Summary of US Midterm Election Results

[Ephemeral]

Jessup,
I’ve reread your post several times but I am afraid that I do not understand your logic at all. Are you saying that you do not trust corporations but do trust the Federal government? Huh? The Federal government is the largest corporation in the country.

You go on to give many examples of failed government attempts at controlling the public (prohibition, drug laws, etc.) which is exactly my argument against having them take away personal choice and freedoms. I completely agree that the government has no place I telling us that we cannot take a drink or spark one up in our own homes. Virtually every attempt that the government has done to ‘help’ us backfires and results in trouble.

As to your point about whom you do and do not trust…I do not trust others. Doesn’t matter if you are a part of a company or a government. Frankly most humans are greedy, selfish and don’t give a fuck about anything other than themselves. What the fuck difference does it make if they are a part of a corporation or a government? The root cause remains the same, people are assholes.

Want to know what I DO trust? Competition. Competition is a natural process which clearly works (or at least has for several million years). Freedom of choice is a critical building block of competition, the last thing we need is anyone dicking around with this.

So if you want to live in a country with a government that dictates to you exactly what to think and how to act, then I can see your position. But for me, if I choose to drink a fucking 64 ounce sugar soda then that should be my choice and not fall under some dumbass law (i.e. NYC law). Look at this current crap over those laundry detergent ‘pods’. We will soon have laws written to either make them illegal or make them twice as expense. What is the fucking problem here? Is it the big bad corporation who is making them? Or is it dumb fucking ass parents who don’t teach their kids to not eat the pods? If you mindlessly listen to the media, there are kids dropping dead all over the country (truth is there has been exactly ONE death due to a kid eating them).

Ditto for your perspective on the political parties. The ONLY difference between the people in the two parties is the lip service. Yes, Repub guys in three piece suits who basically say ‘we only care about ourselves’. Do you really think that Dems people are different just because they blow smoke up your ass? That they are ‘for the people’ more? LOL They are fucking millionaire lawyers just like the Repubs and care just as little as they do. Anyone who believes otherwise has simply been watching too much t.v. without fact checking.

Does it make you feel good to know that the guy who designed and developed ObamaCare was paid $400k for it and now is running around laughing at how they intentionally made it confusing so that it would pass? Watch the video, it clearly says the American public was bullshitted and is now too stupid to know better. That makes you trust them more than Repubs? That gives you a warm and fuzzy for government? LOL Sorry, I just don’t understand your logic at all.
Eph

[Jessup]

Eph. I was just saying I don't trust any of them BUT in the end we must have a government we CAN trust. Without government you cease to have a country, Government is vital to society. I am for free market too. I am a socialist. Some things are for private business and others are for government. I do not believe in private prisons for example, I do not believe in national resources such as oil/natural gas being allowed to be looted by private business. It should be government run and regulated and any profit goes into a national government bank/budget for America which benefits health care and roads and military ect . I believe in regulations in specific area, I believe in personal freedom , I believe in a dual system/market approach but feel this whole process needs to overseen and regulated by government agencies. I believe in a separate and independent branch of government to regulate the spending branch to keep in check any abuse and fraud. This is how I'd like to see our country. I know I'm in a small minority and considered a red/ commie to many but it just isn't true. Socialism can be a very moderate, fair and free society for all. Competition is too cut throat when it comes to the poor who with a helping hand can in the end make the country a much stronger and better place to live. Happy citizens = productive country. Americans are not really happy.. look at our voting turn out this election. It was beyond pathetic.
That is another thing.. I want Mandatory voting laws passed with stiff fines to those citizens who chose not to participate. Like how Australia does it. You can still vote "No Confidence" but you MUST vote. This system is broken and needs a serious overhaul. I see socialism of some sort being the best and only answer not only for our country but for the world at large in the future.

[Exalt]

Jessup, the problem with socialism or even communism was never the ideology of them. It's that people are dickhead asshole power-mongers, and every government that is that big and centralized, with that much power, always turns into a dictatorship. Also, people are murderous fucks who do what they are told by authority figures, hence regimes like Stalin's, Hitler's, Mussolini's, or any African/South American/Asian dictatorship works. People will naturally do what they are told if it comes from their government, which means that when that government says "kill 100 million people for being anti-revolutionists" it happens.

