WUHAN

Common Sense During a Panic

-       or    -

The cattle are spooked and ready to stampede.

I stated, very early in the 2020 campaign season, that the only way for Democrats to have ANY chance at all of winning the White House would be to have the economy collapse. At that point, I predicted they (Democrats) would be working to make that happen. After all, for Socialists, the ends justify the means.

Then Wuhan hit and became the Democrats’ golden opportunity. Their comrades in the media have created a national panic which has walloped the stock market, caused closures of large-gathering events, initiated travel bans and caused runs (no pun intended) on toilet paper.

EVERY conversation I’ve had over the past few days has centered around Wuhan and it seems that there is no end in sight.

So……

I thought I’d take a moment to talk some sense and bring some perspective. I read a report about a conference call from Nancy Messonnier (Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases) to reporters. You can read the article here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/11/cdc-official-we-do-not-expect-most-people-to-develop-serious-illness/. But I’ll point out a few, very important, takeaways:

According to Messonnier:

1.     Health experts do not expect most people to develop serious illness

2.     There are two different risk pools for this virus

a.      Those who are exposed and get sick

b.     Those who are exposed and get very sick or die from this virus

3.     Who is most at risk of developing serious illness?

a.      According to reports out of China, of about 70,000 infected, 80% were mildly sick and recovered. Fifteen to twenty percent became seriously ill.

b.     The highest risk is with patients 80 years

According to Messonnier, ““This is a time for people to prepare for what they might need to do but not a time for people to clear out the shelves. And I really want to focus on the United States and the families at highest risk because in the setting where it’s really clear that it is older Americans who are at the highest risk right now, we want to make sure that they’re taking every precaution to prepare themselves so that if there is more widespread transmission, they can stick close to home.”

Sound, reasoned, advice.

The BBC reported on the demographics of the virus (mortality rates) (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743)   which broadened the scope to include all age groups (their sample was the first 44,000 cases, was based on the CDC statistics, which seems to be consistent with the later, larger,  sample).

Both the CDC and WHO have set the mortality rate at around 3.4%; but, as we can plainly see, with decreasing age (assuming normal overall health), the mortality rate drops drastically to below one percent. 

But, what neither the CDC nor WHO can include in their findings is the number of UNreported cases; those cases where someone was exposed, infected, then did not seek medical attention or get tested. It stands to reason that if 80% of reported cases are mild, then there MUST be MANY, MANY more cases of VERY mild cases where the infected party did not bother to make notification. Undoubtedly, if these cases WERE reported and included in the official numbers, the overall mortality rate would likely drop to one percent or lower (which would put the mortality rate about the same as measles).

So, is it time to panic? In a word: no.

Is it time to exercise precautions normal to a flu season? Of course.

The panic that is now happening is a contrivance of Liberals desperately acting to crash our economy, in order to take the White House. Period.

But…..mark my words: this will ultimately fail. Why? Simple:

This is America. We are strong and we are resilient. When this manufactured crisis is over, our economy will come roaring back and, likely, be even stronger than it was before the virus hit.

And, in all likelihood, that roaring economy will be roaring as we approach election day.

"Proposition 13" (2020 state ballot)

Some time back, Democrats in California asked voters if the lottery should be instituted. Their pitch, as it often is, was "it's for the kids!". The California Lottery was designed to be a HUGE source of funding, as California public schools were plummeting off the educational achievement cliff. As it was presented to voters, here's how it worked:

Let's say that the education budget for "fiscal year X" was $10 billion.

And, if passed, the lottery for that year generated $5 billion.

As the law was written and presented to voters, the revised education budget for "fiscal year X" would now be $15 billion.

Good so far?

Awesome, right? The kids would be HUGELY funded, classrooms would be updated and upgraded, new text books and other learning devices, sports, music, etc......

Truly, an awesome, amazing thing!

Then the law passed.

And, as we saw.....constantly.....with Obamacare, the legislature changed the language. The California legislature amended the mechanics of the lottery.

