American Hawk, didn't you just get through telling us that all health insurance, including private insurance, is a scam to be avoided?

Insurance companies take lots of money from people and don't pay the legitimate claims that their "contracts" demanded.

Even more important - it is an irrational system that has absolutely no incentive to oversee costs or provide actual care - care that usually reduces the long-term demands on the system.

ABSOLUTELY NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD CAN SHOW THAT A "PRIVATE" SYSTEM FOR A "PUBLIC GOOD" SUCH AS HEALTH CARE WORKS!

No other developed country is even foolish enough to try it and their citizens would never stand for the injustice.

Insurance companies provide no legitimate service in this sector and just rape the ratepayers and then do not honor their contractual obligations anyhow.

The Constitution currently does not give the federal government the right to have a universal health care program. It specifically says in the 10th Amendment that any rights not stated in the Constitution belong to city and state government. There would need to be an amendment before Hillary OR John Edwards could start their health care plans.

There's no way new taxes are going to be enough for a national health care plan.

States should have their own health care plans, not the federal government.

Don't misunderstand; everyone should have health care. It's just that currently the government can't legally do it, and they won't have enough money to do it.

Yeah, here you are on March 27:

"No thanks. I'll take my chances. I'm extremely healthy, and have enough money reserved to pay for my own healthcare if I need it. ... one in six Americans have realized that health insurance is a scam and chooses to go without."

And later in the same comments, in one of your other guises as egbert, you said that all insurance should be avoided because it involves "moral hazard" (even though your example didn't really involve moral hazard). There again you were attacking *all* forms of insurance, implicitly including private insurance.

If *all* insurance is a scam, how does that square with your defense of private insurers here?

No plan which does not completely eliminate the health insurance companies, and put intelligent limits on drug patents, will succeed in lowering the overall costs.

No plan which reduces the profitability of insurance companies and big pharma, has a chance in hell, politically, of happening.

This is exactly why we've been at a standstill with this issue for 15+ years.

Kevin,

I agree with you, if you are going to have universal healthcare, lets fund it with personal taxes, preferably income taxes (I don't like hidden taxes like VATs). That way we know that healthcare is not "free".

If all insurance is a scam, then that applies to all insurance, not just health insurance. Should people avoid other forms of insurance, such as liability insurance on the car? What about home insurance, which is a requirement for getting a mortgage? Lots of corporations also take out insurance in one form or another -- are they fools and dupes as well?

If Hillary is planning a big battle with insurance companies, how come she accepts so much money from them?

Simmons: The Constitution currently does not give the federal government the right to have a universal health care program.

It does however give the federal gov't the right to levy taxes. And such monies can be distributed to the states for use in programs that they run. See, for example, the current Medicare and Medicaid programs, or the interstate highway system.

Sheesh, is this really a serious objection on your part?

It specifically says in the 10th Amendment that any rights not stated in the Constitution belong to city and state government.

Actually it says the states or the people - no mention of cities. You might want to read the thing before you comment on it.

P.S. While you're at it, why don't you investigate why the 1st Congress dropped the word "explicitly" from the proposed amendment, and why two of the original ardent strict constructionists (Madison and Jefferson) stopped being so strict after the Louisiana Purchase.

HSAs sound great for things like preventive care, but they never sounded like they would help much for truly catastrophic health care, which can easily run in the the multi hundred thousand dollar range.

Is somebody in his 30s or 40s really likely to have the $100,000 to $200,000 in his family's HSA to pay for cancer treatment? Or for getting hit by somebody else's car?

Someone in his 50s or 60s might have that kind of money built up in an HSA, but a catastrophe like that would really wipe out a major part of that person's savings. Insurance is probably not a good way of paying for small stuff, but for catastrophes? You'd be opening yourself up to both a health and financial catastrophe if you go without insurance.

Charlie Tuna said:
Even more important - it is an irrational system that has absolutely no incentive to oversee costs or provide actual care - care that usually reduces the long-term demands on the system.

Actually, the insurers have incentives to oversee costs and provide preventative care. They may not respond well to the incentives, but they try (and when they try, they get blasted... see HMO's) It's the doctors that have negative incentives here. Picking on the insurance companies is easy, politically, but they're in a very low margin business. Wake me up when someone takes on the AMA.

