The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.
Showing posts with label PP&ACA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PP&ACA. Show all posts

Thursday, July 26, 2018

The Cost of Single Payer Health Care


For John, BLUFWe have to be careful and ask about the second and third order effects.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

The law’s incentives push states to spend more on new enrollees, and less on the disabled and ill.

This morning, on City Life, a Candidate for the Democratic Nomination for the Third Congressional District (3CD) suggested that single payer, modeled on Medicare, was the solution to our health care problems.  This article raises some concerns about that belief.  The problem is, once we go down that path, how do we walk back if we find it unsatisfactory?

From The Wall Street Journal, by Ms Allysia Finley, 25 July 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

ObamaCare made it more difficult for health insurers to turn a profit on individual plans, since it prohibited them from charging consumers more based on their medical risks.  But the law also created a huge growth opportunity for insurers: Medicaid.

Over the past decade, federal and state spending on Medicaid has nearly doubled to $570 billion—roughly as much as the revenues of United Health, CVS, Anthem, Aetna and Humana put together.  California alone will spend nearly $100 billion on Medicaid this year.

The Medicaid rolls predictably swelled during the Great Recession as people lost jobs and left the workforce.  But many never returned to work.  ObamaCare gave states the option, starting in 2014, to expand Medicaid eligibility to able-bodied people earning up to 133% of the poverty line.  The feds promised to pick up nearly all the costs.

Two-thirds of states have cashed in on this “free” government lunch. Between 2008 and 2016, Medicaid enrollment nationwide rose 24 million to a total of 71 million, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  By comparison, only five million more Americans signed up for plans on the private individual market.

Struggling to manage this Medicaid surge, states have increasingly come to rely on private health insurers.  About 270 “managed-care organizations” administer half of federal Medicaid dollars.  Under these arrangements, insurers are paid a capitated rate—that is, a flat monthly payment per enrollee, set to reflect what actuaries estimate will be the average cost to provide covered services.  Unlike on the ObamaCare exchanges, insurers are paid higher “premiums” for covering sicker patients.

The long term danger is that the Government will decide that certain people are consuming a disproportionate amount of resources and thus the Government will cut off their medical attention, thus allowing them to die, or perhaps even hasten that death.  This would be analogous to the German Aktion T4 Program, which operated from 1939 to 1945 and killed some 300,000 people, outside those killed in the Holocaust.  This program contributed to the German War Effort by freeing up medical resources for wounded Service members.

I am with the late Germany Bishop, Clemens August Graf von Galen, who publicly opposed this program.  It wasn't right then and wouldn't be right today.

As a side matter, health care is not a human right.  Human rights are against the Government and what it can do to deprive one of God given rights.  Health care is something that the Government provides, or one provides for oneself, perhaps by insurance.  The place where rights come in is if the Government prevents you having health care, and thus depriving you of life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Pope Says No


For John, BLUFForty percent of the Commonwealth budget is for health care.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is an AP Story in The New York Post, on 17 June 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis denounced abortion on Saturday as the “white glove” equivalent of the Nazi-era eugenics program and urged families to accept the children that God gives them.

Francis spoke off-the-cuff to a meeting of an Italian family association, ditching his prepared remarks to speak from the heart about families and the trials they undergo.  He lamented how some couples choose not to have any children, while others resort to pre-natal testing to see if their baby has any malformations or genetic problems.

“The first proposal in such a case is, ‘Do we get rid of it?'” Francis said.  “The murder of children. To have an easy life, they get rid of an innocent.”

Francis recalled that as a child he was horrified to hear stories from his teacher about children “thrown from the mountain” if they were born with malformations.

“Today we do the same thing,” he said.

“Last century, the whole world was scandalized by what the Nazis did to purify the race.  Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves,” Francis said.

And, as the cost of medical care continues to rise, we will go from the "right to die" to the "duty to die".

The Pope is right here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, May 7, 2018

National Health Service Fail


For John, BLUFIt isn't quite the T-4 Program, but once the medical bureaucrats decide nothing can be done, then nothing will be done.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Red State, by Brandon Morse, 2 May 2018.

Here is the start of the article:

The evils of socialized medicine were on full display during the few days the world watched Alfie Evans suffer to death at the hands of the British government’s National Healthcare System (NHS).

