: Nikko on February 10, 2014, 06:52:03 PM
First step: Stop voting for people who are screwing you!
I'm part of a grassroots group here in MN trying to get members of the LGBTQ community here to quit voting for democrats that--in spite of significant lip service--are routinely voting to limit our god given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bottom line is I could write a book on how Republicans and Democrats routinely screw over the young, the minority class, and the LGBTQ community. It took me awhile to see the forest for the trees but once I did I went and changed my voter registration card as quick as I could and officially threw in with the Libertarian Party. I became hyper-political in 2003 following the outbreak of the Iraq War and haven't looked back.
-AM
QuoteI'm part of a grassroots group here in MN trying to get members of the LGBTQ community here to quit voting for democrats that--in spite of significant lip service--are routinely voting to limit our god given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The moderators are going to think I've created a second identity here at Susan's if you keep speaking sense like that! ;)
I am not sure if I would be considered young, but I am certainly not stupid and quite well informed. I wanted an NHS style system and yes, even with all the negatives and positives that entails. So there isn't anyone to vote for that represents my values on it, but Democrats are much closer to it than Republicans.
You're clearly not stupid, but whether one is informed depends on their sources of information and willingness to think beyond their belief system.
You seem more ideological driven, but I suspect your sources are limited on some level. Just my take.
Obama delayed obamacare, AGAIN, for the mid-size companies. Dang, I think Ted Cruz has it right... "Mr. President, if you like your healthcare law so much, why don't you implement it?". ;)
Problem with ideology. People like this don't try and fix things, they force things.
Quote from: Nikko on February 10, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
You're clearly not stupid, but whether one is informed depends on their sources of information and willingness to think beyond their belief system.
You seem more ideological driven, but I suspect your sources are limited on some level. Just my take.
Obama delayed obamacare, AGAIN, for the mid-size companies. Dang, I think Ted Cruz has it right... "Mr. President, if you like your healthcare law so much, why don't you implement it?". ;)
Problem with ideology. People like this don't try and fix things, they force things.
Extraconstitutional at best. Impeachable at worst.
"... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ..."
Quote from: Nikko on February 10, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
You're clearly not stupid, but whether one is informed depends on their sources of information and willingness to think beyond their belief system.
You seem more ideological driven, but I suspect your sources are limited on some level. Just my take.
Obama delayed obamacare, AGAIN, for the mid-size companies. Dang, I think Ted Cruz has it right... "Mr. President, if you like your healthcare law so much, why don't you implement it?". ;)
Problem with ideology. People like this don't try and fix things, they force things.
I am guilty to being ideologically driven on some level, I doubt anyone who actually follows things intently doesn't have at least some ideology. As far as sources, well I get most of my actual news from the BBC, NPR, and Deutsche Welle. MSNBC and Fox are full of commentary which turns into sycophants cheering for their team. I have read Friedman, Hayek, etc as well as Keynes, Marx, Pribićević, etc so economically I am well familiar with arguments from both sides.
The thing is, in American politics, it doesn't matter where you stand or what you believe. You have two basic choices, except for rare occasions (Jesse Ventura) or when money can trump all (Bloomberg). This means no matter how well informed you are, or how well you understand things you only get to choose between two things. Right now that choice is between a healthcare law that stands the potential of insuring more people and is a massive transfer of wealth to private insurance companies from our tax dollars, which makes me unhappy; or the other choice let people fend for themselves as before or
maybe institute some sort of healthcare voucher system (though IDK exactly how much support government funded vouchers would have, but some in the house like that).
When reduced to those two poor choices, it seems hard to even be ideological about it, for me I just consider what I feel will do the most harm and go against it. So more people insured even if it were to reduce the quality of healthcare for others and increase premiums is still less harmful to society as a whole than people dropping dead because they waited until they had to go to the ER to get healthcare.
Sorry for the verbose post, I just wanted to make clear my thought process supporting the healthcare law isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of it (or democratic politics) but I spent many years in a third party and I realized that in all practicality we don't have but the two choices the major parties want.
I planned for my retirement. Part of that plan was Social security. I haven't had much opportunity to save anything else. What I did have saved was taken by a bad marriage and medical bills. I am not alone in that.
Quote from: LordKAT on February 11, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
I planned for my retirement. Part of that plan was Social security. I haven't had much opportunity to save anything else. What I did have saved was taken by a bad marriage and medical bills. I am not alone in that.
