Insurance Agent Forum

[al3]

OK, all you right-wing conservative health agents, it is time to circle the wagons, resurrect Harry and Louise, and "Gentlemen, start your engines." You better kill this one so that you can preserve your six-figure incomes and make sure that the entire population can't get proper coverage. Hey, let 'em die, right? They are all fat boozing smokers and probably illegal as well. And lord knows you don't want to pay any increased taxes for "these" people. Yup, your battle is at hand. I hope you can wage a better campaign than your last presidential candidate did. It may be time to unite the idiot Palin with the idiot Limbaugh and holly-roller Huckabee. My guys have the WH and the House and the Senate, so you have an up-hill battle. But you can do it. You've seen to it that greed and selfishness has triumphed before... you can (and better) do it again!

From: Sources: Senators weigh 3 government health plans

Sources: Senators weigh 3 government health plans
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 58 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Senators are considering three different designs for a new government health insurance plan that middle-income Americans could buy into for the first time, congressional officials said Friday. Officials familiar with the proposals said senators plan to debate them in a closed meeting next week. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the controversial plans have not been released.

Creating a public plan is one of the most contentious ideas in the debate over how to overhaul the nation's health care system to cover the uninsured and try to restrain costs.

President Barack Obama and many Democrats say a government option would serve as a check to keep the private insurance industry honest.

Insurers fear the government would use its power to drive them out of business. And Republicans call a public plan in the legislation a dealbreaker, dashing hopes for bipartisan legislation for overhauling the health insurance system. Employer groups are also opposed.

The three approaches being discussed are:

_Create a plan that resembles Medicare, administered by the Health and Human Services department.

_Adopt a Medicare-like plan, but pick an outside party to run it. That way government officials would not directly control the day-to-day operations.

_Leave it up to individual states to set up a public insurance plan for their residents.

But many key details would still have to be fleshed out.

Among them is whether the public plan would be open to everyone, or be limited to small businesses and individuals purchasing coverage on their own.

Also, would the plan reimburse medical providers at discounted Medicare rates or the higher fees that private insurers pay? And would it be financed by tax dollars, or entirely from premiums?

Senators on the Finance Committee will consider the proposals during a closed-door session scheduled for late next week. Committee leaders want to bring a bill to the Senate floor this summer. It's unclear whether a public plan in any form will emerge from Congress.

Citing surveys that show most seniors are happy with Medicare, Democrats say they believe that a public plan would be a political winner. But Republicans counter that it would be a step toward a government-run system in which medical services sooner or later would be rationed.

The majority of Americans now get health insurance through private insurers, about 170 million people in all. Most of them are enrolled in employer-sponsored plans.

A recent report by the Lewin Group, a numbers-crunching firm that serves government and private clients, found that a new government plan could radically alter that landscape — or maybe not.

It depends on the design.

If the public plan were open to all employers and individuals — and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare — it would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet, the study found.

By paying Medicare rates the government plan would be able to set premiums well below what private plans charge. Employers and individuals would rush to sign up.

But the results would be far different if the government plan was limited to small employers, individuals and the self-employed.

In that smaller-scale scenario, the public plan would get from 17 million to 43 million members, the study said. It found that a government plan could be effective in reducing number of uninsured.

Lewin is a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare, the nation's largest health insurer. The consulting firm says it makes its own judgments, however. Its work is used by groups on all sides of the health care debate, including supporters of a public plan.

[LGilmore]

"By paying Medicare rates the government plan would "

But has anyone asked the doctors and hospitals if that's what they'll accept as payment?

If private insurance could reimburse at medicare rates, their premiums would be lower also.

The question becomes if you need a doctor to save your life and he'll take "x" amount of dollars to do so, and you offer him "y" who has a better bargining position?

The gas passers in my state long ago said FO to insurers as to what they would take for payment. They basically formed a union and would withhold services unless paid at the price they set. Insurers paid, just raised premiums. When doctors refuse to treat for low pay (go on strike) do we jail em?

You can't really reduce the cost of the system if you don't lower payments to the participants within the system. Let's see what happens then...



Insurance companies are only one piece of the jigsaw puzzel.