After his death, the Daily Signal decided to get the comments of the 15 Democratic senators currently co-sponsoring the “Medicare for All Act of 2017,” spearheaded by Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

According to the Daily Signal, what they got in return was an eerie silence from the Democrats who apparently decided to go dark after the world watched their beloved system of choice fail so spectacularly:

I am not saying we don't need reform.  I am saying that the idea of Single Payer means that we will have more medical tourism, but overall choice will be reduced for the broad expanse of the population.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Menue Crime


For John, BLUFThe Federal Government trying to make up for deficiencies in what your Mother (or your schooling) taught you about nutrition.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Foundation for Economic Education, by Ms Michelle Minton, 5 May 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Within days, chain restaurants and grocery stores nationwide will have to comply with a high-cost, low-value Obamacare menu-labeling mandate.  Failure to comply with the law could land shop owners in prison for a year with a fine of up to $100,000.

The controversial provision within the Affordable Care Act goes into effect on May 7 and requires food service businesses with 20 or more locations to list nutritional information for food items on all signs and printed menus.  Congress had many chances to amend the rule, to make it more flexible, and reduce the 14.5 million hours the Office of Management and Budget estimated it would take to comply with the mandate.  But, despite bipartisan support, lawmakers failed.

So, I looked at 14.5 million hours and divided by 2200 (hours in a work year) and got some 6590 person-years of work.

Then I applied the Democratic Party Consensus minimum wage ($15 per hours) and got a cost of $217,500,000 dollars total.

The odds I will actually consume the information—<0.1%.

As for the punishment, I wonder if that is a real judge or an Administrative Law Judge?  Given what Drunk Drivers get in our Commonwealth, I wonder if the punishment in this case is proportional to the crime.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Senator Warren Missed the Mark


For John, BLUFFrankly, I am shocked.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Power Line Blog, by Paul Mirengoff, 3 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

No, I’m not talking about her Indian thing, although there is that. I’m talking about her study more than a decade ago on the causes of bankruptcy. It purported to show that medical bills cause about half of bankruptcies.

The purpose of the study was, at least in part, to fuel the drive for single-payer health insurance. Indeed, two of the co-authors belonged to the group Physicians for a National Health Program that advocates for single-payer.

Our friend Gail Heriot pointed to major flaws in the study. She noted that the study actually analyzed medically-caused bankruptcies, not bankruptcies caused by medical bills. As she explains:

Illness sometimes causes people to lose their jobs and hence their income, which can lead to bankruptcy. Obamacare doesn’t change that.
In addition, Heriot showed that the Warren study grossly inflated the number of bankruptcies having a “medical cause.” It did so by including all cases of “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” and “birth/addition of a new family member” and by including cases where relatively modest medical bills acted in combination with other debts.
So, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an expensive and freedom restricting action by the Federal Government in response to a problem it can not solve.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Just wonderful.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Bankruptcies and Health Care


For John, BLUFFor those who say one is entitled to one's opinions but not one's own facts, what happens when the facts change?  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Washington Post and Ms Megan McArdle, 26 March 2018.

Back when we were considering health care reform (the outcome being "Obamacare") numbers were floating around suggesting half of bankruptcies were due to medical problems.  Turns out it may not be true.

And last week, the New England Journal of Medicine published a new estimate done by a team of health and labor economists.
The new study suggests the number is probably closer to 4%.

Yes, 4% is much less than 50%.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Health Care Still in Trouble


TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I argue that not everything the Government touches turns to gold.

For John, BLUFWell, you can keep your Doctor if you want to, or something like that.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




The sub-headline:

More evidence that costly government insurance hasn’t made us healthier.


From The Wall Street Journal, by Mr James Freeman, 22 December 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

Washington continues to debate health policy as if the number of people covered by government insurance programs is the key measurement of success. This week brought more evidence that the ObamaCare experiment of signing up millions more people for subsidized coverage has not made Americans healthier.

“Life expectancy in the United States fell for the second year in a row in 2016,” NBC News reports this week. The network quotes the government’s National Center for Health Statistics:

“This was the first time life expectancy in the U.S. has declined two years in a row since declines in 1962 and 1963,” the NCHS, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement.
This column is not ascribing all of this historically bad news to the former president’s signature accomplishment. Researchers have cited various factors, including trends that began well before Mr. Obama took office. But it’s striking that the implementation of a massive expansion in federal health benefits has coincided with the reversal of a long-term trend of increasing U.S. life expectancy. At a minimum, it should inspire politicians to stop equating rising health appropriations with better health.
In the article the Opioid Crisis comes up and the PP&ACA comes up for its share of criticism.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, October 19, 2017

The President at Work


For John, BLUFPresident Trump, perhaps with 2020 in mind, is trying to fulfill his campaign promises.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

From Iran to Obamacare to DACA, the president is acting on what Republicans have long promised, in a way that rightly devolves power to the legislative branch.