I'm sorry to hear of your plight.
That said what is happening--wholesale I might add--is egregious taxation combined with high unemployment of young adults (ages 18-32) is perpetuating the problem of
NOT saving for retirement because they are unable to do so because they are paying the bills of older generations. Then you add in the mix that employers might cut hours to 29 hours to avoid expensive entanglements with ObamaCare. So now young adults will essentially have to work two jobs, pay more taxes, pay more for benefits for older generations, and most of these programs aren't going to be solvent by the time Millennials retire (Some of them already aren't solvent; like Medicare/Medicaid).
Let's not forget the 16t dollar debt caused almost entirely by these entitlement programs that will come crashing down on our head. But ignore the gross number for a minute, the real dangerous part about our debt is its ratio to GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office our debt is now at 73% of GDP and is on pace to worsen because of a slow to improve economy. GDP has increased between 1-3% IIRC and just to keep up with population demand, growth has to be 5% or higher.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-debt-now-about-73-of-gdp-cbo-says-2013-09-17-1091240
QuoteWASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The U.S. national debt is now about 73% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday. The percentage of debt is higher than any point since around World War II, and twice the percentage it was at the end of 2007, the nonpartisan agency said in its long-term budget outlook. If current laws stay in place, debt will decline "slightly" relative to GDP over the next few years, the agency said. But it warned that growing future deficits will push the debt to 100% of GDP 25 years from now.
By the time I reach retirement age, forget social security,
I have legitimate cause to worry if there will be an economy at all. It doesn't take an economist to understand that our current level of spending is
utterly unsustainable. I don't have children, and I never will, but those of you who do have children should really ask yourselves if that is the future you want your children and grandchildren to live in?
It isn't hard to see what the final outcome of this is; perpetual generational theft, perpetual generational dependence on government, and economic collapse.
-AM
Social security had a surplus and was quite sustainable. Problem is a government that borrowed it. If everyone took care of only themselves, things would fall apart very quickly. Just remember what you say now when you are on the other end.
Quote from: LordKAT on February 11, 2014, 08:40:44 AM
Social security had a surplus and was quite sustainable. Problem is a government that borrowed it.
If govenrment didn't borrow into it our debt to GDP would be much, much, much, much higher than it already is. That's why those so-called "surpluses" in Social Security never existed. Having a surplus is one thing, then using that surplus to feed spending binges on other entitlement programs (Medicare/Medicaid being the two biggest culprits) doesn't do one any justice.
Quote
Just remember what you say now when you are on the other end.
I'm not calling for an end to these programs but I do think they need to be throttled back significantly. Otherwise, many decades from now I won't have anything to think about or remember, they just won't exist along with the rest of the economy.
-AM
But how do you throttle back Medicare? If payments start to get any lower even more doctors will stop taking it. One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.
It shouldn't be this hard, in other advanced countries they spend less per person on healthcare. There is little doubt Medicare needs to go away and be replaced by something that is more cost effective, I have a tough time envisioning a reform that would either financially burden seniors even more (and few have saved enough as is) or that would be solvent in the long term. But who aside from maybe Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul would actually propose replacing the who thing with something different (or maybe with nothing from Paul)?
I'm sorry I'm not an American so excuse me for budding into the conversation but why is it that the rest of the OECD countries can provide universal health care to their people and not the U.S.? I don't think it's a condemnation of all government I think the spotlight should be on the U.S. government and the money interests that basically control it. One of the reasons "Obamacare" is so expensive is because the insurance industry was allowed to take a big cut of the money. The really annoying thing about this whole controversy is that "Obamacare" is the form of medical insurance promoted by Republicans for years. Obama caved just to get a deal.
IMO, the simple solution would have been to expand Medicare, and Medicaid to everyone, the infrastructure is already in place. Unfortunately for the Health Insurance companies this would have cut them out.
I couldn't watch all this video, it sounded like pure spin to me. So much of the "grass roots" tea party stuff is PR funded by corporations and interest groups, that are very motivated to stop any positive change and keep their profits.
Sorry for disagreeing with the conventional wisdom.
Paige
Quote from: Paige on February 11, 2014, 09:38:44 AM
I'm sorry I'm not an American so excuse me for budding into the conversation but why is it that the rest of the OECD countries can provide universal health care to their people and not the U.S.? I don't think it's a condemnation of all government I think the spotlight should be on the U.S. government and the money interests that basically control it. One of the reasons "Obamacare" is so expensive is because the insurance industry was allowed to take a big cut of the money. The really annoying thing about this whole controversy is that "Obamacare" is the form of medical insurance promoted by Republicans for years. Obama caved just to get a deal.