[Winter]

Originally Posted by al3

My guys have the WH and the House and the Senate, so you have an up-hill battle. But you can do it. You've seen to it that greed and selfishness has triumphed before... you can (and better) do it again!

All of your guys (which includes Arnold, Pelosi, Boxer, Jerry Brown, etc) are in charge in California too. How is that working out for ya?

It all works out fine as long as you can send the bill to the Federal government and then the feds can send the bill to the Chinese. Other than that, "your guys" are real leaders. And you are correct. It is an uphill battle to turn that type of thing around as the Cubans found out.

[midwestbroker]

President Barack Obama and many Democrats say a government option would serve as a check to keep the private insurance industry honest.

But who is going to watch the government to keep them honest...because that would be a first.

[briko3]

I know one thing...we are going to need a lot more doctors. Can you imagine how many more people will be going to the doctor's offices if they had insurance all of a sudden. In all honesty, I do think that it's necessary to have everyone with access to healthcare. I just don't know the best way to do it. (and I don't think anyone else does either at this point.)

[emptyeternity]

I cant wait till these "officials" wake up the worst of the sleeping giants (americans). Viva La Revolution!

[al3]

Originally Posted by briko3

I know one thing...we are going to need a lot more doctors. Can you imagine how many more people will be going to the doctor's offices

This is easy? How do we get 3,000 military officers each year? Simple, we have basically a "contest" to select those who want a full, excellent, FREE, 4 year college education in exchange for six or seven years of service... It's called West Point, Annapolis, etc.

Some areas do the same for teachers.

We could easily do the same for doctors... and at the same time we could modernize the curriculum and train them in about half the time... at least for general practice.

How much training does a navy corpsman or army medic get? Double that and I'll bet you would have a doctor with enough skills to diagnose most ailments (i.e. read the test results, as well as dress wounds, set limbs, give shots, etc.)

Of course you will have to get around the greed and conservative-reactionary policies of the AMA, but I know a guy who really speaks well and whom the country currently loves and who might be very persuasive.

Let me ask those of you who have kids graduating from college this June. If one of your kids had an opportunity to go to a medical "academy" for grad school and come out with a MD degree recognized by all states (we'd legislate that too) FOR FREE in exchange for them serving where sent (or volunteered) for seven years... at a salary of $60k a year TAX FREE...would they be interested? Ask your kids and see. The ones I've spoken with told me they would jump at the chance to compete in such a selection process.

What would it cost to train a doctor for 4 years? $50K a year? $200K for 4 years. Do the math. I can have 5,000 brand new docs on the street for about $1B. If we cut the training down to two years, we can have 10,000.

I'm part of the generation that watched all aspects of our economy "mobilize" to get to the moon in 10 years. I watched how people in my generation flocked to the Peace Corp and VISTA. (I was a VISTA worker in Kentucky in 1969...until Nixon cut the budget. It was a great way to escape the draft and not go to Vietnam! And yeah, I'm PROUD that I didn't go to the Nam... but that's another story for another time.)

Don't tell me we can't "fix" the health care problem in this country because we can... if (like in the 60s) we have the will.

Of course conservatives in this venue don't HAVE a will. They are happy the way things WERE, not how they might be. Winter and his cohorts would love to bring back Alabama of 1958.

What they don't understand is that most people want to look forward to a better life which is why more of them voted for Obama than candidate McCain and the idiot Palin (as well as Bush twice). No one on this forum offers any solutions... it's just "lets keep the same old, same old because we're making a nice fat living off of it.")

All Winter offers is what we had before... and to him it was glamorous, but to those who were not white, anglo, Christians... it wasn't.

Folks, if the free market could "fix" the healthcare situation, don't you think it would have happened by now?

The truth is that only the government has the size, strength, and power to do it. The private sector has tried for twenty years with HMOs, PPOs, HSAs, and all sorts of managed care options. How has that worked? Ask the 47 million people who have no protection (and don't insult my intelligence by saying they are all fat, smoking, drinking, illegal aliens... because they are not... but even if they were... they are human beings and should not die in the streets no matter how irresponsible they have been.