I'm glad the Hawk is healthy... he won't feel the same way when he gets that sudden heart attack and has to pay $100,000 out of his own wallet... Don't worry, Hawk... it will happen. Good health is never owned, only rented... and you'll get evicted sooner or later.

Of course, by then, maybe "evil" medicare will bail you out... You'll probably be first in line to get your government healthcare handout when you are 65. Hypocrisy, thy name is Hawk!

As for the other comment:

Don't misunderstand; everyone should have health care. It's just that currently the government can't legally do it, and they won't have enough money to do it.

Yeah, actually, the feds can... that pesky commerce clause, you know... and medicine does fall into the interstate commerce web. Especially now, that radiologists in India are reading MRI's and people getting shipped off out of state to get surgeries. Medicines are produced out of state, and they can even do robotic surgeries online, now. Medical records, billing, and financials are almost always done out of state. There is also the precedent of Medicare.

Thanks,

Mike

I'm very skeptical of DC's ability to create and implement a fundamental change to the healthcare system that will actually improve things. I have to say, though, that I'm glad this effort -- unlike Hillary's last one -- is coming out of Congress. It was an enduring fit of idiocy to think that something so vast and controversial could ever come from the executive and actually survive the legislature.

Simmons: The Constitution currently does not give the federal government the right to have a universal health care program.

There's always that pesky bit about 'promote the general welfare' as being one of legitimate aims of a government whose powers derive from the consent of the governed. .

Kevin:

If you want to sell Universal Health Care, you're going to have to take down our current employer-based system. Shouldn't be hard.

I just went through my employer's health care re-enrollment. I like my employer and believe they're trying very hard to provide top notch health plans. But I don't see what business a software company has putting together health care packages.

And we don't have any more choice in our health care package than we would under a national UnivHealthCare plan. There are doctors I can't see, tests I can't have. There is paperwork to be filled out before visits, etc. Its a private bureaucracy rather than a public one. And it's a pain in my ass.

At one point during the enrollment meeting, the bureau-bot stood up in front of the room and said, "health care is going to become like 401k's, you're going to manage your own based on your comfort with risk!" This was meant to be a good thing, but we all laughed at the poor sap. But that's the end-game, isn't it? My friend and co-worker who has the heart condition can't take the same level of risk in his health care as I can, as a young person. So he has to pay more in than I do.

So... just as you predicted, for the first time this year, we have a "choice" in what health care we have: we can choose the expensive sick person insurance or the inexpensive healthy person insurance. My co-worker with the heart condition has to pick the expensive one, I get the cheap one.

Again, love my company and believe they are doing the best they can. Even with the best intentions, it's all messed up.

Want universal health care? Eliminate employers completely from the picture.

Only then will business come in behind the plan.

And I'm with Kevin on this one: pay for it upfront. Then, let the Repugs whittle tax increase through reductions in defense spending.

The Constitution currently does not give the federal government the right to have a universal health care program.

It doesn't explicitly give the federal government the right to have a federal highway system, or NASA, or an Air Force, and yet here we are. The commerce clause gives the federal government all the power it needs.

It specifically says in the 10th Amendment that any rights not stated in the Constitution belong to city and state government.

That has no relation to this.

There would need to be an amendment before Hillary OR John Edwards could start their health care plans.

Er, no. You have no idea what you're talking about.

There's always that pesky bit about 'promote the general welfare' as being one of legitimate aims of a government whose powers derive from the consent of the governed. .
Posted by: MsNThrope on March 30, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

How about "Provide for the common defense - " ? defense from disease, defense from predatory insurance companies, defense from Viagra ads.

daniel: But I don't see what business a software company has putting together health care packages.

None, anymore than they have to provide the roads you drive on to get to work, or put food on your table. An employer should only have to hand you a paycheck that doesn't bounce.

UHC is pro-business!

"It's not easy passing a camel through the eye of a conference committee."

FDR did it. LBJ did it. And JRE will do it too.

You've just got to want to do it. You've got to have the political strength to sell it to America. And you've got to use that outside the beltway support along with your strength to push it through.