IMO, the simple solution would have been to expand Medicare, and Medicaid to everyone, the infrastructure is already in place. Unfortunately for the Health Insurance companies this would have cut them out.
I couldn't watch all this video, it sounded like pure spin to me. So much of the "grass roots" tea party stuff is PR funded by corporations and interest groups, that are very motivated to stop any positive change and keep their profits.
Sorry for disagreeing with the conventional wisdom.
Paige
Universal Healthcare isn't the right answer either as those vaunted NHS systems are bankrupting their respective countries as well. Greece is on the edge of collapse and all but begging for a bailout from
Germany the European Union. This is a systemic and predictable consequence of a government spending too much of it's GDP on anything, not just healthcare.
It isn't just the insurance companies that cause healthcare in the US to be high, it's a whole mess of things including--and probably the chief contributor--the regulatory process of the Federal Government. A good example would be the FDA regulation that basically states hospitals and clinics cannot buy medicine or medical supplies from third parties and only direct from the manufacturer. The manufacturers know this and artificially increase the price. Which is why OTC Tylenol is many times higher in cost at a hospital than anywhere else. There are literally hundreds of reasons (if not thousands) why medicine is expensive business in the US.
-AM
Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
But how do you throttle back Medicare? If payments start to get any lower even more doctors will stop taking it. One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.
It shouldn't be this hard, in other advanced countries they spend less per person on healthcare. There is little doubt Medicare needs to go away and be replaced by something that is more cost effective, I have a tough time envisioning a reform that would either financially burden seniors even more (and few have saved enough as is) or that would be solvent in the long term. But who aside from maybe Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul would actually propose replacing the who thing with something different (or maybe with nothing from Paul)?
There are literally thousands of market-oriented solutions to lowering costs of healthcare. Of course they don't see main print in the pages of the main stream media liberal elite. A very good start would be gutting the FDA and let market forces take over.
In economics something is expensive because it is either hard to find or difficult to produce. Medicine is inherently neither hard to find nor difficult to produce. But the proverbial mountain of regulations surrounding medicine make it difficult to produce (expensive) which of course causes prices to increase.
Something as simple as shifting monetary policy allowing for increased interest rates on medical emergency savings accounts would be another great start.
-AM
Quote from: Androgynous_Machine on February 11, 2014, 10:45:09 AM
Universal Healthcare isn't the right answer either as those vaunted NHS systems are bankrupting their respective countries as well.
The UK government spends 8% of GDP on healthcare ($3,200 per person) to cover 100% of it's people.
The US government spends 15% of GDP on healthcare ($3,700) per person) to cover about 28% of people.
We spend more per person, even before private insurance (which the majority are on in the US) is factored in. Some estimates are putting it at over $5k per person overall.
The UK
does also have private market based healthcare so that rich people don't have to wait, because god forbid rich people have to deal with what normal people have to deal with.
So, exactly how is an NHS style system not better financially? I am not an efficiency expert, but spending more to cover less people doesn't sound very smart. If you examine European economies you will see the primary cause for problems is not in healthcare or education, but lots of protectionist financial policies without the financial flexibility that a proper central bank or even our federal reserve has.
And yes, it is true that the system of pricing and whatnot is inefficient in the US, and that the entire industry is geared to making things less affordable so they can line their own pockets, Obamacare represents yet another transfer of wealth from people to private corporations, just like byzantine rules for generic medications, and ambulance chasing lawyers do when they drive up malpractice insurance. The solution is to eliminate all profits and therefore eliminate the incentive to write regulations that work as kickbacks for corporations.
Regardless I will never see our system as just or moral so long as people die from not having the money to participate in the healthcare system.
Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 11:02:54 AM
The UK government spends 8% of GDP on healthcare ($3,200 per person) to cover 100% of it's people.
The US government spends 15% of GDP on healthcare ($3,700) per person) to cover about 28% of people.
We spend more per person, even before private insurance (which the majority are on in the US) is factored in. Some estimates are putting it at over $5k per person overall.
The UK does also have private market based healthcare so that rich people don't have to wait, because god forbid rich people have to deal with what normal people have to deal with.
