By Roark on 03-07-09

Unf. I don’t see how the GOP can stop the coming government controlled healthcare debacle being pushed by Obama and the leftists. If the goons in DC, on both sides of the aisle, had a grain of common sense they would realize that the freer a nations healthcare market the better it is!-and more cost effective, because competition drives prices down. I mean is it no wonder that the USA has better healcare than socialist France?!?! The difference is the relation of freedom vs. government control. This is a major moral issue. But the sad fact is that MORE Americans need a change in their own idea’s and philosophies from one of entitlement to one of self reliance and personal responsibility. The Republic is dying and only two options seem viable to salvage our freedom and liberty; revolution or secession.

By mt don on 03-07-09

well said mindy!

if roark’s logic wasn’t so patheic and scary it would be funny - 

roark only believes in the power of the multi-national corporation to kill we the people by denying us health insurance….he worships at the altar of the short term profit -  there are no “Commons” to these people..if it can’t make a profit then it’s not worth it….dirty rivers…who cares….CWD in deer -who cares…..bridges falling down -who cares…

plus in roarks eyes it is evil (or evol to you ron paul fans) to give children access to health care—even if EVERY statistic says it is cheaper to provide basic preventative care than to wait until it is an emergency room issue…

it is also quite revealing that the republican received 700 emails in favor of the chip program and only 1 against…and he is siding w/ the 1….typical republican…..ANY bets on the fact that the 1 email against the chip program was a corporate lobbyiest hack -

can ANYONE HERE name one time roark decried the over-reaching power of the corporate elite with the same zeal he decries allowing children to have access the heath care?

HERE are words from mussolini—> “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power “

anyway it makes fiscal sense to offer national health care:
1. the auto companies are being bankrupted by the health care costs of their retired employees..
2. many businesses won’t open a factory here because of health care and instead open in canada BECAUSE canada has a national heath care system
3. america pays 17% of gdp to provide heath care to 55% of it’s citizens
4. EVERY other industrialized nation offers 100% of it’s citizens heath care and doesn’t spend more than 11% of gdp to provide it….IT IS CHEAPER
5.  but then again a national health care program would lower the profit rates a few multi-national corporations - and ROARK firmly belives that profits to the rich are more important that we the people’s lives
6. every insurance policy - from car insurance to home-owners insurance has a HUGE amount of costs added in to cover health care - so if we had a national health care program insurance rates would come down…

IT just makes fiscal sense….and is good for the bottom line

do the math—- lowering the amount spent on health care from 17% to 10% would save 7% of the USA’s GDP….now times that by the total output of around 15 trillion gdp a year…THAT is real money!

By Craig Moore on 03-07-09

What is the right context to call a person a ‘child’ for health insurance purposes?

Perhaps if the label were changed to something more descriptive and remove the term ‘children.‘  Should people over the age of 18 and up to 25 deserve the same emotive sympathetic position as grade schoolers by being cast as ‘children?‘  Instead of a ‘C’ replace it with an age spread like 0-25 or 0-19 HIP.

By Roark on 03-07-09

Mindy, might does not make right.-RIGHT makes right. Just because polls or ballots may swing one way or the other is irrelevant to the core issue of wether something is moral or not. Would it be moral if voters approved a measure that mandated you can never eat chocolate? And then there is the much larger issue which seems to have eluded your limited rationale: does man have a right to his own life and to keep the fruits of his labor and decide who or what he will with his health or does he not? You seem to be exclusively obsessed with justifying government force to make others bend to what is either popular en masse or what is utilitarian, obviously you do not honor people as individuals, but as so many cogs in a collective wheel. Forcing doctor’s and patients to comply with government mandates, is the grossest violation of man being free to act in his best interest.

By Carla Augustad on 03-07-09

This is a very interesting comment thread; please humor me while I comment to a few of you before I comment on the Chips agenda in another post.

Roark:  I cannot fathom your anger here, and I do not think that being called a leftist, a socialist or a Democrat is an insult so continue to sputter those words all you want. However, I do hope that you are prepared to back your other assertions up with reliable sources.

What you said about unregulated and unsupported health care being being better and more cost effective is simply wrong.  Yes, I do believe that I am fully qualified to make that statement.