Compassionate conservatism? My ass. I got sucked into that twice with Bush. You folks had eight years to fix this... now it is our turn. STFU and let us do our work :-) If it fails you get the last laugh and will be swept back into power so you can practice the selfishness, greed, and ego-centric avarice you are so known for... and which you and your Wall Street banker pals do so well.

Al

[djs]

So now the way to make medical coverage more affordable is to cut down on training for doctors. By the way, most doctors go to school for 8 years, not 4, so start by redoing your math.

Paying tuition and offering a reduced salary doesn't actually lower the bill to the taxpayer. You simply move money around.

Then go ask 'mom' if she wants her child treated by someone who just got out of a full '16 weeks' of medical training. Most would pass. Ironically, I do agree with you that it doesn't take much training to deal with the typical cough/cold/flu symptoms or the normal ear infection.

Let's add to your savings though. Lets cut down the time it takes to get a drug out on the street. Less testing would reduce the cost significantly. Start getting drugs out in 3 years instead of 20. Make it easier to deal with off-label uses of drugs. Would this be good?

Okay, a lot of ideas can have short term savings. The 'medic' treating a child works until a drug interaction is missed because of lack of training. A drug that wasn't tested fully ends up with a long term side effect, etc.

Also, you need to check on military doctors. Yes, they get training, an officers salary, and leave the military. Some are given incentives to stay. Most don't.

Many doctors, even at todays pay, leave practicing medicine altogether and go into research. The stress is less, and the pay is as good, if not better.

There are a lot of things that can be done to lower the cost of health care, but ironically, it's the liberals who won't allow them. (Think unions, malpractice, lawyers, mandates, etc).

Dan

[Insurance Man]

By the way, who is going to pay for this one? They are printing money so fast now they can't keep up. Short term fix with unbelievable long range consequences. We will find out very shortly how your INEXPERIENCED commander and chief is going to lead this country into the biggest disaster we have ever seen!!

[Winter]

Originally Posted by al3

but I know a guy who really speaks well and whom the country currently loves and who might be very persuasive.

Al

Newt Gingrich?

[al3]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Insurance Man

By the way, who is going to pay for this one?

Who do you think? I know you live in Georgia, but don't they teach economics there? Who pays for the food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other social programs you want to get rid of so that people will starve and die in the streets? Who is going to pay for it? YOU are, I am, and everyone else... unless of course you have a special tax loophole where YOU pay no taxes... but sure as hell want everyone else to. I swear, you conservatives get more stupid each day.

They are printing money so fast now they can't keep up.

We've been printing money since the Depression. You sure had no problems when Reagan and Bush did it. Even at the junior college you went to, didn't they teach basic macro economics?

Short term fix with unbelievable long range consequences.

Yeah, allowing everyone to have the same health care that YOU neo-cons have WOULD be an unbelievable consequence. How do you people (collectively) live with your greed, selfishness, avarice and total lack of compassion? You must get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Wow, I look great. I am great. F--k everyone else... it's all about ME!"

We will find out very shortly how your INEXPERIENCED commander and chief is going to lead this country into the biggest disaster we have ever seen!!

Oh you mean we didn't find that out with George Bush already? Pardon me for knowing a little bit about current events... beyond the price of chewing tobacco in Georgia.

If you want to live in the gloom and doom of Georgia of 1967, go ahead. The rest of us are "movin' on" to a better society for everyone. Give my best to Lester Maddox. Get me a new ax handle when you see him. Mine's gettin' kind of old. (You don't even know what I'm talking about, do you? Sigh.)

[Newby]

Al, I'm with you that the entire health care system needs revamped. They need to start with a blank sheet of paper.

But I don't want any low-expectation, hoping to make $60,000 a year doctor cutting me open and yanking out my spleen.

I also don't believe the politicians are the answer to the problem.

[stuy119]

In all seriousness, WTF happened to survival of the fittest?

Why should people be allowed to reproduce that can't even sustain themselves? Why should people who can't afford health care have it paid for by others?

At what point do we realize that the overpopulation of the earth is killing us in many ways, and despite our humanistic efforts, we can't support all of us?

Government can't be the be-all/end-all for something that doesn't work, and people need to stop relying on government for every last item they can't get for themselves.