HERE is how the California lottery works now....today:

Let's say that the education budget for "fiscal year Y" is $10 billion.

And, let's say that the lottery for this year generates $5 billion.

As the law is amended now, the budget for "fiscal year Y" will now be CUT to $5 billion, and the $5 billion generated by the lottery will be used to build the budget back to $10 billion.

What happens to the extra $5 billion, cut from the budget? Simple:

It goes into the general fund, where, currently, it is used to support illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and clean human feces off of streets and sidewalks in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Why bother reminding voters of this disgusting piece of history? Again, simple:

Proposition 13, the formal title of which is "AB 48 (Chapter 530 of 2019), O’Donnell. Education finance: school facilities: Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020" 

has NOTHING to do with school facilities, Public Preschool, K-12, or College Health and Safety.

NOTHING. 

The 2020 "Proposition 13" overturns the 1978 Proposition 13, thereby exposing property taxes to the whim of the state legislature. If passed, the 2020 "Proposition 13" will VASTLY INCREASE property taxes, and will mark the beginning of a staggering increase of foreclosures and confiscations due to non-payment of the, now, doubled, tripled, and even HIGHER property taxes. Those who RENT will not be safe from this, either, as their landlords' taxes will increase and THEY will be forced to pass those increases down. 

Let me be perfectly clear: NO ONE who lives in a dwelling in California will remain unaffected. 

AND, just like the California lottery, those revenues will be diverted, legislatively, to the general fund, where they will pay for MORE illegal immigration, MORE sanctuary cities and MORE cleanup of human feces in Nancy Pelosi's district. 

As with the California lottery, the kids don't matter. The schools don't matter. EDUCATION does not matter. 

VOTE AN EMPHATIC "NO!" ON THE 2020 "PROPOSITION 13". 

DEMAND ANSWERS FROM YOUR DEMOCRAT-SUPPORTING FRIENDS!

MEDICARE FOR ALL

With the 2020 race heating up, it’s important to note that the Democrats’ biggest fiscal plank, now embraced by ALL remaining candidates, is “Medicare for all”. Yes…..the single payer healthcare system.

Interestingly, though ALL Democrat candidates are on board, not one of them has dared explained the cost, other than vaguely tying it to another of their fiscal planks, “soak the rich”.

So, always being a ‘happy to help’ kind of guy, *I* will take a look at the numbers. Let’s see, based on today’s actual budget, what “Medicare for all” will cost American tax payers.

First, some relevant numbers and their sources:

Medicare: $582 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Medicaid: $389 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

C.H.I.P.: $12 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Total revenues: $3.3 trillion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Number of Medicare recipients: 44 million (AARP)

Number of Medicaid recipients: 64 million (Medicaid.gov)

Number of CHIP recipients: 6 million (Medicare.gov)

Population of the United States, 2018: 327.2 million (US Census)

Let’s crunch some numbers….

Based on the 2018 budget, the cost, per recipient, of healthcare, was $8,623.00 (rounded to nearest dollar).

Adjusted to the total population (excluding illegals, of course), the total cost of healthcare would be $2.82 trillion.

In other words: 

with a Federal revenue of $3.3 trillion (2018), healthcare, alone, would comprise 85% of the entire budget.

On Gun Control......

In the wake of two more tragedies, while both sides staunchly defend their beliefs, I firmly believe that both sides (I’m talking about voters rather than lawmakers) want the same thing: a reduction in these tragedies.

There IS, therefore, common ground.

The question, though, is this: what measures actually make sense? Congress is GREAT at writing “feel good” laws; those laws that happen IMMEDIATELY, while accomplishing nothing (often doing more harm than good). They pass a law…ANY LAW….then pat themselves on the back, having accomplished only one thing: giving the voters a false sense of security…

…until the next tragedy.

I recall this line from “Ghostbusters”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbgTm9JLhtc. Sounds like Congress. And, sadly, it’s pretty much what we, the voters, have, complacently, come to accept…..

Knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses are equally worthless. Decide in haste; regret in leisure.

The question is this: what ACTUALLY would work, while preserving every part of the Second Amendment? There ARE solutions.

If we can manage to have the wit to avoid the “feel good” and the “knee jerk”, I’m willing to bet that we could yield some real results.

IMO, solid first steps might need to include:

1.     The realization that guns are a tool and NOT animate.  Just as a vehicle, without a driver at the wheel, is incapable of mass destruction, so is a gun dependent on the intention of the operator.

2.     The realization that NO gun control law will stop mass killings. Those intent on destruction will use whatever tools are available. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. McVey used a truck filled with ANFO. In other countries, mass murderers have used fire, “melee” weapons, poisons, vehicles, etc.

3.     The realization that banning any one type of weapon is meaningless. Of course, “assault weapons” are the favorite target (no pun intended) of gun control advocates. But, according to the FBI (Uniform Crime reporting), in 2016 (as an example) “murder victims by weapon”, firearms accounted for 11,004 murders. Of those, rifles (including, but not limited to, AR15 type weapons) accounted for 374 of those murders. The Washington Post listed, in an article compiling mass shootings, types of weapons used. AR15 type rifles accounted for a modest fraction. So, a ban on AR15-type “assault” rifles (a misnomer) would not have much effect on reducing gun homicides. The stats tell us that if those weapons are not available, others will be used; and not necessarily guns.

4.     The realization that NO gun control laws, written to date, have prevented ANY of these horrific crimes.

5.     Perspective. Under the Obama administration, the CDC conducted a study of gun violence. Among its conclusions, it found that defensive use of guns is common, though not always reported. The report estimated that between 500,000 and 3 million crimes were prevented, every year, by the use of a gun (does not include police-involved incidences, and includes mere brandishing). Taking the low number, in order to achieve 1:1 equity with gun homicides, that 500,000 would need to be halved, halved again, halved again, halved again and halved again, then reduced another 5,000. Perspective.

If a sensible, reasoned discussion can be had with these in mind, I believe that sensible steps CAN be taken to reduce gun violence.

Here is, in my humble opinion, some of what I would like to see:

IMMEDIATELY ACHIEVABLE:

-       National reciprocation in concealed carry laws. Another conclusion from the CDC report found that armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker. In addition, mass shootings tend to have fewer (potential) casualties when the attacker is engaged and fired upon.

-       An end to “gun free” zones. Nearly every mass shooting has taken place in designated “gun free” zones. And, no wonder. Why on Earth would a gunman (or gunmen) choose to confront an armed citizenry? Criminals go after what they perceive to be easy, soft targets.

-       Along similar lines, I’d like to see legislation that would allow those educators who choose to carry concealed, and are trained to do so, be allowed to. I would NOT make this a mandatory thing, but rather an individual, voluntary thing.

LONGER TERM:

-       I would like to see FAR stronger background checks for mental health. Admittedly, this would be a very difficult issue, since mental health issues are complex and varied, BUT it MUST be addressed and achieved.

-       Make mass shootings a Capital Offense (irrespective of number of casualties).

-       Tax legislation, to develop private-side pools (taking donations from individuals and corporations) to fund and maintain armed security for public and private schools. I’d also like to see deeper tax reductions (1:1 in dollars) if those companies hire military and police.

I am convinced, based on available evidence, that these steps WOULD work.

I encourage all, Conservatives and Liberals, to engage in this conversation. The conversation MUST start with the people; that means you and me. Waiting for our legislators to adopt anything except “feel good”, “knee jerk” solutions will only lead to more meaningless, ineffective laws and no reduction in tragedies.

Don’t we have enough meaningless, ineffectual laws? Or do we need more, so that we can feel good?

THE DEATH PENALTY

Now that Trump has reinstated the Federal death penalty statute, I thought it’d be a good time to share some thoughts about where I stand on the issue.

