Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[emilynghiem]

I don't know of any examples of such a system working on a large scale such as we are talking about. And never for anything so intricate as health care.

the "collective" scale is just adding up all the local groups around the world handling different aspects, not just health care, through sustainable systems of breaking the cycle of poverty. I am talking about adding all those efforts up, and calling that the global level.

The same way "Habitat for Humanity" trains leaders to head local chapters, to multiply and replicate efforts, there are expanded applications of this such as "Architecture for Humanity" where interns and investors plan community facilities which include schools, clinics etc. not just the houses but planning for the community and services for the people on site.

PACE Universal sets up schools, many groups set up orphanages, and one friend of mine was part of an organization that helped farmers/workers set up their own co-ops where they manage their own labor and retain more of their profits. Grameen Foundation/Bank won the Nobel Prize in 2006 for their microlending and business training program that has been replicated worldwide.

Likewise there are many individual doctors and medical organizations that set up clinics to provide not just services but EDUCATION and training in poor areas so that they develop more sustainable programs over time. Doctors Without Borders is one of the more established organizations besides AmeriCares and Red Cross/Red Crescent; and there is no telling how many independent church ministries organize medical drives and education outreach worldwide, where immigrants who come to America for education and professional opportunties pay it back by bringing education to their home countries to uplift the poor.

Again if you add up all these individual programs and efforts, and you look at the growing number of microdonation sites where individuals all over the world can fund these groups online, it isn't hard to see how all these efforts are coordinated like a huge network.

The TED conferences and other foundations have brought people and teams together to develop sustainable solutions that can be implemented systemically from local to global.

Every program and locale is going to have different needs, focus and set up to address them. So the collective/global scale is NOT going to be homogenous, all one type of system, but the amalgamation of all the diverse programs out there addressing different sectors.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?

Dear, of course being a liberal Democrat means you are not very smart. I'm sorry about that but I do admire your very civilized spirit of cooperation or whatever it is. Most liberals are very very violent! Class war, taxaction, regulations etc etc is what they live for.

You say you believe in "switching", well so do all Nazis, liberals and communists. Capitalism is freedom. If there is an opportunity to sustainably serve people, free people will find it without you switching them. You can pick the tiniest product you want and there will be lots of competition all over the world to make it better and cheaper , in order to serve customers, as long as the government is not involved to inhibit the porcess. This is how the earth now sustains 7 billion people!! Capitalism is the ultimate charity.

Also, an insurance company that pays the most to each employee, especially its top employees, will provide the best insurance. This is true in any industry. If you want the best or most life sustaining products in the world you want the best employees. Paying them best is the best way to get them, or the best way to allocate the scarce business talent necessary to produce the best life sustaining products.

Ok I know thats all way over your head but please try to study it. Thanks

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.

we all always want more pay but that does not mean the free market allows it- right???

 

[Toronado3800]

Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?

Dear, of course being a liberal Democrat means you are not very smart. I'm sorry about that but I do admire your very civilized spirit of cooperation or whatever it is. Most liberals are very very violent! Class war, taxaction, regulations etc etc is what they live for.

You say you believe in "switching", well so do all Nazis, liberals and communists. Capitalism is freedom. If there is an opportunity to sustainably serve people, free people will find it without you switching them. You can pick the tiniest product you want and there will be lots of competition all over the world to make it better and cheaper , in order to serve customers, as long as the government is not involved to inhibit the porcess. This is how the earth now sustains 7 billion people!! Capitalism is the ultimate charity.

Also, an insurance company that pays the most to each employee, especially its top employees, will provide the best insurance. This is true in any industry. If you want the best or most life sustaining products in the world you want the best employees. Paying them best is the best way to get them, or the best way to allocate the scarce business talent necessary to produce the best life sustaining products.

Ok I know thats all way over your head but please try to study it. Thanks

Got it. So the banks who pay more to their CEO's than my company pays its CEO do better and need less welfare?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?

Dear, of course being a liberal Democrat means you are not very smart. I'm sorry about that but I do admire your very civilized spirit of cooperation or whatever it is. Most liberals are very very violent! Class war, taxaction, regulations etc etc is what they live for.