People are weak now, and don't understand personal responsibility (on the whole). The bailing out of companies, the bailing out of mortgages, etc. MUST stop. Founding fathers are rolling over in their graves watching us slowly piss away a great country.

And what about socially, you say? Even the founders wanted to get away from religious persecution, so why are we NOW trying to restrict gay marriage and abortion?

For all those who are free-marketeers, why not allow gay marriage? All it will do is create new opportunities for goods and services to be sold, including tourism (honeymoon), all services needed for weddings (photogs, florist, reception halls, etc.), more homebuying opportunities, and even services related to divorces.

Why is that bad? What, gay people might get divorced at a rate similar to heterosexual marriage? Yeah, that's a good argument.

Be realistic, people. The government is a group of the best public speakers who were unable to do well in the private sector, and we're relying on THEM to solve all of our problems?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[bluemarlin08]

Lets face it, after 8 years of Bush and crew, we conservatives don't have much to stand on. If Barry can pull it off, more power to him, there isn't going to be much in the way of oppositon that anyone can believe in, sick of the whole political mess, wish Texas would secede I would move there.

[al3]

Originally Posted by Newby

Al, I'm with you that the entire health care system needs revamped. They need to start with a blank sheet of paper.

But I don't want any low-expectation, hoping to make $60,000 a year doctor cutting me open and yanking out my spleen.

I also don't believe the politicians are the answer to the problem.

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down. The other side is basically saying "bring it on" in that the politicians have failed us and perhaps we need to "shut it down" so that we can "clean out" the garage so we can build a new vehicle (ie. state budgetary system.)

I am really torn as to how I will vote. One side says that the devil you know... etc. The other side says that this is just a bandage over a severed leg. I'll listen more to what each side says as well as what those who follow these issues closer than I do say... and decide soon.

[healthagent]

I really believe the government should control health care. After all, look at the state we're in right now...hasn't the government done just a fantastic job for us in the past?

[STIBROKER@AUSTIN.RR.COM]

Originally Posted by al3

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...nclick_check=1

California's increasingly severe and largely self-inflicted economic crisis will deepen on May 19 if, as is probable and desirable, voters reject most of the ballot measures that were drafted as part of a "solution" to the state's budget deficit. They would make matters worse. National economic revival is being impeded because one-eighth of the nation's population lives in a state that is driving itself into permanent stagnation. California's perennial boast — that it is the incubator of America's future — now has an increasingly dark urgency.
Under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the best governor the states contiguous to California have ever had, people and businesses have been relocating in those states. [COLOR=Red]For four consecutive years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in. California's business costs are more than 20 percent higher than the average state's. In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million. California is exporting talent while importing Mexico's poverty.[/COLOR] The latter is not California's fault; the former is.
If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent.
[COLOR=Red]Liberal orthodoxy has made the state dependent on a volatile source of revenue — high income tax rates on the wealthy. In 2006, the top 1 percent of earners paid 48 percent of the income taxes. California's income and sales taxes are among the nation's highest, its business conditions among the worst. Unemployment, the nation's fourth highest, is 11.2 percent. [/COLOR]
Required by law to balance the budget, the Legislature has "solved" the problem by, among other things, increasing the income, sales, gas and vehicle taxes.
Proposition 1A would create a complicated — hence probably porous — spending cap, and a rainy-day fund. Realists, however, do not trust the Legislature to obey the law, which may be why some public employees unions cynically support 1A. Another May 19 proposition, opaquely titled the "Lottery Modernization Act," would authorize borrowing $5 billion from future hypothetical lottery receipts. The title is a measure of the political class's meretriciousness.
If voters pass 1A's hypothetical restraint on government spending, their reward will be two extra years (another $16 billion) of actual income, sales and vehicle tax increases. The increases were supposed to be for just two years. Voters are being warned that if they reject the propositions, there might have to be $14 billion in spending cuts. Even teachers might be laid off. California teachers — the nation's highest paid, with salaries about 25 percent above the national average — are emblematic of the grip government employees unions have on the state.
What actually ails California is centrist evasions. The state's crisis has been caused by "moderation," understood as splitting the difference between extreme liberalism and hyperliberalism, a "reasonableness" that merely moderates the speed at which the ever-expanding public sector suffocates the private sector.
California has become liberalism's laboratory, in which the case for fiscal conservatism is being confirmed. The state is a slow learner and hence will remain a drag on the nation's economy. But it will be a net benefit to the nation if the federal government and other state governments profit from California's negative example, which Californians can make more vividly instructive by voting down the propositions on May 19.
Remember the story of the mule that paid attention only after being walloped by a two-by-four? The Democratic-controlled state Legislature is like that. Fortunately, it has handed voters some two-by-fours — the initiatives. Resounding rejections of them should get Sacramento's attention.