It's how it happened in the past...

Agreed -- employers need to get out of the healthcare dynamic.

Hillary's slam is crock. The largest share health insurance is sold by not-for-profit insurance companies that are owned by their policy-holders. Any profit they make belongs to their the people who buy insurance policies from them.

Furthermore, the for-profit health insurance companies aren't making huge profits. Health insurance is not a particularly profitable business to be in.

Unfortunately, Hillary's demogoguery will work, because many people dislike insurance companies.

AH: While I have my doubts about private health insurance, it's better than public insurance.

Ah, poor thing... relegated to the minority:

Two-thirds of the public (66%) -- including a majority of those who say they would prefer a smaller government (57%) -- favor government-funded health insurance for all citizens. [Source: Page 20 of the PDF report from the Pew Survey, Mar. 22, 2007, Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007. See Kevin's post of Mar. 23, 2007, for the link.]

It's just that currently the government can't legally do it, and they won't have enough money to do it. Simmons at 1:11 PM

… a government program, which has every incentive to take your money and provide you with no care whatsoever… American Cawk

The largest share health insurance is sold by not-for-profit insurance companies that are owned by their policy-holders….ex-lax at 1:53 PM

"I'm very skeptical of DC's ability to create and implement a fundamental change to the healthcare system that will actually improve things."

They've already done it. It's called Medicare. It works, and the people it covers are happy. All we have to do is extend it to more people.

Yes. Pay for it up front. Leave the employers out of it.

But why a new tax? The US gov't already shells out for 60% of all health care dollars. Universal care in other countries (the 37 or so with better health care outcomes than ours) costs about 60% of what we spend. Sounds like we could do it now with little or no tax increase, if we get similar results.

Health insurance companies are just middlemen, and generally lousy ones at that.

People should have the choice of whether or not they want health insurance, since for younger, healthier people and very wealthy people it does not make economic sense.

defense from Viagra ads.
Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld

*cracks up*

ex-lib: ...the for-profit health insurance companies aren't making huge profits.

But what about their parent companies? WellPoint Inc., earned $3.1 billion in profit last year on revenue of $57 billion. WellPoint Health Networks Inc. (NYSE:WLP) is one of the nation's largest publicly traded health care companies. They own Blue Cross of California for one thing.

Didn't you try to trot out this red herring once before? Uh-huh.

Mike: ...but the entire comment is a red-herring.

Like minds.

The band is tuning up and unobtrusively adjusting their Lederhosen.

A-one-and-a-two...

Ooompah-pah! Ooompah-pah! Ooompah-pah!

It specifically says in the 10th Amendment that any rights not stated in the Constitution belong to city and state government.

If memory serves me right, that'd be the people and state governments.

That's be your right to abortion, too, by the way.

Once Hillary begins price fixing insurance premiums, a huge volatility will appear in the economy causing havoc for years as we try to figure it out.

American Hawk should worry the 2 trillion dollar Iraq subsidy taxpayers gave to oil companies. That was his money, and we intend to get it back for him.

"ex-liberal" wrote: The largest share health insurance is sold by not-for-profit insurance companies that are owned by their policy-holders. Any profit they make belongs to their the people who buy insurance policies from them.

I think it's cute the way "ex-liberal" keeps pretending his/her/its word is any good.

But thanks to "ex-liberal"'s long track record of dishonesty, it isn't. Cite, please. Put up or STFU.

Furthermore, the for-profit health insurance companies aren't making huge profits. Health insurance is not a particularly profitable business to be in.

Prove it. Put up or STFU, please.

Unfortunately, Hillary's demogoguery will work, because many people dislike insurance companies..

Ah, I can smell "ex-liberal"'s jealousy from here...after all, his/her/its demogoguery never works.

ex-lib: ...Hillary's demogoguery...

ROTF! You mean "demagoguery"... Ah, the irony spoken by a Trolletariart dema-gogo.

Dance another jig for us. MsNThrope has cued up the music for you.

What I want: banning for-profit health insurance.

That's right, no more for-profit health insurance companies whose primary intent it to maximize CEO pay (and shareholder theft) at the expense of health and welfare.