April Gaede:  I do agree that we can afford to take care of our children’s health care.  It is all a matter of priorities, I am quite often flabbergasted at what some people believe that ours should be.

I do not believe that we do provide free health care to millions of illegal aliens; do you have a source for that?

Craig Moore:  It is my belief that health care (not insurance) is a fundamental human right, but the insurance industry is a sacred cow so we are left here fighting to get the most cost effective and politically expedient alternative funded the way the voters want it to be.

FREEmontana:  What difference does it make why a parent cannot get health care for their child?  Making a person wrong does nothing to solve the problem, except to make yourself feel superior to everybody else.

The rest of us are advocating for the children, not looking for someone to blame.

FREEmontana, was there a coup somewhere in Montana and America that set you up as sole arbiter of what we can afford and whose votes count?  Please cite the source of your authority also, thank-you.

Roark: Is sounds like you don’t like the idea that the voters clearly chose something you don’t want them to have.  Also, is it possible that you are one of those people who get paid to troll comment boards?

John:  here did you get that information?

By Carla Augustad on 03-08-09

I gathered signatures to get 1-155 on the ballot last spring, and I was the losing candidate for House District 10 during the last two elections.  Yes I do have skin in this game, this is personal not political as I will not be on the ballot in 2010.

I am too tired to open this up tonight so I will simply leave you with the statement that the majority of the voters really want to see this happen now.

By Roark on 03-08-09

CARLA said,“Insuring children is not the same as taking somebody’s rights away. “
—-When the government FORCES one to pay for other childrens health insurance our rights are most certainly violated.

Carla, if you choose to believe what you will regardless of facts then that is your business, but it is wisdom to acknowledge reality and not to close your eyes and ears to it. You may not “approve” of my source, but that doesn’t make it any less factual.

But aside from that, the core issue is still wether the collective has the “right” to violate individual rights in the name of the collective “good” or any other such subjectivist ethic. Robbery is neither ethical privately for publicly.

There is nothing straw man about pointing out to you the fallacy of your argument by giving you a realistic example. Instead of lambasting it, why not try and argue against it? The principle is the same regardless of the object being proposed.

It is irrelevant where I live. Distance has nothing to do with principles, reason, or rights. Wether I live 1 inch from the city government building or 1,000,000 miles. Did it matter where Obama lived when he passed the biggest tax increase in history on all americans even those who have not been born? 
ps if you are not happy with my WT source I have more than enough sources I can site you.

By John on 03-08-09

Carla - the World Health Organization as well as many other legitimate research institutions. Per capita health care spending in the US is 2Xs what it is in the nearest country (Germany), but our lifespans, infant mortality rates, disease rates, and many other factors of healthiness often range with 2nd and third-world countries. The common mantra: “The US has the world’s best health care system” is simply mythology. You should read the Economist Magazine’s survey of world health care also - and how the US system compares.

By Roark on 03-08-09

addendum: What with all the taxes, regulations, and red tape is it no wonder that our healthcare is a mess. A mess whose responsibility lies at the governments feet, and embolden by those who think they have a right to another’s life and money. Also, let’s not forget about personal responsibility. If individuals took better care of themselves and there loved ones both physically and financially then you would see a definite downward trend in health costs, etc.

JC, you a re being intellectually dishonest. Insurance companies cannot “mandate” that doctors comply with anything. Insurance companies are private entities and have the right to set their own standards and parameters of health coverage, but they cannot mandate anything, because it is a voluntary contract. Another mistake you made is equating profit with higher costs. Let me correct you by saying that in a free market health care system costs would drop exponentially due to competition, as well as the reputation of any insurance company would matter too, because if a company is known to have a bad track record they will a)lose business and/or b) be prosecuted if there is fraud involved. JC you are simply incorrect in your statement that the insurance companies have all the control.-it is the government and its mandates which have the control and exercise it. With an insurance company I can change carriers if I do not like their service, with the state there is no such luxury.

John you too are willfully misleading information which I will clarify for you. Socialist nations are not cheaper than the USA in fact they are much much higher because their marginal tax rates are much higher in order to pay for socialized medicine. On top of that they are also required to pay some out of pocket expenses. and they do not have the luxury of deciding who their doctor is, what treatment they can seek, and when they will be seen. John, this website is spot on every time http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/

Let’s also not forget what is at the heart of this issue: does man have a right to his own life?