[Dave020]

It's all about power and control, not concern, at least when it comes to California.

California is the lunatic fringe of liberalism relative to any democratic moderation. It's virtually pointless to be a moderate democrat here.

California had a law for universal employer health coverage, had an Assembly Bill that also would have provided universal health coverage to all, and ran a democrat out of office.

*SB 2 was signed into law (by Gray Davis) the voted out of law at the next state election (??)
*AB-X was killed in committee before it could become law
*Gray Davis (moderate democrat) was kicked out of office and replaced by Arnold (rino)

There was at least one constant in all three of these things and her name kind of rhymes with "Beila Buehl". Beila went out her way to garner support and kill AB-X because it was not single payor government controlled. It was universal, but that was not the point (same with SB 2). Same in Washington right now.

BTW - Arnold was chosen as replacement because of the way the ballot was structured, not by popular support. Both parties agreed to a ballot in two parts. First part, do you support a recall yes or no? Second part, if there is a recall, even if you do not support it, who do you choose to replace the governor. So, we had to pick someone no matter what.

Now, the choices were Arnold, a prostitute, Gary Coleman, Ariana Huffington, a Madame and so on. Who else could you possible choose?

[Winter]

Originally Posted by Dave020

Now, the choices were Arnold, a prostitute, Gary Coleman, Ariana Huffington, a Madame and so on. Who else could you possible choose?

Well, indeed, and that same issue arises in regard to Bush. There is somehow an undercurrent that people deserve Obama's spending after Bush. How so? Most of us dont control the frigging process from top to bottom and have to go with what is in front of us. You can shake your head at Bush but that doesnt mean that you wake up in the middle of the night wishing that Al Gore and John Kerry had their hand on the tiller either for protecting us after 911 or on budget expenditures. Certainly that would not have been pretty either.

We keep forgetting that Obama basicly won by only about 5 percentage points or so. Maybe 6. Can't remember. Yet there is this aura that there is no one in the country who is not drinking the kool aid and on board with him. That is not true. He has a perfect alignment right now due to the majority in the Senate so he can spend money on practically anything that comes across his mind for the next six months or so. However, nothing has changed the fact that this is still basically a center-right country and his margin of votes does not change that. Sooner or later, certainly before the year is out, those two opposing factors will collide and we will see who Obama is when he has no more money to hand out.

The analogy is that the time is coming or has come where the rest of the country is saying to California, "look we dont care one way or the other, be liberal or dont be liberal, do whatever you want just dont ask us for any money." But how popular is a liberal in California who has no more money to hand out? A liberal with no free stuff to hand out has no identify or power base left. Perhaps there is a little message there for Obama. Not immediately, but on the horizon.

Yes, my state is broke too but we are robbing all the stimulus funds that were intended to create jobs. As with all states these stimulus funds are going to create an enormous drop-off when they run out because every state is using them to subsidize basic operating expenses that still need to be cut. What a mess.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by al3

Interesting. The analogy I find see in your statement is what is happening in CA. There are several ballot measures up for election a week and a half from now... and one side is saying if they are not passed we will have a financial melt-down. The other side is basically saying "bring it on" in that the politicians have failed us and perhaps we need to "shut it down" so that we can "clean out" the garage so we can build a new vehicle (ie. state budgetary system.)

I am really torn as to how I will vote. One side says that the devil you know... etc. The other side says that this is just a bandage over a severed leg. I'll listen more to what each side says as well as what those who follow these issues closer than I do say... and decide soon.