[Jessup]

It has happened yes Exalt, but let's not confuse communism with socialism.. or more importantly the type socialism I'm talking about which is Social Capitalism. Pure capitalists have done many many atrocities over the years too. I am very impressed with the Germans and the Dutch and Fins and English when it comes to healthcare and just in general their internal organization. They all have more than 2 serious parties too. I really do see it as the only option for a balanced future in the world, otherwise it will slowly delve into a complete slave type scenario of haves and have nots bordering or becoming even fascist as corporations control government and the peoples choices of how they can invest. That is a run away train in itself to dictatorship. We all know how that worked out for Germany of old. I'm so sick of seeing our system stymied by do nothing obstructionists .. Both sides too GRRR . We need grass root level 3rd and 4th and 5th parties where the people can claim back what is rightfully theirs/ours. Anyways. bLahhhh it is a ways off.. I predict more obstruction as I said but this time by the Dems. See Saw of do nothingness .... broken system which supposedly is the best on this earth. American has been a house of cards in the political arena for many many years now and something new needs to be done.

[Summa]

No, I am outraged at losing my ability to make a decision for myself. The fucking government has no business in making decisions for me, I want the choices to be mine. The government does NOT know better than me what is good for my family, and no amount of bullshit lip service is going to change this.

This is a very common line of thought that is trotted out by Republicans primarily, but really anyone who needs to garner a vote from the disgruntled family demographic. I think it's a little funny that you criticize politicians for doing things with only the interest of votes in mind and then you walk on down canned phrase lane. But I digress.

I understand your outrage and I would be pissed from what I read of how the ACA effected your coverage and the coverage of a lot of small businesses in the country. However, your outrage seems slightly misplaced imo. "The fucking government has no business making decisions for me"....actually, it does. It makes a whole shit ton of decisions for you, a lot of them you implicitly agree with every day of your life (traffic laws for instance). The government has a right to tell you what to do if what you want to do would fall in the area of "societally destructive" and similar areas. You may not agree that health care is an area in which the government should have any influence over people's decisions and I would argue that the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (although not an official document) would encompass health care provided to all; but the simple fact is that the officials elected by the entirety of the country thought it was and the supreme court (for the most part) thought it was too.

That said, I would be pissed off if I were you, and I am pissed off myself. The simple issue with the ACA is that we were promised an overhaul of a system, complete rework, potential mandate for coverage for all citizens, and much much more. What did we get? 3 things: 1) pre-existing condition crap is gone 2) for people who live in po-dunk nowhere, they don't get boned by having only 1 option available for coverage 3) cost on the taxpayer's end went up. So in turn what this meant for the vast majority of people was: nothing changed and my costs went up. That is the failure of the ACA imo. Not that it is idealistically flawed and the government has no business in health care decisions (look at medicare, medicaid, wounded warrior, etc) because they do have some right in telling you what you can and can't do. It is that they promised a rework of the system with an option of keeping existing coverage; they did not deliver. What did we get for believing in this crap? They take more of your money.

And it is no wonder they didn't deliver on what they promised, this congress passed the lowest number of bills since WW2 at LEAST, took the most corporate money ever, and received an 11% approval rating. And in the recent election we re-elected...what 92% of them (don't remember the exact #). Just think about that...if I got a 50% rating in most job reviews, my boss would fire me on the spot; and they are shooting 39% below that. And when the next presidential election happens, from an objective pov, another democrat will likely win because republicans seem okay alienating gays, women, blacks, and latinos and those happen to be some of the largest growing voting populations; and we will be in the same place. That's the depressing part about this matter to me I suppose. I don't feel like it will be solved, especially since I don't see citizen's united being repealed for at least a decade (which is at least a start). I guess I will just continue my personal protest that I have done since 2010 where I vote against every single incumbent in major political office cuz they are running this shit into the ground.

[Ephemeral]

Summa,
Of course the government has a role of oversight in certain aspects of our lives; including the traffic laws. But it appears to me that each passing generation of politicians finds another layer of control/tax. At what point is enough enough? Is it ok for them to pass laws to ‘protect’ me from drinking large sized sugary sodas? If so, why stop there? Why not protect everyone from too much salt, or fat?