First off, insurance companies drive me crazy anyway. They take money, take money, take money but go to the greatest lengths possible to NOT do anything in return. What they actually want is to simply be allowed to suck up money from the insured for absolutely nothing in return. Legalized theft.

What I want is for all health insurance to be handled in a manner similar to credit unions at worst, as simple nonprofits at best. Take in money, provide a service in return (healthcare payments). No say whatsoever in what procedures are allowed. No interference at all in medical decisions. This goes hand-in-hand with barring drug companies from advertising to the public as if the public gets to prescribe drugs. MEDICAL DOCTORS prescribe drugs. Period. Only they are equipped to know whether any given drug is appropriate for a given patient. Patients don't know shit about this stuff.

This also goes hand-in-hand with barring pharmicists from interfering with medical decisions. ONLY MEDICAL DOCTORS get to make medical decisions (like what birthcontrol drug or birth preventative is appropriate). Pharmacists have two functions: ensure that the person dropping off their script knows about the medical side-effects (dry throat, anal leakage, headache, etc) and to ensure that there is no mistake with prescribing drugs in combo that have bad interactions. That's it. Dispense the drug and leave the medical shit to medical doctors.

Now, that means non-profit insurance collectives, pharma advertising their wares ONLY to those trained and knowledgeable on their function and usefulness, and pharmacists staying out of personal lives and medical decisions and doing their damn job...or find another line of work.

Period. The end.

My apologies to Scotian... it's "Trolletariat."

These idiots:

...While I have my doubts about private health insurance, it's better than public insurance.

Posted by: American Hawk on March 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary's slam is crock. The largest share health insurance is sold by not-for-profit insurance companies...blah, blah...the for-profit health insurance companies aren't making huge profits...blah, blah...Hillary's demogoguery...blah.

Posted by: ex-liberal on March 30, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory got there before me. Not one piiece of truth in the whole blurb.

Chickenheart: No it isn't. Please cite anything to prove so.

Never-ever-mind: What a load of crock. You can't cite one thing to substantiate this as it is all lies. Your mind is so polluted the diarrhoea trickles from your mind, through your keyboard, to the world. You are a sorry believer in your own propaganda.

Hillary? She'll make it too complicated and not clean out the whole mess.

The answer is easy.

FICA tax. Lift the ceiling for FICA, roll back Bush's tax cut for the wealthy, and extend Medicare to all Americans.

The current ceiling for FICA is approximately 94K. Lifting the ceiling would increase revenue to the Treasury many many times the current level.

It would be enough of an increase of funds to actually lower the overall FICA tax rate, remove businesses from the obligation of matching employee contributions, AND would leave enough to keep a surplus for decades, if not centuries.

The amount of untapped revenue is staggering.

No need to increase income taxes or set up a VAT. Just lift the ceiling and tax rich folks the same as the poor and middle.

Right now, the rich get a massive break when it comes to FICA.

For example: Someone who makes 94K is taxed on 100% of their wages. Someone who makes 940K is only taxed on 10%. Someone who makes 9.4 million is only taxed on 1%.

Change those percentages, and we get fairness, along with 100% universal health care coverage, lower FICA tax rates, and business savings to boot.

That's the fairest way to go. Spread the hit.

Dance another jig for us. MsNThrope has cued up the music for you.
Posted by: Apollo 13

That's my own composition. The Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin Polka.

heh

I have read a quick summary of Richardson's plan. He is working the problem on the margins without adding huge volatility to the economy.

Libertarians can work with him.

After many years of administering employer based health care plans, during a period when gold-plated benefits were an effective hiring tool, I find myself in the peculiar position of believing my old job is now obsolete. In fact, managing health care plans has apparently become much more a distraction for employers than the recruiting plus it was in my heyday
.
Neither does being covered by an employer based plan any longer provide long term security, as my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience demonstrates. As an early retiree (under 65, by more years than it's safe to risk) and, therefore ineligible for Medicare, my employer sponsored group health insurance premium morphed from $375 per month to nearly $1100 per month as of January 1. My age makes any individual coverage significantly more expensive than last year's premium, and a couple of health conditions (e.g., I take [gulp], Lipitor) render me uninsurable. I'm stuck.

