LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Ron`]

Don't you think this has more to do with problems in health care then high school drop outs?

Ah, a good question. Let me respond as a law school professor would: with a question. Are they part of the problem?

I've been reading this thread with much interest, and I wish I had more time to respond. If I may offer a direction for future discussion, it is this: what, exactly, is the problem with health care? The immediate answer of most would be "it's too expensive." That may be so (and I'm not agreeing that it is), but if that is the case, why? I see plenty of discussion from people representing all parts of the political spectrum on how exactly to "fix" health care. But I see no consensus on the nature of the "problem." How can we repair something when we can't agree on what is broken?

Not sure who you are responding too, but the problem goes much deeper than health care. It has more to do with the entire economic base of this country. We could be the most educated nation in the world right now, but if there are no jobs to support that, we are in the same place.... To much energy spent on providing services and not analyzing why we have destroyed our industrial base.

[HomerPenguin]

Homer, nobody is going to just give you a job either... You have to beg, borrow and demonstrate a will to get there. Scratch and show people you are willing to work..

Mmmm-hmmm. And if they don't have a job for you, then you're still not getting a job.

[HomerPenguin]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

And here's the problem in a nutshell; the notion that people are unemployed or underemployed simply because they aren't working hard enough, or expect money to fall from the sky on them. Just "choose" to get a better job, and somehow one will materialize for you.

OK. In that case, I "choose" to be the CEO of News Corp. I assume somebody will be faxing me my contract ASAP.

[HomerPenguin]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

Yes, you can.

Right. All those folks working at McDonald's are doing it because they're too lazy to get something better.

We make those choices all the time, and especially when we're young. We choose whether or not to finish high school, whether or not to pursue advanced education or vocational training, whether or not to get married (or divorced), whether or not to have children out of wedlock (unless you were raped, yes, that's a choice), etc. All of those factors, among others, play into our careers and compensation. When one makes those choices, however, one has to live with them. People often don't want to recognize that being in a low-paying job is most often the expected result of their own past (usually bad) choices.

Wow. That's astounding. And all this time I had no idea that employers or the job market had nothing at all to do with the kind of job somebody might be able to land.

[Bob McKenzie]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

And here's the problem in a nutshell; the notion that people are unemployed or underemployed simply because they aren't working hard enough, or expect money to fall from the sky on them. Just "choose" to get a better job, and somehow one will materialize for you.

OK. In that case, I "choose" to be the CEO of News Corp. I assume somebody will be faxing me my contract ASAP.

You are missing the point. Not many people can snap their fingers and get a position like you just implied.

If you want something in life and set objectives and meet goals to obtain what you desire, you can get there or pretty close to it.

I grew up in a relatively poor family ($30k-$35k) per year ($13k per year when my dad moved out). I was the first person in my family to attend college. I "made a decision" that I wanted to work in federal law enforcement. I "made a decision" that I wanted to work on cyber-crimes and focus my effort on achieving that goal. I "made a decision" that I wanted to be promoted and become a manager. I "made a decision" to leave the federal government and co-found a business and be my own boss. My former boss in the government and best friend made many "decisions" as well and put massive effort to achieve his goal of being a senior level executive in the government...and he did.

If you want something in life it is rarely handed to you. You have to put effort in to achieve what you want.

You can "choose" to get a better paying, high-benefits job. Once you made that "choice," you then have to put the effort in to get it. If you don't make the "choice" to begin with, you will likely not get it.

[Bob McKenzie]

Right. All those folks working at McDonald's are doing it because they're too lazy to get something better.

My former boss and best friend I referenced in the above post used to work at McDonalds. He worked there from when he was 16 till he was 21. He started out flipping burgers. They then sent him to their management school. Now he's pulling down $160k a year as an SESer for the gov't and he's 36 years old.

If you ask him, he'll tell you that working at McDonalds was one of his best experiences in life in teaching him operations and management skills.

He's not lazy by any means. I think your post is a bit degrading for people who worked at such places.