By Carla Augustad on 03-08-09

Where you are from Roark has bearing on what your goal here is. This is a hometown type of paper, and I have noticed some pretty hateful and incendiary things written here lately.

I do not have a problem with discussions or disagreements.  I am questioning your intent here; what are you trying to accomplish?

By mtdon on 03-08-09

In hindsight I myself have written things here that were probably over the line - but make no mistake there is a WAR of ideolgies happening in American right now -  AND democrats have let themselves be out-debated, out-talked and out-manuevered for too long…..we are living w/ the results right now. 

We cannot continue to allow MYTHS to be repeated so many times people believe them anymore.

ROARK: “Socialist nations are not cheaper than the USA in fact they are much much higher because their marginal tax rates are much higher in order to pay for socialized medicine.“

uh… we are talking GDP numbers so tax rates are not affecting the statistics as to amounts of money being spent on aggregate health care. Germany spends 10.7% of gdp on health care and we spend 17%.  THAT means they spend less!  AND they offer 100% coverage and LIVE LONGER.

Not believing the facts when they stare you right in the face is called cognative dissonance and is usually identified w/ cults.  OH YEA - Roark admits following the reverend young sun moon and the washington times - A cult newspaper.

ROARK: “Insurance companies cannot “mandate” that doctors comply with anything” 

NO but they can NOT pay them - then the hospital gets mad and the doctor gets in trouble - so in fact the doctor do in fact comply.

THE problem w/ the free market argument is that there is no FREE MARKET.  There are only out-sized monopolies that control our economy now.

The CEO of one of the largest health care insurers in the US made over 1 billion dollars and controls around 30% of the market….ADD to that they have lost many lawsuits where they denied coverage to people that WERE covered and then ended up dying…...and he is still walking around free…..

IS THAT YOUR FREE MARKET ROARK???

Just like real war w/ bullets the main victims of this war are the innocent and children….

come on roark we can help you

By Carla Augustad on 03-08-09

Roark, are you familiar with front groups?

Do you know that you used a link to a front group for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)  to back up your claims here?

Honestly, I do not know if you are gullible or if you are paid to come here and create trouble.

By Kalispell Native on 03-08-09

Nice of April Gaede to pipe up with one of her white supremacist blurts.  Google her name and/or Prussian Blue.

By Roark on 03-08-09

Carla, please explain to me exactly where I live as having any relevance to the topic. You said,“This is a hometown type of paper, and I have noticed some pretty hateful and incendiary things written here lately.“—-well, what are you defining as “hateful and incendiary”?-and why?

You also stated,“I do not have a problem with discussions or disagreements.  I am questioning your intent here; what are you trying to accomplish?“——Isn’t it obvious? I am defending free market health care and individual rights against your forced socialist system of rationed care.

Carla, you can call http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/ a “front group” ,but they are not, because they are not being paid by any HSA organization. You are confusing advocating HSA’s with actually BEING an HSA. -and yes, I fully 110% support their work. They are trying to stop the socialist, rationed health care debacle that you, John, and so many others are in favor of chaining American’s to. What you have failed to yet realize is that healthcare is not a right, in fact using children for your poster boy is a rather pathetic way to advocate government controlled health care.

John stated,“But back to the subject—if a parent can not afford health care for their children, is it your brand of “freedom” that the child should go without health care or die (in some instances?) Survival of the children who have the richest parents?“——-WHY can’t the parent afford health care for their children is the first question that needs to be answered. Other than catastrophe it would be because, either a) behaviour of the parents who are unwilling to work hard to provide health insurance or b) the government controlling too much prices and or competition within the field of health insurance and/or pursuing alternatives that are now otherwise illegal. For instance: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5450.
John, again health insurance would not be so high if there wasn’t so much government interference. While we’re on the subject shouldn’t the state also provide widows with all their needs, and how about widowers, and what about people who are not tall enough, or are too short, or people who have a real fear of spiders, or how about people who get stressed out if they work more than 20 hours a week. They all have real legitimate needs, too.-so, should we provide for them? Do you find the spectacle of rationed health care enlightened? It is truly unfortunate what befalls all of us in life, but does that give others the right to then mortgage my life or anybody esles for that matter? BTW John, Switzerland which has the freest, and highest quality health care in Europe, maintains about an 12% gdp.