Kevin's right, kids. Employer mandates are NOT a good idea. Single payer UHS is the way to go. Dan's description of the Aussie's plan sounds really great, though perhaps not as as egalitarian as I might hope. And to American Hawk and others, I send my best wishes. Your posts betray the naievete, or self absorption, or maybe both, of extreme youth.

Just fund the thing with a VAT or an income tax increase and be done with it.

You're almost there. Fund it with:
- return of inheritance taxes
- new top rate of income tax
- increased tax on gas
- GOP voting tax (if you vote Republic, you have to pay an additional $25K per year. It's even a flat tax, they should love it)

Problem solved.

Why is it that in the 1960's the Federal government could force white kids to sit in the same school room with blacks.

Yet in 2007 it can't create a health care system that would work better and be incredibly popular and already exists in the rest of the developed world ?

indykat, that is why the way healthcare is run is such a shamscam. No one can predict 2 years out what their cost or coverage is going to be. Non-coverage of pre-existing conditions is a perfect example of why health care is not and should not be a market; market response is counter-service not improving service, insurers first reaction is to restrict, not improve.

There are plenty of models out there to craft off. All the other advanced nations have universal health care that differs in detail or fundamentals one from the other. Doesn't seem like the US ever likes to learn from abroad though; auto industry, steel, finacial, health markets. We tend to blinkered.

You are not unusual and I sympathise. Good luck.

Posted by: Boring on March 30, 2007 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

You don't have a clue what you talk about - INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T ACTUALLY PAY ANY OF THE PAYMENTS - the ratepayers too. Insurance companies LOVE to see the costs go up - THEN THEY CAN RAISE RATES.

Then.... to further maximize profits - THE JUST START REFUSING TO PAY CLAIMS!

But they love to have the costs go up so they can collectively (there is no competition - they all work off the same ISO data) RAISE RATES FOR EVERYONE!

It would be enough of an increase of funds to actually lower the overall FICA tax rate, remove businesses from the obligation of matching employee contributions, AND would leave enough to keep a surplus for decades, if not centuries...The amount of untapped revenue is staggering.

Do you have a cite for this? Lifting the cap would obviously increase revenue, but your claim that doing so would raise enough cash to "remove businesses" from having to pay the match (whilst funding UHC) strikes me as wildly implausible.

The employer FICA match currently supplies nearly half of all FICA funds -- or (I'm guesstimating) something like $400 billion. So, lifting the cap would have to cover this loss in revenue plus the several hundred extra billion dollars needed to fund UHC. Are you seriously contending that removing the FICA cap would generate an extra $700 billion or so? Suchf figures imply there's an extra $11 trillion in wages that's currently exempt from the FICA tax, or more than that if you want to accomplish these things and reduce the FICA percentage itself. In other words, for your theory to work, there needs to exist a quantity of currently untapped (by the FICA tax) wages being earned by upper income folks equal in size to the entire US GDP.

Stefan >"...You have no idea what you're talking about."

Now come on, be nice to the Troll-in-Training. Such harsh truth might warp he/she/its wittle brainy-poo.

Looks like Unka KKKarl is geting down to the bottom of the resource barrel these days.

Pity...NOT !

"Everyday reality now is a complete fiction, manufactured by the media landscape and we operate inside it." - JG Ballard

Who said this?
Whose platform seeks better health care?
We demand the treasonable system of health care be completely revolutionized.

We demand an end to the status quo in which people die or rot away from lack of proper treatment due to the failure of their medical coverage, Health Maintenance Organization, or insurance policy.

We further demand the extensive development of insurance for old age and that prescription drugs be made both affordable and accessible.

Maybe insurance companies charge too much in some sense, but do they really deserve to have the rug pulled from under them?

We've got to get away from hooking having health care to having a job.

Notthere, your good wishes mean a lot. Thank you for your kind, intelligent, response.

Notthere, your good wishes mean a lot. Thank you for your kind, intelligent, response.

Posted by: indykat on March 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

You know, thanks for your thanks, and I meant what I said, and I know you did too, but there is so little response to what is needed in this world, less Eepublican but not much more Democratic, to replace the empathy needed.