[doublem]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Well that's good for you, but assuming that everyone can do something that you did doesn't make it true. You are forgetting to mention that it wasn't just "you" that made that decision, there was also someone hiring you that was apart of that process. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want to go to college, but can't for whatever reason, or when they get out can't find decent jobs to pay back there loans, and go into debt. People seem to be against trying to get others to succeed after they have already got theirs, maybe that has something to do with in the 1980's politicians and business started telling us greed was good.

[Bob McKenzie]

Well that's good for you, but assuming that everyone can do something that you did doesn't make it true. You are forgetting to mention that it wasn't just "you" that made that decision, there was also someone hiring you that was apart of that process. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want to go to college, but can't for whatever reason, or when they get out can't find decent jobs to pay back there loans, and go into debt. People seem to be against trying to get others to succeed after they have already got theirs, maybe that has something to do with in the 1980's politicians and business started telling us greed was good.

If I didn't make myself a worthy candidate, I would've never even gotten hired. I'd been turned down for many jobs with other agencies till I landed at the one I was at.

I went into debt while I was in college. It was a decision I made. On the other hand, my sister chose not to go to college because she didn't want debt. Guess who is making a lot more $$$ now and is happier with their life? I'm not greedy either. My employees are well taken care of with salary and a great benefits package. They don't have to pay a dime for their health care. We pay for all of it down to the prescriptions. We also reimburse for education as well.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Why would I be against someone trying to succeed after I got mine per se. As far as I'm concerned, the better people are, the better it benefits the country, the better it benefits the economy, and the better it benefits the revenues at my business.

I just think it's a bunch of crap when people put walls up for saying why they can't do something when they can. It's easier to whine about why you can't get what you want instead of putting the effort in to getting what you want. (BTW, I'm not directing this at you - it's just a generalization).

You know, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I truly respect how he made himself. If he's not an example of how you can excel and define what job you wanted to shoot for, I don't know who is then. There are plenty of examples. Do you think Obama just chose to be President one day while in school in Hawaii and *poof* it magically happened? Of course not. He made sacrifices. He had goals. He exerted massive effort to get where he wanted and network with the right people.

[doublem]

Well that's good for you, but assuming that everyone can do something that you did doesn't make it true. You are forgetting to mention that it wasn't just "you" that made that decision, there was also someone hiring you that was apart of that process. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want to go to college, but can't for whatever reason, or when they get out can't find decent jobs to pay back there loans, and go into debt. People seem to be against trying to get others to succeed after they have already got theirs, maybe that has something to do with in the 1980's politicians and business started telling us greed was good.

If I didn't make myself a worthy candidate, I would've never even gotten hired. I'd been turned down for many jobs with other agencies till I landed at the one I was at.

I went into debt while I was in college. It was a decision I made. On the other hand, my sister chose not to go to college because she didn't want debt. Guess who is making a lot more $$$ now and is happier with their life? I'm not greedy either. My employees are well taken care of with salary and a great benefits package. They don't have to pay a dime for their health care. We pay for all of it down to the prescriptions. We also reimburse for education as well.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Why would I be against someone trying to succeed after I got mine per se. As far as I'm concerned, the better people are, the better it benefits the country, the better it benefits the economy, and the better it benefits the revenues at my business.

I just think it's a bunch of crap when people put walls up for saying why they can't do something when they can. It's easier to whine about why you can't get what you want instead of putting the effort in to getting what you want. (BTW, I'm not directing this at you - it's just a generalization).

You know, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I truly respect how he made himself. If he's not an example of how you can excel and define what job you wanted to shoot for, I don't know who is then. There are plenty of examples. Do you think Obama just chose to be President one day while in school in Hawaii and *poof* it magically happened? Of course not. He made sacrifices. He had goals. He exerted massive effort to get where he wanted and network with the right people.