You say you believe in "switching", well so do all Nazis, liberals and communists. Capitalism is freedom. If there is an opportunity to sustainably serve people, free people will find it without you switching them. You can pick the tiniest product you want and there will be lots of competition all over the world to make it better and cheaper , in order to serve customers, as long as the government is not involved to inhibit the porcess. This is how the earth now sustains 7 billion people!! Capitalism is the ultimate charity.

Also, an insurance company that pays the most to each employee, especially its top employees, will provide the best insurance. This is true in any industry. If you want the best or most life sustaining products in the world you want the best employees. Paying them best is the best way to get them, or the best way to allocate the scarce business talent necessary to produce the best life sustaining products.

Ok I know thats all way over your head but please try to study it. Thanks

Got it. So the banks who pay more to their CEO's than my company pays its CEO do better and need less welfare?

too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??

 

[Dragonlady]

too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??

Eddie, CEO salaries are set by the Board of Directors, who are usually CEO's of other companies, so when they vote one of their own a raise, well, tit for tat, you they'll up their own value. CEO salaries have no relationship to profits, or share prices, or to average worker salaries. This is the ultimate "old boys' club" clapping each other on the back.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??

Eddie, CEO salaries are set by the Board of Directors, who are usually CEO's of other companies, so when they vote one of their own a raise, well, tit for tat, you they'll up their own value. CEO salaries have no relationship to profits, or share prices, or to average worker salaries. This is the ultimate "old boys' club" clapping each other on the back.

so do you want soviet libturds setting all wages and prices to increase our standard of living or do you have no idea as usual??
Porsche makes the most profit per car in the industry, do you want the libturds setting the price of all cars too??

 

[Toronado3800]

Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?

sub moron liberal, I have no idea why you would. If I said I knew I'll pay you $10,000. Always ask, what is the subject, before you write.
Always ask , Am I creating a strawman because I lack the IQ to address the subject directly.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?

sub moron liberal, I have no idea why you would. If I said I knew I'll pay you $10,000. Always ask, what is the subject, before you write.
Always ask , Am I creating a strawman because I lack the IQ to address the subject directly.

Got it. You are a double agent trying to make republicans look bad.

Just quit riding the party line soo much and leave some room for free thought.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?

sub moron liberal, I have no idea why you would. If I said I knew I'll pay you $10,000. Always ask, what is the subject, before you write.
Always ask , Am I creating a strawman because I lack the IQ to address the subject directly.

Got it. You are a double agent trying to make republicans look bad.

Just quit riding the party line soo much and leave some room for free thought.

Would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is?? If you object, do you want government to set all prices and wages??

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Medicare works pretty good. So does the VA.

I am covered under TRICARE overseas. In November, I spent $8700 US (110K mexican pesos, more or less) for a major shoulder operation here in Mexico. I am getting a check from TRICARE for $8670 next week. I think our government run healthcare programs work fine. My shoulder surgery cost me WAY less than it would in the US, and our government is basically paying me every dime back. Pretty sweet. From my biased perspective, government run health care just got me a surgery that would have cost twice as much if I had been living stateside. Go Navy!

I lived in Tucson for more than 25 years. Until the drug companies put a stop to it, the elderly and working poor went to Mexico for drugs and to see doctors, have surgeries and so on. There used to be organized bus loads to Mexico. There's a common ailment in the desert southwest called Valley Fever, very expensive to treat, people would go to Mexico to buy the drug. Dogs get Valley Fever too. A big dog could cost as much as $10 a day to treat and the treatment was long term. I've bought the drug many times from a pharmacy on Calle Obregon just inside the border in Nogales, Mexico.

US drug companies, in conjunction with the AMA, put a stop to it because they weren't able to bleed people dry for the drugs and treatment they need. (An aside: the AMA was formed - late 1800s - by doctors in England to combat the popularity of the very effective, safe and inexpensive Homeopathy.)

I'm afraid that there is so much misguided hate and ignorance about Mexico, people really have no idea what a beautiful country it is. Nor do they know that the Mexican people are brave and true and utterly loyal to their families.