I have no issues with people who are strong advocates of issues; especially if they are health related. As we all know, Americans are awful at their health care. We eat poorly, don’t exercise the way we should, and then want to take the ‘easy’ way out of better living through chemistry. But is it the role of the government to mandate this? IMO, no it is not. Is it the role of the government to help educate? Yes, IMO, it is. Health insurance is a crutch, mandated health insurance is a tax.

But my opinion of all insurance is that it has long term negative impact on society. It is simply a type of gambling. (It’s roots come from Lloyds of London were guys would sit in an English tavern and bet on whether or not a ship would return with supplies.) After many generations we act like it is a part of our lives that we could not do without. Your grandparents probably did not have insurance and their parents certainly did not. What the hell did they do if their farm caught on fire and burned? Oh wait, that’s right. They counted on having family, friends and a community that would pitch in and help rebuild. Today it is called ‘an insurance opportunity’. Sure, go ahead and build that vacation house on the sand dune at the beach, who cares? Insurance will cover the cost of it when the inevitable hurricane blows it away. Yeah, go ahead and rebuild New Orleans, who cares that it is below sea level and is sitting there like a big target for the next storm.

My point is, this generational perpetuation of reliance on insurance has what kind of effect on society? Being in the health care industry like you are, you well know how this works. Explain to us all the costs of medical care in the final week or two of a person’s life and how it makes up such a huge percentage of this problem. It’s a very tough issue. Of course the family wants to extend, and possibly save, a person’s life. When you have insurance these decisions come easier? Is that really true? Do I make the same decision to keep grandfather alive for another week if I know that it will cost over $200k in medical costs based on if this is covered by insurance or not? And then there are folks facing horrible decisions when they become pregnant. If I am told that my unborn child has a huge medical issue that will impact his quality of life forever, do I just discount the 1 million dollar cost that bringing the child to fruition because insurance will cover a lot of the costs for the next 50 years? Is this ‘progress’? Our grandparents faced these kinds of decisions and end up making them differently; as tragic as it may be. Sure, there are a few success stories; people who we have bought back from the death bed due to extraordinary medical care at astronomical cost. But as you know, this is not typical.

The issue here is that this cost was simply being absorbed by the hospitals and being passed back to us all in the form of every increasing prices. Perhaps we needed to revisit the hard decisions and not just assume that it is ok to mandate this cost to all of society. Perhaps it is important that we all understand the true costs of these horrible decisions that we must make in life instead of just assuming that ‘insurance’ will cover them. IMO society has lost touch with the costs (due to insurance) and is taking the easy way out. Having insurance has allowed us to walk away from building a network of support in the form of family and community. And who cares if I am fat, overweight? Just give me a script for the rest of my life, my insurance will cover the $1000 per month cost while I continue to stuff donuts into my mouth.
Eph

[Jerome Scuggs]

Eph,

Jessup's post pretty much sums up how I feel about this.

You make it seem like it's a choice between free markets and communism, when it isn't. The US Healthcare market is clearly broken, and this is a result of the failure of capitalism. When it comes to finding a way to distribute the limited resources available on this planet, capitalism is by and far the best system for it. But when it comes to humans, how do you put a value on human life?

Y'all have seen me typing in game and so you know the problems with my keyboard, so typing it all out is a hassle though I might follow this up at work. But Eph, I do want you to know that my desire for public healthcare isn't a socialist dream. I base my conclusions off of the work done by von Mises, Murray Rothbard, von Hayek - people who are cconsidered pillars in communities ranging fromm libertarians to full-on anarcho-capitalists.

That being said, there is an amazing work called "Anarchy, State, & Utopia" by a guy named Robert Nozick, and I really recommend reading it. I can summarize it here, but more than anything I think you might enjoy reading it. If I had to sum thee book up, which would be hard to do because he really covers his bases, his conclusions seem to me to have one thing in common: pragmatism.

I mean... I agree, I think markets are the best way to distribute and also conserve resources. But be pragmatic, look around, it's clear that our healthcare market is a failed market. Be pragmatic, look around, see that there are obviously many successful models which are government-provided.

I also agree that at all times "government" is an eternal struggle between those who govern, and the governed. The state will always find it in its interests to maximize its own power. But I don't think that something like the ACA is where you make your stand on government intrusion, not after the PATRIOT Act, not after Citizens United, not after Snowden's leaks, not after Iraq I and Iraq II, not after Iran-Contra, not after so many things they do on a daily basis which are so much more of a threat to our liberty than............ affordable insurance.