I just feel that people make it out to be black and white, if you do x and y, it will result it success. Many conservatives I hear make life out to be so simple, you only need a few basic things and everything will be fine. It isn't whining it is explaining why people are in there situation, so they can improve it. We are going to have to have a debate soon about college education becasue of the skyrocketing costs. Conservatives always talk about rugged individualism, and not be helped by the big bad government, yet people like Obama and Sotomayor are hated by them, but aren't they an example of what America truly is, to be able to overcome and succeed?

[Bob McKenzie]

Well that's good for you, but assuming that everyone can do something that you did doesn't make it true. You are forgetting to mention that it wasn't just "you" that made that decision, there was also someone hiring you that was apart of that process. I'm sure there are a lot of people that want to go to college, but can't for whatever reason, or when they get out can't find decent jobs to pay back there loans, and go into debt. People seem to be against trying to get others to succeed after they have already got theirs, maybe that has something to do with in the 1980's politicians and business started telling us greed was good.

If I didn't make myself a worthy candidate, I would've never even gotten hired. I'd been turned down for many jobs with other agencies till I landed at the one I was at.

I went into debt while I was in college. It was a decision I made. On the other hand, my sister chose not to go to college because she didn't want debt. Guess who is making a lot more $$$ now and is happier with their life? I'm not greedy either. My employees are well taken care of with salary and a great benefits package. They don't have to pay a dime for their health care. We pay for all of it down to the prescriptions. We also reimburse for education as well.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Why would I be against someone trying to succeed after I got mine per se. As far as I'm concerned, the better people are, the better it benefits the country, the better it benefits the economy, and the better it benefits the revenues at my business.

I just think it's a bunch of crap when people put walls up for saying why they can't do something when they can. It's easier to whine about why you can't get what you want instead of putting the effort in to getting what you want. (BTW, I'm not directing this at you - it's just a generalization).

You know, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I truly respect how he made himself. If he's not an example of how you can excel and define what job you wanted to shoot for, I don't know who is then. There are plenty of examples. Do you think Obama just chose to be President one day while in school in Hawaii and *poof* it magically happened? Of course not. He made sacrifices. He had goals. He exerted massive effort to get where he wanted and network with the right people.

I just feel that people make it out to be black and white, if you do x and y, it will result it success. We are going to have to have a debate soon about college education becasue of the skyrocketing costs. Conservatives always talk rugged individualism, and how you have to earn everything, and not be helped by the big bad government, yet people like Obama and Sotomayor are hated by them, but aren't they an example of what America truly is, to be able to overcome and succeed?

It's not black and white. There are variables that people have to deal with and decisions that have to be made to "help" get you where you want. There is no equation for guerinteeing success in life. There are things you can do to help get you where you want to be however.

I don't understand any of the Obama/Sotomayor hate having to do with overcoming and succeeding. I'm not Republican. I'm an Independent. People that can overcome to be successful have a lot of character in them one way or the other.

Just like how you brought up black and white, x and y, = success. That does not apply to everyone. The guy that graduated #1 at my high school was a brainiac. We all thought he would be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon making millions of dollars. He came from a good family. He went to Penn State and failed out after his first year because he joined a fraternity and became an alcoholic. Choosing alcohol and partying over his education was a poor decision he made and now it is costing him.

I'll give you another example. I went to the same school district that Jason Taylor and Steve Breaston went to. Everyone knows that there was a major gang problem in this school district. Taylor didn't live in the area where the gang problem was however Breaston did. Both neighborhoods they lived in were poor areas, especially Breaston's. Taylor was picked on by his fellow teammates because he was lanky and wasn't a good player. Breaston had a vision and dream to be an NFL player and ignored all the gang BS. Taylor was raw and needed major development to become a good football player. He didn't even start on his own HS team. Breaston had all the talent in the world but had to ignore outside influences. Taylor devoted his time at Akron at making himself the best football player he could be. He went from a 2nd team HS player to the best D-end in the NFL. Breaston went from a QB/CB in HS to a KR/PR/WR at Michigan and showed his talent off with Arizona last year when Boldin went down. Both guys faced adversity in their different situations but focused on what they wanted to do: make it to the NFL.