I once had to get emergency treatment in Belgium ... We can only hope the damn pubs will allow ObamaCare to become anywhere near as effective and affordable as the care I got was.

Great to read your story and good for you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?

too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Its against the rules to try to take credit for other people's words. Its called plagiarism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?

too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Its against the rules to try to take credit for other people's words. Its called plagiarism.

So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?
too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!

 

[jgarden]

Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???

Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%

Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%

It would save every American about $5000 a year.

Liberals have an IQ high enough to understand that GWB had 8 long years in the White House of which 6 included Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress to produce the kind of private health insurance that the OP describes.

The real question is why didn't they introduce-this private cost-effective healthcare system when they had the chance?

 

[editec]

Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???

Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%

Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%

It would save every American about $5000 a year.

The argument that third party HC payments systems naturally work to cause price increases is valid.

Definitely TRUE, Ed.

If there were no HC insurance schemes (paid by employers or government programs) then the price of HC would probably dramatically go down.

Anytime you take enormous amounts of cash out of an industry the price of what that industry creates goes down.

For example, when the cost of borrowing money goes up (increased interest rates) the price of homes either stabilizes or goes down, too.

 

[dblack]

Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???

Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%

Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%

It would save every American about $5000 a year.

The argument that third party HC payments systems naturally work to cause price increases is valid.

Definitely TRUE, Ed.

If there were no HC insurance schemes (paid by employers or government programs) then the price of HC would probably dramatically go down.

Anytime you take enormous amounts of cash out of an industry the price of what that industry creates goes down.

For example, when the cost of borrowing money goes up (increased interest rates) the price of homes either stabilizes or goes down, too.

The key point here isn't merely that insurance injects more money into the industry - but the way it does it. The standard high-coverage, low-deductible group plan removes virtually all incentive for the health consumer to look for bargains in their health care expenses. From the point of view of a patient of the 'covered' patient, there's almost no reason to choose less expensive alternatives. Arguably, the opposite incentive exists - if someone else is paying, why not choose the pricier option at every opportunity? Usually, more expensive equals higher quality, right?

I don't think insurance is inherently bad. It's our abuse of the institution that is the problem. Insurance makes sense as a hedge against unexpected expenses. As a means for financing routine expenses it's dangerously irrational. Health insurance should be used for those expenses and illnesses we likely won't experience and hope we never face. For the rest of it, for the common ailments and accidents most of us can expect to face, it makes far more sense - both at the micro and macro economic level - to pay for it the way we pay for everything else; by working and saving and spending our own money.

The delusion that we can simply 'join' a plan, pay a low monthly premium and have all our health care worries go away is a fantasy. We should approach it with the same skepticism we would the ubiquitous Nigerian prince with cash flow problems.

 

[Dragonlady]

For example, when the cost of borrowing money goes up (increased interest rates) the price of homes either stabilizes or goes down, too.

Not even close to a valid comparison. When interest rates go up, the carrying costs of the mortgage goes up, which reduces the number of potential buyers who qualify for a mortgage. This lessens demand and prices stabilize or go down.

I have no problem saying that third party payers do add to the cost of health insurance, in the US, largely because of the number of third parties, and inconsistencies between what each will pay. The complexities of billing and collection under this system means that most doctors hire outside billing companies, in essence fourth parties, to take care of their billing. So you have actuaries and people in the insurance company fighting against paying claims, adding costs for doing so, and billing companies which add another layer of expense. And of course, insurance company profits.

Single payer systems don't have these additional expenses. They're not fighting claims, merely paying them. There are no staff involved in reviewing claims and refusing payment - so lower administration. The single payer system is simple enough that doctors don't need an additional layer of administration to deal with them so those expenses are gone, as is the profit for the insurance company.

Nearly 1/3 of every health care dollar spent in the US goes to this complex administration system. In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.

so then we should switch to single payer communism in all industries!! Dragonlady has the IQ of a genius for sure!!

 

[expatriate]

In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.

so then we should switch to single payer communism in all industries!! Dragonlady has the IQ of a genius for sure!!

that is not what she said. all industries was never mentioned. healthcare was.