By John on 03-08-09

Poverty rate among the elderly before Social Security:
48%

Poverty rate among the elderly after Social Security:
12%

Looks like Laissez Faire really worked well in that instance too didn’t it Roark?

By Nancy on 03-09-09

Here is a suggestion, Roark and Carla why don’t the both of you exchange e-mail addresses or phone numbes and converse in private. These rants are annoying.

By B on 03-09-09

Its important to note that we don’t have a ‘Laissez Faire’ economy.  We haven’t since Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824.

If you want to know why health care costs are so high, you would do well to ask the question: ‘who does private health care serve?‘  Insurance companies have a financial incentive to limit and deny care.  Hospitals have a financial incentive to inflate costs.  This is why, per capita, the US spends more money per year on health care while receiving a lower quality of care than their european (or canadian) counterparts.

By Rawhide on 03-09-09

April hit the issue right on the head.  The cost of providing health care to illegal aliens in this country has put many hospitals out of business, especially in our southern border states. Federal legislation which forces hospitals to accept patients without insurance or the means to pay is bankrupting our health care system, not to mention at least one state (California). Why is it that when the President and our own U.S. Senator Baucus are encouraging national health care for everyone, some Montanans can’t even agree to provide basic health care for the children? Lets take care of our own kids first, then address the issues of illegal immigrants and nationalized health care afterwards.

By mtdon on 03-09-09

in an enlightened society you can’t just let people die in the streets….and you can’t ask the ambulance driver or paramedic to have to check citizenship first before providing health care….

medicare provides health care for a 3% overhead….private carriers can do it for 2.5% BUT then add in 20-25% for executive compensation and shareholder payments…..so actually the simple fact is that the medicare system is CHEAPER than private health care…

funguymon -  i suggest you take a basic economics class…given the way national economies work you cannot compare states to states and dismiss country to country comparisons -

all that argument shows is your lack of understanding on how national economies work…..

why are you so-called libertarians so enamored w/ allowing a few mega corporations to control the entire health care system?  I thought it was a freedom issue?

By Craig Moore on 03-09-09

Tony, NO that is not right.

By Rawhide on 03-09-09

What am I missing here. Why don’t we just enforce immigration laws and:
1) Require all alien workers to register (Green card?),
2) Levy stiff fines on employers who hire illegals or fail to pay FICA or health insurance fees,
3) Tax the worker’s pay the same as all the rest of us, and
4) Collect income, property, sales taxes from the legal alien workers.
If we did that, wouldn’t “legal” alien workers be paying into the same system as everyone else and be entitled to health benefits? I wonder if some politicians lack the will to enforce our laws because many of their friends are paying illegals under the table to avoid FICA taxes, so the rest of us pay through the nose.

By Geirge on 03-09-09

Rawhide - you’re not missing anything. What you suggested is pretty much what the law is now. I think there is a combination of will (conservative business interests that wish to perpetuate cheap - exploited labor), and the sheer lack of resources to confront the massive challenge. It’s simplistic to just say “enforce the law.“ Are we talking about perp-walking 20 million people (many of whom have dependent kids who are rightful citizens) across the border? Although related - this is a bit off topic.

By Vicki on 03-09-09

I’‘d be glad to support a “free market health care system” - but what we have in America is absolutely not that. So many people have to pay so much more for the same level of care than others because they don’t have access to the same insurance. There’s nothing free market about that. And somebody please explain the logic of using employers to fund health care costs - when people get sick they cannot work and there goes the insurance, and therefore the care. This doesn’t even make sense, and if anyone proposed it as a new idea now nobody would go for it. Comments, please.

By Vicki on 03-09-09

I don’t think I have a real problem with it being public. I think perhaps health is something a society should “assure” rather than “insure.“ If it was affordable, most people COULD pay for it. Now, most people can’t. And that really isn’t the fault of the “public” aspects of it.

By John on 03-09-09

Roark - so you are not an anarchist, but you essentially believe that any form of government - even democracy - makes a person a subject of the collective… And the only source you can quote is a discredited crazy lady who conjured up a religion, you believe in, called Objectivism. The world is made better by serious people who traffic in reality - not half-baked utopians who believe in notions that never were and never will be. Those people are dangerous.