On top of that, this 2014 midterm election was the most expensive election cycle in history, over $4 billion spent by political and outside groups. Where does that money come from? One can't look at it as some black/white difference between "freedom-hating governments" and "freedom-loving businesses". It's clear in this day and age that state- and corporate power are highly intermingled, and to me there's hardly even a difference, really.

[Summa]

@Eph,

Firstly, I would rather there be a "tax" on all citizens which gives them basic (at least) health coverage; it is an opinion and a personal belief, and we are just gonna disagree with it until the sun goes down and get nowhere. However, I understand your point and to a large part agree with it. I am not a fan of insurance in general, it is a bizarre form of gambling or exploiting in most cases; and the fact that many medical facilities in particular won't even treat you without you being covered seems utterly ridiculous. Insurance has gone from being an option in many cases to already essentially being mandated in certain areas. Unfortunately the horse is out of the barn. An institution has been established by which insurance in all kinds of regards has become an integral if not essential component of how the system works; ripping it out now would require a re-work of the system and probably cost the country millions of jobs. Even worse is how would you go about removing such a thing or even limiting it? There's no way it can be done by the government since they can't mandate a single payer system and they won't fuck with corporations while citizen's united exists; and people can't get organized enough to boycott it properly. I just don't see a practical way by which what you desire is achieved.

And while I advocate a single-payer system a lot, I also realize it has large downsides including the fact that it will put many companies out of business and many people out of work.

I will say you do neglect a bit of the upside of paying out your ass for medical coverage. More research. We, at least we used to, do the most medical development and research because our citizens pay out the ass for health care and while most of that finds its way into a couple dudes' pockets some if it manages to find its way to new technologies and medicine. Hooray!

[Ephemeral]

Summa,
No practical way out? I find that an odd argument. Isn’t that like saying ‘I am about to rape you, you might as well just accept it and not struggle, it will be easier that way’?

I didn’t mention ‘research’ because even it has been corrupted by insurance. You know this. These drug companies are nothing more than legal drug dealers. For decades drug company front men (no medical degrees, just MBAs) pushed drugs with incentives to doctors like vacations and free leather brief cases. They were the doctors primary source of information on drugs (oh yeah, the drug company sales guy will give you objective info) followed by PDR. Oh wait, the PDR is a compilation of information from…wait for it….the drug companies. And then there is the advertising, I loved the classic Valium print ads in the AMA journal which showed the harried housewife, kids in arm, tea kettle going off, phone ringing as the ideal candidate for the calming effects of a Valium script.

But at least 25 years ago the drug companies were applying research to drugs and cures that could help hundreds of thousands of people. As you well know, this landscape has completely changed largely due to insurance. Drug companies dropped working on drugs for ‘cheap’ diseases and now plowed millions and millions into rare and exotic drugs that are targeted to a very small amount of people. People who have insurance to cover the $4000 per month cost of the drugs. So while a 75 cent mosquito net goes needed to prevent the most common diseases, we are going to argue that ‘research’ is a legitimate reason for the current system?

Coming back to the Obamacare tax… Now that the people are finally waking up and starting to see the actual cost they are not happy. This morning’s numbers are that only 33% of the American public now supports it, this is way down. The deception that Obama and the Dems pulled is not really the issue (beyond proving that Dems are no different than Repubs); the real eye opener are the new bills that are being sent this week.

And here is my biggest heartburn with this tax. I have arranged to stop making money this year. That’s right. It is cheaper for me to sit on my ass and not earn anything than to go be productive. I can easily save $7000 this year by simply not reporting any income. Because the stupid law is written in a way that only looks at a person’s income (and not their wealth); I simply have to coast this year and not report any substantial income. Since I am facing some major medical costs this year my best solution is to simply allow everyone else to cover my costs and not earn an income. Great incentive huh? This is the kind of system we want in this country? I can sit in my million dollar house, live off my wealth, and still have everyone else pay for my medical bills. Good going Washington and everyone who supports this stupid tax.