From Reason Magazine and Mr Matt Welch, 18 October 2017.

What we are seeing down in DC is that President Trump is moving to implement policies that reflect the issues he ran on, and which Congressional Republicans claimed were their issues.  However, those Republicans in Congress can't seem to act.  Then the President throws the issue into Congress' lap.  Now Republicans and Democrats have to act, sometimes with a deadline.  An example is the DACA Policy of the last Administration.  President Trump said fix it or I will end it in six months.  Another is the unconstitutional payments to insurance companies under the PP&ACA.

Good job Mr President.  Fulfilling campaign promises AND prodding Congress to do its job.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Who is Skipping the PP&ACA?


For John, BLUFThe PP&ACA is a solution that makes the Left feel good, but it doesn't make things better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from The Washington Free Beacon and Reporter Ali Meyer, on 9 October 2017.

The sub headline is:

79 percent of penalized households made less than $50,000,

On the other hand, the income of Americans is pretty much like a pyramid, with few at the top and many at the bottom.  But, still, that is a lot of folks below $50,000 PA who have elected to not enroll in a PP&ACA approved program.
There were 6,665,480 households who chose to pay the Obamacare penalty in that year rather than signing up for Affordable Care Act coverage. They paid a total of $3,079,255,000.

Of the 6.7 million households who chose to pay a penalty, 37 percent—2.5 million households—earned a salary less than $25,000 per year. There were 5.2 million households that earned a salary less than $50,000 per year who decided to pay the penalty, which totaled 79 percent of households paying the penalty. Finally, 92 percent of the households—6.1 million households—paid the penalty and earned less than $75,000 a year.

That is a lot of low income folks who are willing to pay the avoidance tax.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Well, the $250,000 and above is a long line, but if we ran in $5000 increments there would be a lot more lines and a lot shorter.  In fact, the next to top line gathers up ten of the lower increments and thus is ten times over its natural size.
  So, who are we really helping with the PP&ACA?  At least as interesting is the question of if ten percent of Mr Trump's November vote came from those paying the PP&ACA Penalty Tax.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

A Word Against the ACA


For John, BLUFNot everyone likes the Affordable Care Act.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

"My 96-percent increase in premiums is a useful, unvarnished look at Obamacare’s effects."

Writer and Analyst Mary Katherine Ham tells us why she isn't all that enthusiastic for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Mitt, Enjoy Yourself


For John, BLUFI'm with Treacher.  And I would like to know about Senator E Warren's brilliant plan to break the logjam and fix healthcare.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from The Daily Caller and Blogger Jim Treacher, today, 26 July 2017.

America had a chance to elect Mitt Romney, and we blew it.  Back in 2012 he warned us about Putin, and a lot of other problems we’re facing in 2017, but we just laughed at him.  He tried to serve his country, and he was excoriated.  He was mocked for hiring women, because he said he had binders full of their files.  (To this day, nobody has ever been able to explain why that was bad.)  Hell, he was even accused of giving people cancer.  We treated a good, honorable man like dirt.  He doesn’t owe us a thing.

Or… does he?  Danny McDonald, Boston Globe:

While the Senate debated health care, Mitt Romney was waterskiing

It’s been a contentious week in Washington…

One Republican who appears to be unbothered by all the political tumult?  That would be Mitt Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor and two-time GOP presidential candidate looked quite carefree while showing off his waterskiing skills earlier this week.

What DOES Governor Mitt Romney owe us?

Better, what do we owe him?  And President Obama owes at least an apology over Russia.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Where is Healthcare Going?


For John, BLUFThe Congressional Democrats plan to go to full socialized medicine, and then let it all slide down hill.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




An Investors Business Daily OpEd from back in May.

Followed by this one, yesterday, 18 July 2017.


So, if there is going to be all this Democratic Party winning in November of 2018, will there be an articulation of a plan before that, or will it be another Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass it so you can read it" kind of thing?

Remember, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Where To With the ACA

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  Health Care is not "A Right", as is Free Speech or Gun Ownership.  Just like four lane roads are not a right.
For John, BLUFIf Democrats don't work with Republicans, and President aTrump, it could be a major problem, and Mr Twitter could pin it on the Democrats for 2018.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Reporter Kathryn Watson, for CBS News, early on the 29th of June 2017.