1.     Anyone who attempts to inject “pro-life” in a discussion of the death penalty is either attempting to deliberately mislead you or doesn’t understand EITHER issue.

a.      “Pro life” is as specific a term as “pro choice”. “Pro life” is specific to the abortion issue and is not applicable to other issues. “Pro choice” is specific to abortion as well. If I was to suggest that, because you, Mr./Mrs. Liberal, believe that big game trophy hunting should be banned, or that smoking in public places should be banned, or that carbon emissions should be banned, then you cannot claim to be “pro choice”, I would be wrong in the application of that term. Likewise, anyone claiming, as Alyssa Milano just did, that, in supporting the death penalty, a  person has, “…lost the right to pull your, 'pro-life' narrative-talking-point- b------t with me…”, is wrong in the application of the term “pro life”. (In the case of Milano’s comments, I’ll confidently side with the ‘doesn’t understand EITHER issue’ explanation).

2.     The death penalty IS, without question, contemplated in the Constitution. It’s right there in the Fifth Amendment, which, in part, states, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. In other words: with due process of law, a person CAN be deprived of life.

3.     Erich Reimer penned an opinion piece for Townhall.com, https://townhall.com/columnists/erichreimer/2019/07/19/capital-punishment-is-government-overreach-on-our-liberty-n2550320 . It is worth reading, not because I agree with his opinion, but rather because I DON’T agree with his opinion (if you are not educating yourself on both sides of an argument, you are not educating yourself; you are indoctrinating yourself). A couple specific points of disagreement:

                                               i.     Comparing the United States to North Korea, the PRC, etc, is meaningless. Some of these countries also call themselves “republics” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, People’s Republic of China, etc). Does that make the republic we have in America a Communist country? Nonsense.

                                              ii.     Reamer argues that the government is able to “…deprive a citizen of something as fundamental as one’s own very life.” This is simply not accurate. In the case of the death penalty, the person being executed deprives THEMSELVES of their own life.

                                            iii.     Reimer argues that the death penalty was contemplated in times far more “savage” than our current, civilized, society. I beg to differ. Read the headlines on any particular day, and the horrors of today’s society are evident. The five persons scheduled for execution, between December 2019 and January 2020 are perfect examples. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/five-inmates-federal-executions/index.html )

                                            iv.     Reamer argues that our society is far removed from such historical horrors as “The Great Purge” (Soviet Union; two years, 750k killed) and the “Reign of Terror” (France; one year, 40k killed). I’d argue that abortion law, which has cost the lives of at least 61 million (aprox. 1.3 million/year) unborn children, is FAR worse.

4.     The Catholic Church, currently, argues against the death penalty on the grounds that incarceration protects society from the worst of society. I disagree completely. An example: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-federal-investigation-20190606-story.html.  Another example can be found in the Willie Horton case (while Horton did not kill anyone when furloughed, it is certainly that he retained the capacity to do so). In addition, while the Church (and others) make this argument, they seem unconcerned with the brutal rapes and murders that take place, regularly, within prison walls.

5.     The essential difference between abortion and the death penalty is simply this:

                                               i.     Abortion punishes (by putting to death) a child who is the result of actions taken by others.

                                              ii.     The death penalty punishes (by putting to death) a person who has CHOSEN to commit an act that carries with it the possible consequence of forfeiting their life.

Hopefully, this explains a) my position on the death penalty and b) why the death penalty is a fundamentally different argument than abortion. But it is also important to understand why Democrats oppose the death penalty, while staunchly supporting abortion. This, too, is simple:

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats take the opportunity to weaken what is clearly contemplated in the Constitution. They attack the First and Second Amendments, the Electoral College, etc, with the same ‘slippery slope’. Their long term goal, of course, is to render the Constitution meaningless, since they cannot outright abolish it.

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats’ desire to seek what is the common denominator in their legislation: elimination of personal responsibility. Abolishing the death penalty would relieve the convicted of the most severe punishment for a crime in which they voluntarily engaged. (This also explains their position on abortion: to seek the relief from personal responsibility of persons who, for the most part, engaged freely in choice. Of course, a discussion is certainly warranted in cases of involuntary incest and rape, but that is for another post….).