By sophie on 03-10-09

Roark why is it so unfortunate that health care will soon be fully public? What is so wrong with considering health care for everyone a progressive and forward thinking ideal? If you are afraid of the socialist aspect of public health care then you are probably also against:
1. Social Security
2. Medicaid / Medicare
3. Charity hospitals
4. Managed health care
5. public schools
6. Unemployment insurance
7. Pell Grants for college
8. National Highway System ( Eishenhower)
9. Police Departments
10. Fire Departments
11. Libraries
Why are people so afraid of socialized medicine or socialism for that matter? We use aspects of it extremely successfully in this country why are people against health care for everyone.
Craig Moore, I don’t believe the govt. is going to enforce how you eat and how often you exercise. If they want to make suggestions and put out guidelines about healthy living why is that bad? You are not going to get fined because you skipped a day of exercise.

By Craig Moore on 03-10-09

Vicki, how does “public health,“ other than administrating vaccines,“ assure health?  How does it change behavior to prevent smoking, obeisity, and other lifestyle choice related diseases?

By Roark on 03-10-09

Both Tox and Sophie fail to realize that “socializing” medicine takes away mans right to choose, both patient and doctor, which medicine he can choose, when he chooses to be seen, and what treatment he wants to use. The government calls all of the shots. When the state calls the shots, that means you do not. Now you have no choice but to abide by the edicts of government health mandates. Your free will does not matter.

Tox, this may be a new concept for you, but I am NOT your keeper. Man is not the servant for your wants and desires for health care or anything for that matter. Man is an end in himself. Society is comprised of individuals, society is not some big collective body that you can treat with the tyrannical acts of mob rule. That’s the problem with a large portion of Europe vs, the USA. Here man is (used to be at least) free and can achieve and succeed as high as he wants, whereas in Europe due to its overriding philosophy of socialism and altruism man is only born to serve others until the day he dies, and it is service required at the point of a gun. What you fail to realize is that their is no such thing as a forced value. A value is gained by acting in a voluntary way that is not at odds with mans nature.

Yet again Tox, your whole premise is based on mantras of benefiting society or helping everyone. What you fail, again, to realize, is that when you “help” someone under your tyrannical system you are also hurting someone by violating their rights. Your whole argument smacks of double standards, false philosophical premises, and gross immorality perpetrated by the state but justified because of some made up morality of altruism.

Tox, If you do your research thoroughly, which you obviously do not, you would understand that the US does not have a “free for all” with insurance. Insurance companies have many many regulations and taxes which hamper them from offering the best product. You see Tox, in a capitalist society profit and reputation benefit both business and customer. a customer has very right to make as much money as they can. Who are you to say that a service is exorbatent? Who are you to tell someone that they can’t maximize their profit. Its none of your damned business. If the insurance companies were truly de-regulated and laissez-faire you would see so much competition for your business that prices would drop exponentially and quality would rise. Because in a free market reputation and service matter. I am a free man and I will choose who and what I will for my health, not someone else. I do not put crucial decisions of my life to anyone but myself. I am responsible for my own life and the life of my loved onee, only. You may see man as servant of the state, but that is typical of Europe which is infested with anti-liberty socialism and a muslim religion which is destroying it even further.

By Roark on 03-10-09

Sophie, read above for the answer to your question. I’m NOT against charity hospitals so long as tax dollars are not involved. One of the very few things that CAN justify taxation are the police and fire departments. Sophie you are foolish if you believe that the government will not stop just at SCHiP or “simple” socialized medicine as outlined by Montana’s disgraceful Senator Max Baucus. Read up on history.

Our forefathers didn’t have their blood spilt and their lives destroyed so a mob of altruistic socialists could rob us of our rights and our liberty to live as free men.

By mtdon on 03-10-09

roark - go away now - this is OUR newspaper -  for citizens and residents of the flathead valley—

NOT for out of state professional bloggers paid for by the hate-filled rush limbaugh crowd

YOU are only an apologist for the big corporations…

Mussolini defined the word FASCIST and YOUR picture is under the caption!

YOUR ideal health care plan leaves anyone on the fringe w/out coverage…...and totally allows the insurers to deny access to even those w/ adequate coverage…

YOU have zero credibilty and ZERO knowledge on how the health care system actually works…...