The lede:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is delaying the vote on the Senate health care bill -- originally slated to take place before the July 4 holiday -- while a number of GOP senators remain opposed to their own party's unpopular proposal.
Informative, but I fear incomplete.

The article mentions CRS, or cost-sharing reduction payments, which the Trump Administration might not continue.  Not mentioned is the questionable legality of CRSs, an issue wending its way through the courts.

Then there is the question of blocks of the economy on waivers from "ObamaCare".  Have they ended?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, May 12, 2017

Looking to 2018


For John, BLUFThe Democrats think that repeal of "Obama Care" will hurt the Republicans in the 2018 elections.  I think they could be wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:
The fastest way to lose Congress is by not repealing ObamaCare.
This is the Editorial Writers of The Wall Street Journal.  This is from earlier in the week.  Here is the lede plus one:
Barack Obama emerged from his short-lived political retirement on Sunday to call on Members of Congress to show the “political courage” to preserve ObamaCare.  But wait.  That plea doesn’t square with the deluge of recent stories predicting that Republicans have doomed their majority in 2018 by voting last week to repeal ObamaCare.  How does it take “political courage” to oppose something that everyone claims is politically suicidal?

Perhaps because the predictors of Republican doom could be wrong.  The midterm election is still 18 months away, and many events will intervene that could influence the result.  But even if the campaign does turn on repealing ObamaCare, we’d argue that the politics are better for Republicans if they pass their reform and fulfill a campaign promise than if they fail and then duck and cover.

I think the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal are correct to the extent they say that the Republican Base is expecting the Republicans in do the repeal and replace of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

For the Republicans in Congress to back off will hurt them in 2018.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  The WSJ has a firewall, but this seems to be the firewall free version.

PP&ACA Not Working


For John, BLUFTransparency is missing in the area of healthcare.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This from the Blogger, The Writer in Black, at the eponymously named The Writer in Black Blog.

This is a statistical look at how we deal with pre-existing conditions.  Here is a helpful paragraph on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

It’s not risk sharing like standard insurance.  It’s wealth transfer taking money from those who got their insurance before they had expensive medical conditions and using it to provide for those who waited.
That is it.  Insurance is about spreading unknown, but anticipated risks amongst a normal population.  The authors of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act assumed that young, healthy people would buy insurance, thus helping to carry the burden of the overall system.  They didn't, notwithstanding a tax on them for not having purchased health insurance.

If we need catastrophic health insurance and insurance for those with pre-existing conditions that are very expensive then we need to tax all of our citizens to fund this health care.  The PP&ACA is not a fix for this problem, as the slow but steady exit of insurance companies like Aetna shows us.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saving US Health Care


For John, BLUFAction needs to be taken, but the Republicans are disunited and the Democrats are in a Zombie state.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Walter Russell Mead, in his American Interest piece yesterday, mentioned that the Aetna Insurance organization is pulling out of the remaining states where it officers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  That is not a good sign.

Here are two key paragraphs:

In any case, the thing that is slowly killing Obamacare, with or without Republican help, is the same thing that is making it so hard for the GOP to come up with an alternative:  American health care costs too much.  Solving this problem isn’t just about litigating the merits of Obamacare or Trumpcare; it’s about ensuring that the American people have access to the health care they want and need while keeping the country solvent.

We can’t do this all at once by some mighty government fiat—or, for that matter, through a blind faith in private markets.  It took two generations for us to work ourselves into our present mess, and it will take time to work our way back to a sane and sustainable system.

And I don't see how the advocated "single payer" solution will fix anything.  That is changing the premium payer from the individual to the Federal (or State) government, with the money for such payments coming from taxes or from increased federal debt.  That does nothing to get costs under control.  If you want to see how that will work, think the Department of Veteran Affairs.

As Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds says, "What can't go on won't go on." Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  And aren't some establishments still waivered from having to participate in the PP & ACA?

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Balanced Examination on Health Care


For John, BLUFWhen the Government delves in, someone is helped and someone is hurt.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:
Arguing about this as if beneficiaries of ACA don't exist isn't right.  Arguing about it as if people like me don't is also not right.
This is from Columnist Mary Katharine Ham, win The Federalist, on 5 May 2017. Here is the lede plus two:
You may know me as a political pundit and writer who has spoken publicly about how the Affordable Care Act negatively affected my family.  What you might not know is two years ago, I was a seven-month-pregnant widow with one toddler who got a letter two weeks after my husband died, informing me I’d lost my third or fourth health insurance plan since the Affordable Care Act passed.  If you’ll remember, the promise was that I could keep my plan if I liked it.  I could not.