Marxism, by the numbers

The “Green New Deal”, which, by the way, is endorsed by EVERY Democrat candidate currently running in 2020, represents the ultimate dream for Liberals; by that, I mean, of course, Socialists (by THAT, I mean Democrats). It is a pie-in-the-sky manifesto of Marxist wealth confiscation, loaded with lots of promises and precisely ZERO benefits. It is government everything, virtually eliminating private……anything.

In short, it IS a demand for Statism. And the message from Democrats is absolutely clear: if you put us in charge, we WILL take everything you have!

Of course, Democrats are busy telling us that we’ll lose no freedom and “no, this is not Socialism”, but consider:

-       - What happens to the person who says, “No, I will NOT upgrade my home (or business) to environmental standards.”?

-      -  What happens to the people who insist on NOT giving up beef?

-       - What happens to the people who refuse to give up their gas-guzzling car?

I’ll tell you exactly what will happen: the government will FORCE you to comply. Period. Don’t think this could ever happen? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

But, folks need to understand HOW the Democrats plan on making captives of the American people:

BREAK US, FINANCIALLY.

Anyone remember when President Reagan REFUSED to take SDI (the Strategic Defense Initiative…. “Star Wars”) off the table during the nuclear arms talks? Ever wonder why? Ever wonder why we had such a massive military buildup during that administration? The reason was as simple as it was brilliant: to force the U.S.S.R. to spend against us and, in doing so, break their financial back.

And it worked. The U.S.S.R. collapsed.

That is precisely what Democrats wish to do. But, this time, to US.

Should Democrat seize control of the government, they WILL slowly and steadily grow until we can no longer sustain that growth. At that point, we will be powerless to resist. At that point, we won’t be “subjects”, we will be captives.

If you run the numbers on what the 2020 candidates are already proposing, you’ll gain a VERY clear picture of this goal and it’s timetable:  Consider some numbers:            

-       - “New Green Deal”: $9.4 Trillion/year https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-green-new-deal-scope-scale-and-implications/

-       - Medicare For All: $3.2 Trillion/year. (Based on current cost)

These two programs, alone, will cost taxpayers $12.6 Trillion per year. Then add some current programs:

-       - Social Security: $1.9 Trillion (CBO)

-       - Federal Pensions: $1.0 Trillion (CBO)

-       - Welfare: $356 Billion (CBO)

-       - Interest on the debt: $262 Billion (CBO)

-       - Education: $156 Billion (CBO)

These add another $3.67 Trillion per year.

Now, because they are Liberals and, well, you HAVE to cut SOMEWHERE….

-       - Let’s go ahead and END the Military.

-       - Let’s ALSO end ALL Discretionary Spending.

-       - Let’s ALSO dump:

o   Energy and Environment spending

o   Housing and Community spending

o   Transportation spending

o   Food and Agriculture spending

o   Veterans’ benefits

o   Science spending

o   International affairs spending

Where does this leave us? With a Federal Budget of $16.3 Trillion. (And, each year, this number will grow.)

To put this in perspective, consider two numbers:

-         -  The 2019 Federal Budget: $4.4 Trillion (CBO)

-          - The total personal income of ALL U.S. citizens, combined: $16 Trillion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/

In other words: Democrats are proposing to spend 100% of the TOTAL income of the United States while STILL running a $3 Billion DEFICIT. PER YEAR.

President Trump, in his first two years in office, has begun the process of dismantling the Democrats’ march toward a Marxist state. THIS is why they hate him AND his supporters. If he allowed to continue, he represents their greatest threat: a restoration of the Constitution and a freed citizenry.

2020 will be the MOST important election in our lifetime.

A letter to the (so-called) pro-Darwin “science believers”

NOTE

Every year, around January 22^nd, I pen a piece about abortion; the slavery of today and the latest testament to the Democrat Party’s long history of legislated discrimination. To me, the abortion issue is THE MOST IMPORTANT Human Rights issue today. It is, therefore, the most important political and legal issue of our time.