It's really a one by one situation for each person.

[dagny]

So are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom?

This is the question that needs answered. There should be no belief. There is a reality and it operates outside belief. If they are wrong, it is because reality does not mirror their belief. Some ways are better than others and the point of debate is to share our collective knowledge and try and find the better ways to go about solving these types of problems. There are a lot of good arguments of both sides doublem, and if there was overwhelming evidence that one particular way was better than another, this debate would not have gone 28+ pages. I tend to feel that a free markey solution would be the way to go, but like most things in life, there is no 100% certainty.

There are a list of thoughts in this thread that almost all here actually agree on:
1) Everyone in this thread realizes that the system has major problems and could be much better.
2) Most here are against this particular bill because they do not think it will address the actual problems and is basically a hand out to the insurance industry.
3) Everybody wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that.

Other than that there are a lot of good points on both sides as to what *should* be done.

Excellent post!

[MWB]

I'll give you another example. I went to the same school district that Jason Taylor and Steve Breaston went to. Everyone knows that there was a major gang problem in this school district. Taylor didn't live in the area where the gang problem was however Breaston did. Both neighborhoods they lived in were poor areas, especially Breaston's. Taylor was picked on by his fellow teammates because he was lanky and wasn't a good player. Breaston had a vision and dream to be an NFL player and ignored all the gang BS. Taylor was raw and needed major development to become a good football player. He didn't even start on his own HS team. Breaston had all the talent in the world but had to ignore outside influences. Taylor devoted his time at Akron at making himself the best football player he could be. He went from a 2nd team HS player to the best D-end in the NFL. Breaston went from a QB/CB in HS to a KR/PR/WR at Michigan and showed his talent off with Arizona last year when Boldin went down. Both guys faced adversity in their different situations but focused on what they wanted to do: make it to the NFL.

It's really a one by one situation for each person.

One thing that really sets people up for success or failure is family life. I don't know this, but I would guess that both Breaston and Taylor had strong families to support them. That can make things a lot easier in life. Sure, they still ultimately make the choice, but I would guess they were raised to make the right choice. Some kids are not raised that way and really start out behind the 8-ball and will have infinitely more to overcome to be successful.

[Sarcastic]

Bob,

I think this is a much deeper problem than just some individuals deciding not to get ahead in life. I understand you want people to take responsibility for their own lives, but it's not always that simple.

Did you know that 50% of black students, and 40% overall, in NYC do not graduate high school? I don't think they all just "decide" that this is a good idea. There has to be more.

Here. Did a quick search.

Only 1 of 2 students graduate high school in US cities: study
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

Nationwide, 7,000 students drop out every day and only about 70 percent of students graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma. Two thousand high schools in the U.S. produce more than half of all dropouts and a recent study suggests that in the 50 largest cities, only 53 percent of students graduate on time. Research shows that poor and minority children attend these so-called "dropout factories" - the 2,000 schools that produce more than 50 percent of our nation’s dropouts - at significantly higher rates.
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/ ... -thr.shtml

I think the error you are making is that you base everything on your experience. You, you, you. Well, you are determined and intelligent, but not everyone has the same makeup or family support that you did. Some need a push to get somewhere. If they don't have parents to encourage them and point them in the right direction, they're not going anywhere. Often, if they're raised in an environment where there isn't much success around, they're most likely to follow the same path.

That's one. Two, the educational structure in the US is a national shame. Other countries provide opportunities and cheap schooling for everyone who wants it. Everyone is passing us by in that regard. In fact, I'll say that colleges in the US are more interested in making money than providing quality education for our students. That's if you do get to college. The whole system is one giant mess.

And to make things worse...

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-na ... id.States/

MADISON, Wis. — Struggling with budget shortfalls that reach into the billions, several states are making deep cuts in college financial aid programs, including those that provide a vital source of cash for students who most need the money.

At least a dozen states are reducing award sizes, eliminating grants and tightening eligibility guidelines because of a lack of money. At the same time, the number of students seeking aid is rising sharply as more people seek a college education and need help paying the tuition bill because they or their parents lost jobs and savings during the recession.