Maybe we'll get there, but time is running out fast.

Whoops!

Eepublican = Republican.

I think most got that. This is for egbert, Al, chickenheart, never-ever-mind, etc.

If Hillary had the spine to offer a simple, cost-effective, single-payer health care plan, I would be much more likely to overlook the Iraq vote.

But that's unlikely. I'm guessing her plan will keep insurance companies happy, maintain corporate profits, and simply have American taxpayers fund those profits from now until the end of time.

HR 676. Look it up. Single payer is already a bill.

It would be interesting to ask the corporate health care Democratic presidential hopefuls if they would actually veto HR 676 if it managed to pass Congress.

HOW ABOUT THIS?

Everyone who does not have health insurance but whose taxes indicate they do qualify for Medicaid, we tax $3000/year and then enroll them in Medicaid; then we increase the earned income tax credit to compensate those who are uninsured and poor/middle income on a progressive tax credit basis, i.e., the poorer people get the higher credit.

AGAIN, WE HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IN THE USA THANKS TO THE BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS OF THE USA WORKER AND TAXPAYER, ESPECIALLY THE NOBLE HEROES WHO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO SCHOOL, WORK, SAVING, AND LAWFULNESS -- E.G., WALL STREET WORKERS. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS UNIVERSAL ASSET PROTECTION INSURANCE IN THE EVENT OF CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS. THAT, OF COURSE, NEARLY EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE SUCH ASSET PROTECTION INSURANCE COULD AFFORD IT IF THEY: 1) LIVED IN A SMALLER HOUSE IN A LESS EXPENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD (WHETHER THEY RENT OR OWN); 2) OWNED A CAR THAT HAS NOT GREATER THAN $5,000 BLUE BOOK VALUE; 3) GOT RID OF CABLE TV, LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE, ETC.; 4) DISCONTINUED ALL EXCESS FOOD, ALL ALCOHOL, DRUGS, SEX-FOR-MONEY (WHICH WOULD LOWER HEALTH COSTS, TOO); ETC.

Folks: I'm for social justice; not just redistributing wealth willy-nilly. You just make things worse for the poor and middle income when you seek to do that. They have enough problems as it is without what is supposed to be the intellectual elite in the USA advocating policies that only condone, enable, and more often than not subsidize the most self-destructive and commmunity destabilizing temptations they face and behavior they embrace. If you're going to be socialists, be effective socialists -- not panderers.

TOH

EDIT:

I mean in the first sentence "do not qualify for Medicaid".

TOH

Hillary has good reason to attack the health insurance industry, since it was their “Harry and Louise” ads that torpedoed any chance America had of getting universal health care. That was the most money every spent on attack ads in American political history. If Hillary gets elected, I hope she takes that industry apart piece by piece and salts the earth where they stood.

Jasper,

I think your figures are waaay off. Could you link to that 400 billion total for FICA. I couldn't find anything like that at CBO.

My guesstimates are based upon the fact that the majority of wealth in America is NOT subject to FICA tax right now. Less than 10% of that wealth is taxed. So, logically, the revenue generated by taxing it would yield many times current revenues. Probably in the 7-10 times range. Which means we could cut the rate in half (It's currently approximately 13%, when businesses match employee contribution), and still raise more revenue than before. We could eliminate matching from business and still raise more revenue that before.

As in, if lifting the ceiling yielded even four times the amount, you could do the above and basically break even. Cut the rate in half, eliminate matching.

If it yields more than four time the amount, all of that is gravy.

Add to that: Role back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the rich and you guarantee the money needed to expand Medicare.

Just for your information, the Canadian system is not run by the Federal government. They fund a large portion of it (which has steadily shrunk over the years, one reason the federal government is running such a large SURPLUS) and the system is regulated by the Canada Health Act, but the provinces actually run each system.
OT, why are so many people against partitioning Iraq? Two of the strongest countries in the world have strong provincial/state governments with a minimal federal government...

Actually, I'm off on the total percentage slightly, along with the ceiling.

According to this site, it's 12.4%, when matching is included, and . . . as of 2007, the ceiling is 97.5K.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=45&Topic2id=50

looking for other citations to match my guesstimates.