YOU are willing to allow people to die if they can’t afford health care….great system you espouse…..and actually 70% of americans totally disagree w/ you -

THE ONLY rights you care about are the right of big business to make a profit at the cost of “WE THE PEOPLE”

THE only LIBERTY you accept is the right of the corporation to walk all over “WE THE PEOPLE”

YOU could care less about the CONSTITUTION…. try reading it once…..

YOU ARE MEAN SPIRITED and YOUR type of thinking has led our country to where it is today…..

TELL US roark what nasty east coast city do you live in so I can go to that local newspaper and make fun of your discredited, uneducated beliefs!

OUR Governor said whenever he goes to WASHINTON DC - after 3 days he has to bathe in the same shampoo that he uses to clean his dogs after they get sprayed by a SKUNK.

I suggest you bathe in the same stuff!

By John on 03-10-09

Roark- you speak of morality - and that “we are not our brother’s keeper.“ But your morality is based on the rantings of some crazy lady who started a religion called “Objectivism.“ So people can choose: Do you wish to follow the morality of Roark, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, or the morality of Jesus. They are complete polar opposites and don’t let anyone fool you into believing they are compatible.

By Craig Moore on 03-10-09

Tox, I would hardly cast Elton John and his partner, David Furnish, as right wingers:  http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/?jp=mhkfmheyeyid

===========
Furnish slams Michael Moore
02/06/2007 - 12:38:30

Elton John’s partner David Furnish has hit out at filmmaker Michael Moore for criticising the US healthcare system.

The star - who lives in England - insists new movie Sicko is inaccurate, and has praised America’s medical services - branding it “the only place to get good treatment”.

He says: “I completely disagree with Michael Moore. With my own father, when he was ill, the only option was to hire a jet and fly him to America. It was the only place to get good treatment.“
=================

By Vicki on 03-10-09

Craig Moore - I wanted to get back to you on “public health.“ I think I want to apologize for bringing that up, because public health is not the same as socialized medicine. Public health as in your public health department tries to promote health in communities through policy changes and in the lives of individuals through education - about lifestyle choices, obesity prevention, etc, as well as immunizations and health screening. But I think that’s another discussion and another tangent.

By Tox on 03-10-09

Craig, there is no doubt that America has some of the very best medical facilities in the world, which are great, IF you can pay for them. And I reckon if you’re married to Elton John that doesn’t present a problem.
—
But that’s not what this discussion is about, is it? This is about providing access to adequate health care for everybody, even and especially to those who are not so well off….those who themselves or their families have been hit by physical hardship, or even just the aging process of one’s parents and relatives, and are not rich.
In providing that kind of care we are lagging far behind.

By John on 03-10-09

The David Furnish quote is ancedotal and meaningless. Citizens of countries with single-payer health care have consistently expressed a higher level of satisfaction for their health care system than Americans do. The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies keep feeding us the mythology through their Republican lapdogs that we should like our ###### health care product (that we pay twice as much for as anyone else) and be afraid of change because the other people have a ######## one. But there is simply no truth to this. Europeans have expressed time and time again that they WOULD NOT want to have a health care system like we have in America. While no system is perfect, ours downright sucks. Check out this article by FOX News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

By Craig Moore on 03-10-09

Those satisfaction surveys are basically meaningless.  Expectations drive the sense of satisfaction.  If there is one thing I have learned traveling here in the US and Europe it’s that we are quite different people in many ways.

By funguymon on 03-11-09

So what about the person who pays into the system and never gets sick enough to go to the doctor and lives to a ripe old age and passes away from natural causes? Should he have to pay into universal health care?

By Vicki on 03-11-09

Well, Tony - we’re all in a sinking ship together. You can bail ONLY on your side of the boat and all those irresponsible folks can bail or not on their side. That’ll show ‘em.

By Vicki on 03-11-09

Yes, people do need to take responsibility. Absolutely. But other people’s misfortunes do spill out onto the rest of us. You are already paying for other people’s bad health choices, whether it’s through tax dollars spent on Medicaid or higher insurance premiums/co-pays or self-paid medical bills that are inflated by the system we have now. And all too often it’s those who work hard, try to live responsibly, and pay their own way who are caught between the cracks in the system, and find NO help when they need it because they don’t qualify for whatever. Tomorrow that person could be you or me.