[Sarcastic]

So are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom?

This is the question that needs answered. There should be no belief. There is a reality and it operates outside belief. If they are wrong, it is because reality does not mirror their belief. Some ways are better than others and the point of debate is to share our collective knowledge and try and find the better ways to go about solving these types of problems. There are a lot of good arguments of both sides doublem, and if there was overwhelming evidence that one particular way was better than another, this debate would not have gone 28+ pages. I tend to feel that a free markey solution would be the way to go, but like most things in life, there is no 100% certainty.

There are a list of thoughts in this thread that almost all here actually agree on:
1) Everyone in this thread realizes that the system has major problems and could be much better.
2) Most here are against this particular bill because they do not think it will address the actual problems and is basically a hand out to the insurance industry.
3) Everybody wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that.

Other than that there are a lot of good points on both sides as to what *should* be done.

Excellent post!

1 and 2 are good. But #3 has got to be a typo. No one really believes that some pharmaceutical corporation, or some rich white dude who owns a bank, wants to actually help people. These folks are only interested in sucking you dry out every penny you've got. I think this became obvious in the last 10 or 15 years. At least for me, since I started looking at this stuff.

[JoseCuervo]

Well, you are determined and intelligent, but not everyone has the same makeup or family support that you did. Some need a push to get somewhere. If they don't have parents to encourage them and point them in the right direction, they're not going anywhere. Often, if they're raised in an environment where there isn't much success around, they're most likely to follow the same path.

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but if they aren't determined to change their situation, how do they expect to change it?

[Sarcastic]

Well, you are determined and intelligent, but not everyone has the same makeup or family support that you did. Some need a push to get somewhere. If they don't have parents to encourage them and point them in the right direction, they're not going anywhere. Often, if they're raised in an environment where there isn't much success around, they're most likely to follow the same path.

I've been trying to avoid this thread, but if they aren't determined to change their situation, how do they expect to change it?

I try to avoid these threads myself, because I don't want to get sucked into a long discussion, but.......

Yeah, how do you? You know, if we were all born with the brain of a 30 year old, we wouldn't have these problems. But we are born stupid and inexperienced and we're thrown into this world, often alone and without direction. Kids who have good parents are lucky. Many don't. Even the ones who have parents who care, well, those parents aren't too smart themselves or simply aren't in a position to help. So should all kids with possibly weak personalities just be discarded?

And by the time you mature, you realize what a dummy you were and how you wish you could start over. But then you're often already in a bad position. I think we all mature in different rates, some quicker than others. As I said, I used to talk like a hardass, but I looked around and saw a lot of good people who made bad choices because they didn't know any better. I'm not down on people for that anymore.

[bh]

So are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom?

This is the question that needs answered. There should be no belief. There is a reality and it operates outside belief. If they are wrong, it is because reality does not mirror their belief. Some ways are better than others and the point of debate is to share our collective knowledge and try and find the better ways to go about solving these types of problems. There are a lot of good arguments of both sides doublem, and if there was overwhelming evidence that one particular way was better than another, this debate would not have gone 28+ pages. I tend to feel that a free markey solution would be the way to go, but like most things in life, there is no 100% certainty.

There are a list of thoughts in this thread that almost all here actually agree on:
1) Everyone in this thread realizes that the system has major problems and could be much better.
2) Most here are against this particular bill because they do not think it will address the actual problems and is basically a hand out to the insurance industry.
3) Everybody wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that.

Other than that there are a lot of good points on both sides as to what *should* be done.

1 and 2 are good. But #3 has got to be a typo. No one really believes that some pharmaceutical corporation, or some rich white dude who owns a bank, wants to actually help people. These folks are only interested in sucking you dry out every penny you've got. I think this became obvious in the last 10 or 15 years. At least for me, since I started looking at this stuff.

Sorry if #3 is not clear enough - Everybody in this thread wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that. Better now?