You guys are playing a high stakes game because you have no way out other than through a federal hand-out. Yet if you fail to vote for tax increases and cuts that means that you are coming to the rest of the country for help without helping yourseves first. That is not going to play well in the heartland. That very heartland which you despise for not being educated and liberal like you, allegedly. You know the saying, be careful about the toes you step on because they may be attached to ass you need to kiss someday.

If you folks were smart you would sell off some offshore drilling rights and not only raise some cash but set yourself up for some future revenue but you dont think that way so the hell with ya. Nothing like trying to rebuild your economy when your state's bonds have a junkbond rating. Probably doesn matter anyway. Whatever you raise in taxes or revenue you will piss away anyway. Just like when a welfare recipient wins a million bucks. You think they are going to put it into an annuity and draw it down for the next thirty years or that it will be gone in two years? Okay, that is exactly what it will be like if the feds (ie. the rest of the country) bails out California. I am not a Libertarian but you guys could use a few more out there.

[al3]

Originally Posted by Winter

You guys are playing a high stakes game because you have no way out other than through a federal hand-out. Yet if you fail to vote for tax increases and cuts that means that you are coming to the rest of the country for help without helping yourseves first. That is not going to play well in the heartland. That very heartland which you despise for not being educated and liberal like you, allegedly. You know the saying, be careful about the toes you step on because they may be attached to ass you need to kiss someday.

If you folks were smart you would sell off some offshore drilling rights and not only raise some cash but set yourself up for some future revenue but you dont think that way so the hell with ya. Nothing like trying to rebuild your economy when your state's bonds have a junkbond rating. Probably doesn matter anyway. Whatever you raise in taxes or revenue you will piss away anyway. Just like when a welfare recipient wins a million bucks. You think they are going to put it into an annuity and draw it down for the next thirty years or that it will be gone in two years? Okay, that is exactly what it will be like if the feds (ie. the rest of the country) bails out California. I am not a Libertarian but you guys could use a few more out there.

I never agree with Winter. Not ever... until now... at least with the above two paragraphs.

The one thing he misses is WHY so many people live here. It's because they can get away from conservatives like him... the old order... the doom and gloomers... the stale "Alabama of 1958" attitude full of the religious crap and intolerance that Winter's sainted "heartland" is so full of.

Outside of Boston or Manhattan or DC, no one wants to live anywhere else but California. We are to the intellectually stagnant US what the New World was to Europe in the 1800s to 1920... a place to get a new start... where new ideas are given a chance and where people get judged by what they do not by their color or race or religion.

Everyone has always wanted to come here because it has always been BETTER here. Perhaps not as much anymore... as STI pointed out we are losing population... but not because people don't like the CA "tude" it is because they can't find jobs. From what I see, it is not that people don't like the culture here... it's the economy (stupid.)

I've never met anyone who came to CA who wanted to go BACK to Texas or South Carolina or Indiana. People who LIKE Texas STAY in Texas. They don't come here for the most part. But those who do, come because ... well if you are a black or a Jew in Texas you are going to get the s--t beat out of you by Texas State cop if you roll through a stop sign. If you are oriental you don't have a chance of getting a loan at a bank in South Carolina. If you are gay, your chances of living another day is slimmer in Indiana than California.

Yes, we have the "fruits and the nuts" here... but that's because we're all ALIVE here. Everything is dead in Texas... (except maybe Austin which has a budding intelligentsia.) The same is with the South... good jobs perhaps... nice people (if you are white) but god forbid you wish to live your life differently... perhaps be a Hindu... or a gay... or wear saffron colored robes... or no clothes at all (in your house or a nudest camp) and you are simply going to have a hard life. Not in California. No one gives a rip what you do, whom you worship, what color you are, or what language you speak.

Those of you who have spent time in multi-lingual and multi-cultural European cities will know what I mean when I say that California is "continental." We are "large" because so many people WANT the kind of culture we have here.

So yes, we have our political and economic problems... which will get solved. But What we don't have here are the Winters and the Freddies and the Mr. Bills and all the rest of you who are content to live you life in the mediocrity of your old, tired, and worn out aphorisms. And that's fine for you. You don't know any better. But believe me, your kids want to live HERE... because they can breathe free.