I concur that we may never agree on this issue. As ugly as it sounds it really does boil down to, ‘does everyone deserve the same level of health care regardless of income’. I would love to live in a society where we would all care enough to help each other. But we do not. A lot of people are simply assholes who don’t, and wont, pull their own weight. That leaves us with the decision of ‘are we willing to tolerate the idea that richer people get better health care’. As distasteful as this sounds it is the reality.

I have no issues with helping others and have often done just that in my life. Everyone deserves a chance and God knows that life can deal people a shitty hand at times. But helping a person once or twice in their life is one thing, providing a constant and ever present system that perpetuates a generational reliance on the resource is never going to be good for society long term.
Eph

[mtine]

I feel for all you American noops.

[Summa]

@Eph,

I think you over-simplified the case I am trying to make. I am not really an idealist like I was when I was 16-18; I like when there's an idea and a plan to achieve it that seems somewhat plausible. There are a lot of issues with trying to remove health insurance from American society. Some of those include: getting the money of health insurance companies out of politicians pockets, a politician undercutting their own re-election bid by costing their constituents jobs, no realistic way to mandate it from a public policy perspective, stopping anything from being filibustered (which imo the next amendment should be passed removing the procedural filibuster bullshit), upholding whatever you mandate in the supreme court; and that's just with a cursory glance. The reality of it is, regardless of if it is right or wrong to do, in the current political and social climate there is too much money tied up in it to have it removed. Even contemplating removing health insurance would undercut your voting base and piss off some of the largest campaign contributors in America; tantamount to political suicide. Hence why I say it is not practical. Now you could do a CBA and say that the long-term gains would out-weigh millions of people losing their jobs and a few idealistic politicians being buried for life, but we both know that when government officials do CBAs, they look short term not long term.

Regarding research: I don't think it is a legitimate reason to justify the current system, and I think there are a lot of fucked up things about research such as how we have low investment a cure for HIV/AIDS (which some speculate we could have developed up to 5 or more yrs ago) yet we have huge research into HIV/AIDS long-term treatment. What I am more-so saying is that while you rain fire and brimstone on a system that for the most part fails the many; don't ignore the successful and beneficial bi-products, whether they be intentional or unintentional.

As for your desire for a more community based society in which communities help each other more, I just think it is too idealistic and little bit in the past. We are in an age with the highest global exposure rate ever. I can tell anyone who cares what I am doing every 30 seconds of my life, hell I can send them a video. I think the traditional idea of the community and the traditional idea of communities relying upon and helping one another is most likely dead. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing yet, but it is a thing. And since I don't think that is a realistic scenario you are painting, while it sounds nice, I am more inclined to give my money and pay a tax to the government so that they can provide health care to everybody (single-payer style, not the shitty style it is now).

As for the statement "are we willing to tolerate the idea that richer people get better health care". I am willing to tolerate it. I don't think that sentiment is mutually exclusive from "everybody should have at least basic health care".

I disagree with your last statement a lot, but don't have time to get into it. However, the system you want I feel leads to the same thing in some regards.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I didn’t mention ‘research’ because even it has been corrupted by insurance. You know this. These drug companies are nothing more than legal drug dealers. For decades drug company front men (no medical degrees, just MBAs) pushed drugs with incentives to doctors like vacations and free leather brief cases. They were the doctors primary source of information on drugs (oh yeah, the drug company sales guy will give you objective info) followed by PDR. Oh wait, the PDR is a compilation of information from…wait for it….the drug companies. And then there is the advertising, I loved the classic Valium print ads in the AMA journal which showed the harried housewife, kids in arm, tea kettle going off, phone ringing as the ideal candidate for the calming effects of a Valium script.

But at least 25 years ago the drug companies were applying research to drugs and cures that could help hundreds of thousands of people. As you well know, this landscape has completely changed largely due to insurance. Drug companies dropped working on drugs for ‘cheap’ diseases and now plowed millions and millions into rare and exotic drugs that are targeted to a very small amount of people. People who have insurance to cover the $4000 per month cost of the drugs. So while a 75 cent mosquito net goes needed to prevent the most common diseases, we are going to argue that ‘research’ is a legitimate reason for the current system?

Heh, and you want these guys in charge of our healthcare? :P

[Ephemeral]

Jerome,
If the choice is limited between the government and competitive insurance companies then I’d go with a competitive system. But as you have seen, I am not a fan of insurance at all. And we all know what happens if insurance is not mandated. Dumb asses will just ‘save’ money and not buy anything, leaving the costs to be assumed by the hospitals/healthcare system and walking away from the bills.