So, exactly how is an NHS style system not better financially? I am not an efficiency expert, but spending more to cover less people doesn't sound very smart. If you examine European economies you will see the primary cause for problems is not in healthcare or education, but lots of protectionist financial policies without the financial flexibility that a proper central bank or even our federal reserve has.
And yes, it is true that the system of pricing and whatnot is inefficient in the US, and that the entire industry is geared to making things less affordable so they can line their own pockets, Obamacare represents yet another transfer of wealth from people to private corporations, just like byzantine rules for generic medications, and ambulance chasing lawyers do when they drive up malpractice insurance. The solution is to eliminate all profits and therefore eliminate the incentive to write regulations that work as kickbacks for corporations.
Regardless I will never see our system as just or moral so long as people die from not having the money to participate in the healthcare system.
Horse 'hockey'.
It universal healthcare was SO much better, we could simply allow free choice and universal healthcare would win out. Simple as that.
Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
One of the ideas in the affordable care act was that if we had lots of preventitive care we could lower costs, but I doubt that could do much for people old enough for Medicare.
Just glancing at this thread, and this made me remember a point a former high school acquaintance- one who doesn't often speak up in political discussions- made on Facebook. Wouldn't a "Wellness Act" be more appropriate? Whether in adjunct to the preventative measures in the ACA or not, it seems a system of strengthening physical fitness and well-being would help offset and relieve future medical costs. Eat better, exercise, treat yo'self to some fresh air. Having a healthy body from the start is a preventative measure on its own!
Of course, this would prompt a need to define what is and isn't healthy (something we Americans already have trouble with), and ultimately, a measure of how to regulate what isn't healthy/incentivize what is. A debate for another thread :)
Quote from: Nikko on February 11, 2014, 04:12:23 PM
Horse 'hockey'.
It universal healthcare was SO much better, we could simply allow free choice and universal healthcare would win out. Simple as that.
I can't think of any nations (except former communist ones) that developed a universal healthcare system and then went back to a system that didn't cover most everyone. I think that is a pretty resounding endorsement. I don't even get what you mean by allowing "free" choice as there is no "public option" in this country we are limited to private insurers.
But, I would like to note while I am generally not in favor of private insurance because the market will always price some people out of it and I consider healthcare a moral responsibility of a nation; private systems like Japan's work out well. It is much more efficient than ours and the government involvement is mostly to ensure prices work out in favor of the people.
Also, no Republican or Democrat has been advancing any "free market" alternatives. My choice is from two plans with one company, since my employer offers healthcare I can't get subsidies on the exchange. So effectively I have no choice for affordable options but one. That is not a free market alternative at all.
I imagine what we eat and drink will be controlled by the state once our healthcare is provided and controlled by the state.
I know I know... there will be people praising that idea... give it a little bit. ::)
Quote from: Hikari on February 11, 2014, 06:40:28 PM
I can't think of any nations (except former communist ones) that developed a universal healthcare system and then went back to a system that didn't cover most everyone.
Because it's the only allowed system.
You're not interested in any truth, just ideology, so further discussions between us is pointless and won't occur.
Quote from: Nikko on February 11, 2014, 06:43:37 PM
Because it's the only allowed system.
Actually not all universal healthcare systems prohibit private insurance options. For some countries like France private insurance is a major component of their healthcare system.
Quote
You're not interested in any truth, just ideology, so further discussions between us is pointless and won't occur.
Really Nikko, you seem pretty stuck to your sound bite ideology.
What Americans eat and drink is already controlled by government.
Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
What Americans eat and drink is already controlled by government.
It is Kat, I think the idea of some governing entity proclaiming that 16oz Big Gulps are no longer legal is more in line of what the other person was referring to.
I think it is going in that direction.
Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:56:43 AM
I think it is going in that direction.
They think! >:(
Quote from: LordKAT on February 13, 2014, 09:56:43 AM
I think it is going in that direction.
Kaiser used to send us free materials and offers for nutrition and fitness classes when I had them. As more costs get shared by the government they will have more incentive to take an interest in what the people eat. Of course Kaiser couldn't make foods illegal, they could raise rates if you didn't follow nutrition advice so the way I see it, the push for healthy eating was always there but it is shifting from the private to the public sector.
Interesting note a Chicago law firm has been offering to sue big food companies on behalf of state attorney generals for added costs due to obesity. It might become the anti smoking campaign all over again, which actually bothers me despite my far left leanings. We Know mcdonalds is unsafe, so put a tax on it if you want to deincentivize don't sue the company.