[bh]

I've been reading this thread with much interest, and I wish I had more time to respond. If I may offer a direction for future discussion, it is this: what, exactly, is the problem with health care? The immediate answer of most would be "it's too expensive." That may be so (and I'm not agreeing that it is), but if that is the case, why? I see plenty of discussion from people representing all parts of the political spectrum on how exactly to "fix" health care. But I see no consensus on the nature of the "problem." How can we repair something when we can't agree on what is broken?

I love threads like these. You get such a diverse group like us and you really see how everybody wants the same results but has such differing views on how to achieve those results.

To try and address your question I would say that the problem with healthcare is obviously that prices are too high for an average person to afford without taking out major loans or without having good insurance. Why is this the case you ask? Well I think we'd have to look at a number of things to try and determine that. Why is a 15 minute doctors visit $300-500? What percentage of this money goes to his take home pay? How much pays for his malpractice insurance? How much goes to run the buisness? I don't know really and don't have time to research right now but it might be a starting point.

[pittsoccer33]

To try and address your question I would say that the problem with healthcare is obviously that prices are too high for an average person to afford without taking out major loans or without having good insurance. Why is this the case you ask? Well I think we'd have to look at a number of things to try and determine that. Why is a 15 minute doctors visit $300-500? What percentage of this money goes to his take home pay? How much pays for his malpractice insurance? How much goes to run the buisness? I don't know really and don't have time to research right now but it might be a starting point.

People have no incentive to seek out lower cost healthcare. If I need a physical, I can choose from hundreds of doctors affiliated with Highmark. I pay my $20 copay and do not care if the doctor charges highmark $100 for the visit or $100,000. If those interests could be aligned that is another way to reduce the cost.

The flip side to what the doctor charges the health insurance company is what he is paid by Medicare/Medicaid. Since the federal government will only pay doctors something like 70% of their standard fee when treating someone on those programs, the doctor charges my health insurance company a higher rate.

[DelPen]

I said this back in the first few pages but insurance should only be needed for those times when you have a catostrophic illness or injury that is life changing. There is no reason a vast majority of the US population can't pay out of pocket for wellness visits. If you have a cold and go to get a prescription that should not cost you more than $50 and you really don't even need to be seen by a soctor, an LPN should be able to handle that.

[pittsoccer33]

I said this back in the first few pages but insurance should only be needed for those times when you have a catostrophic illness or injury that is life changing. There is no reason a vast majority of the US population can't pay out of pocket for wellness visits. If you have a cold and go to get a prescription that should not cost you more than $50 and you really don't even need to be seen by a soctor, an LPN should be able to handle that.

You are absoutely right. I don't have a "copay" to have the fluids/brakes/tires on my cars changed, I have to pay that out of pocket and it amounts to hundreds of dollars a year. I dont HAVE to do any of those things, but if I don't I only have myself to blame for needing a new car when my engine blows up or I crash.

[pittsoccer33]

Good article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 01reSCujDQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

[bh]

I said this back in the first few pages but insurance should only be needed for those times when you have a catostrophic illness or injury that is life changing. There is no reason a vast majority of the US population can't pay out of pocket for wellness visits. If you have a cold and go to get a prescription that should not cost you more than $50 and you really don't even need to be seen by a soctor, an LPN should be able to handle that.

You are absoutely right. I don't have a "copay" to have the fluids/brakes/tires on my cars changed, I have to pay that out of pocket and it amounts to hundreds of dollars a year. I dont HAVE to do any of those things, but if I don't I only have myself to blame for needing a new car when my engine blows up or I crash.

Ok, I agree, but why is it this way? Why can't you get a cheaper catostrophic plan that you only will need if you get some life threatening disease or horrible accident? I've heard a lot of people blame tax deductions you get if you go through an employer. Are there other restrictions that limit the type of insurance offered by insurance companies that prohibit offering a multitude of plans?

[bh]

And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

This is my big question. Why not fix or expand a system that was designed to handle the problems we are seeing now? Why create a new system to operate in parallel with the old?