I predicted what would happen to my family’s insurance, and to much less fortunate people subjected to the exchanges with us, many of whom have seen doubled premiums and tripled deductibles.  If you’ll remember, the promise was everyone’s premiums would go down.  They did not.  For predicting it, I was routinely called a lying hack in public.  It’s a hazard of the job, but I wasn’t lying.  I was right.  I also thought it was improbable the federal and state governments could handle building these exchanges and that they’d likely blow up and be inoperable, thereby preventing people like me from actually purchasing the new plans the ACA required we purchase.  Again, I was not lying for partisan gain.

ACA has helped people.  I know some of them well!  I have two friends with serious health challenges, one of whom I can say was probably kept alive by Obamacare; the other by the fact she was able to keep her grandfathered pre-ACA plan.  I am not in the habit of asserting any piece of health legislation is either perfect or a tool of evil designed by hateful actors.  They’re not.  I will not assert either of these fundamentally shallow and manipulative things about either ACA or adjustments to it (and, yes, this piece of House legislation is an adjustment or a reform, not a repeal, which would change dramatically in the Senate if taken up and change again before eventual passage).

To whom do people go when the promises of politicians are negated by their legislation?

What does are Senior Senator, Ms E Warren, think about this?  Is our Junior Senator, whatever his name is, even aware of this?  Where does our US Rep, Ms Niki Tsongas, stand on this?  Right now they seem to be on the "just let it roll" platform, watching the train rumble through the station.  Maybe they don't even know there is a crash coming.  Maybe they think they can blame it on President Trump, or Speaker Paul Ryan.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Only After Death


For John, BLUFIs Trump Derangement Syndrome going to drive me to need a "Violent Metaphor" tag?  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from Mr Jim Treacher, of the "DC Trawler" Blog of The Daily Caller.

I know it is only so scientists can see if they have hearts, but still…

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, March 26, 2017

The Will of the People


For John, BLUFThis myth of the Majority misses the very large segment that didn't vote and wishes Washington would just get on with it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




My Middle Brother, Lance, wrote the following this morning:
I just think we should hold off on Supreme Court appointments until we can determine what the will of the people was, since we know what the majority of the people wanted, it's just a matter of determining if Russsian Trump involvement, if there was any thing that influenced something less than 200,000 in a handful of districts.
But, of course, we DON'T know what the majority of the People want.  Mrs Clinton got only 48.18% of the vote and Mr Trump got only 46.09%.  That leaves a little under 6% for other views.  If you want a majority you need to kill the Electoral College and substitute a runoff between the two top vote getters, like in France.

So, for Lance, and Ms Jennifer Palmieri, Mrs Clinton's Campaign Communications Director, we will have to wait for 20 January 2021, when someone might have won a majority of the Presidential ballots.  As happened in 1988, 2004, 2008 and 2012.

In the mean time, the Democrats are going to push the "illegitimate" meme.

And Senator Mitch McConnell will be searching the Senate Majority Leader's desk to see where his predecessor, Harry Reid, left the nuclear trigger.

The up side of this (the coming collapse of the PP & ACA Excepted), is that Washington will not be coming up with new ideas to restrict our personal and economic freedom.

Regards  —  Cliff

  "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."  (Mark Twain)

Sen Warren on Pres Trump and Health Care


For John, BLUFShrill.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from The Boston Herald and Reporter Brian Dowling, from Saturday, 25March 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said President Trump can’t simply place the troubled future of Obamacare at Democrats’ feet after he sought to sabotage its success and “actively worked” to make it “fail” from his first days in the Oval Office.

“Let’s be real clear:  We are not talking about if nothing is done,” Warren said.  “Donald Trump has already actively worked to try to make Obamacare fail. That has been his goal.”

This seems a little over the top, but then it is our Senior Senator.  When she isn't befuddling herself about her DNA she is being over the top about some topic.

The idea that a decrease in advertising is sabotage shows the degree to which the seven year old Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a failure.

And, if defeated in 2018 she probably won't go away quietly, but will hang around Cambridge and harangue us all.

Regards  —  Cliff