Are these really the only two choices? Why not offer incentives to invest in a personal health care savings account? We allow people to put back money into an account for education tax free and it has been quite successful; do the same for health care. Establish a ‘direct line’ between a person and their invested medical account; no more walking into an emergency room for a minor ach or pain, a lot more consideration given to making the hard medical decisions (since it is their money). Of course this would have to be monitored closely to prevent people from touching the funds for non-medical purposes but this can be worked out. For example, you could charge an additional tax over and above the income tax if the money was removed for non-medical purposes, using that tax income to cover the cost of the program. Frankly if you stop and consider what you have dropped into medical insurance, this idea seems pretty plausible in all but the most expensive medical situations. (Of course additional insurance would be available for those who wanted it.) For example, I have paid approximately $7k - $10k per year for medical insurance over the last 28 years and until last year my total claims were for less than $3k. Instead of padding the pockets of insurance companies and paying for everyone else in the same insurance pool; allow me to stash that money into an account specifically for me and my family. Allow me to do this without income taxes and/or with other type financial incentives.

In conjunction with this type of system, make the medical industry more transparent and competitive. Allow me access to the information I need to make a good decisions between available medical services; the delta between hospitals and services now is substantial but it is about impossible to do any comparison shopping. Since it is ‘my’ money, I would pay a lot more attention to shopping this correctly for my situation. Of course this is just one single idea for a 'choice' system; I m sure there are many other ways to encourage people to save money for medical costs other than forcing it down their throats via a tax like ObamaCare or some other kind of socialized system.
Eph

[Jerome Scuggs]

Jerome,
If the choice is limited between the government and competitive insurance companies then I’d go with a competitive system. But as you have seen, I am not a fan of insurance at all. And we all know what happens if insurance is not mandated. Dumb asses will just ‘save’ money and not buy anything, leaving the costs to be assumed by the hospitals/healthcare system and walking away from the bills.

Are these really the only two choices? Why not offer incentives to invest in a personal health care savings account? We allow people to put back money into an account for education tax free and it has been quite successful; do the same for health care. Establish a ‘direct line’ between a person and their invested medical account; no more walking into an emergency room for a minor ach or pain, a lot more consideration given to making the hard medical decisions (since it is their money). Of course this would have to be monitored closely to prevent people from touching the funds for non-medical purposes but this can be worked out. For example, you could charge an additional tax over and above the income tax if the money was removed for non-medical purposes, using that tax income to cover the cost of the program. Frankly if you stop and consider what you have dropped into medical insurance, this idea seems pretty plausible in all but the most expensive medical situations. (Of course additional insurance would be available for those who wanted it.) For example, I have paid approximately $7k - $10k per year for medical insurance over the last 28 years and until last year my total claims were for less than $3k. Instead of padding the pockets of insurance companies and paying for everyone else in the same insurance pool; allow me to stash that money into an account specifically for me and my family. Allow me to do this without income taxes and/or with other type financial incentives.

Even in your ideal system there exists a need for government, even if just as oversight. So what are the pro's of your (empirically untested) system versus a single-payer system which has been shown to work over and over again?

Speaking of freedom and choice, by the way, doctors swear a Hippocratic Oath which more or less means they give up their freedom, if someone needs help they are obligated to give it. "Freedom" is just not good enough a reason to let people die.

In conjunction with this type of system, make the medical industry more transparent and competitive. Allow me access to the information I need to make a good decisions between available medical services; the delta between hospitals and services now is substantial but it is about impossible to do any comparison shopping. Since it is ‘my’ money, I would pay a lot more attention to shopping this correctly for my situation. Of course this is just one single idea for a 'choice' system; I m sure there are many other ways to encourage people to save money for medical costs other than forcing it down their throats via a tax like ObamaCare or some other kind of socialized system.
Eph

Let's carry this example over to the "politics market". We as individuals have more access to information we could use to make educated choices on our politicians than at any time in history. And yet we as a people pay less attention to the people we elect to office. I just don't see any example in society which would show that people would be more responsible, if simply given more information.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Speaking of freedom though, how do you feel about the Keystone pipeline? Quite a few people are going to have their private property seized and then given to corporations. Do you support it being built?