To date (since January 22^nd, 1973) America has murdered 61 million unborn children, all in the name of “women’s reproductive rights”. If legalized abortion should last as long as slavery, that number will rise to over 265 million.

I have to wonder whether, in the 61 million so far, whether the scientist who would have put an end to cancer was laid on that Socialist altar. Or perhaps a future President (indeed, given the circumstances, it is VERY likely that, had Barack Obama been born post-1973, HE would have been aborted). Perhaps Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s would have been cured by now? How many Nobel laureates? How many Marie Curies or Thomas Edisons? How many Harriet Tubmans, Abraham Lincolns or Frederick Douglas’? How many Dr. Martin Luther Kings?

So, each year I pen a piece in defense of life. But this year, instead of merely citing Human Rights (a concept foreign to Democrats), I would like to offer a different perspective on this horrific, inhuman, inhumane, issue…in terms that even a Democrat SHOULD understand.

…but, deliberately, willfully, won’t.

To the “pro-science”, Darwin types,

Perhaps you can help me out with a dilemma. In Iceland, Down’s Syndrome (a genetic anomaly characterized by an addition 23^rd Chromosome) has been nearly eliminated. How? Through selective abortion, of course ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/ ). In America, bills at the state and federal level are continually introduced to allow for similar legislation (along with other, selective, abortions); with the same “goal” in mind. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/05/down-syndrome-babies-are-taking-center-stage-in-the-u-s-abortion-fight/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d196e6b13ced).

In fact, Liberals in elected office, Planned Parenthood and in the “scientific community” frequently discuss to use of selective, targeted abortion in order to eliminate all manner of genetic anomalies.

…which brings us to Darwin.

Assuming you ACTUALLY know anything about Darwin’s work…

Can you please explain to me how you know….KNOW…..that Down’s Syndrome (or ANY other genetic anomaly) ISN’T a necessary genetic mutation; necessary, when acting in conjunction with future genetic mutations, to the evolution of mankind? Or, in keeping with Darwin’s theory of speciation, the evolution of mankind into a more benevolent, non-Earth-destroying animal?

The development of the eye still represents one of the great arguments against Darwin’s theory of speciation (a theory which, BTW, Darwin, himself, believed would…and COULD….never be proven). In order to possess a functioning eye, the following two possibilities must have existed:

1.     ALL parts of the eye would have to have mutated simultaneously. At the very least:

a.      The Cornea

b.     The Aqueous Humor

c.      The Schlera

d.     The Iris

e.      The Pupil

f.      The Lens

g.     The Pupillary Musculature

h.     The Ciliary Body

i.       The Chloroid

j.       The Vitreous

k.     The Retinal Pigmented Epithelium

l.       Trabecular Network

m.   The Retina

n.     The Optic Nerve

o.     Bruch’s Membrane

p.     Associated changes in the skeletal structure, necessary to house the eye, the optic nerve, etc.

q.     Photoreceptors (Rod and Cone cells)

r.      Associated areas of the brain necessary to perceive and interpret signals sent by the Optic Nerve

2.     OR….. Any one of these, which would have to endure (genetically pass on) for countless generations while other mutations occur. Meanwhile, these singularities would be useless.

Though this is an example of another of Darwin’s theories, suppose, for a moment, that the finches of Galapagos Island had been targeted by Liberals. Would there be the diversity of beak shapes and sizes (diversity that, BTW, allows them to better exist within their environment)? The rather obvious answer is: no. Any finch with the genetic possibility of having a beak unlike the original finches would be eliminated. Aborted. So, by using the Liberal mentality, natural selection would be halted and finches would only have a single type of beak. Those finches, because of Liberals, would fail to adapt; fail to evolve. I guess it’s a good thing that those finches weren’t Iceland finches….

So, “pro-science” Darwin worshipers: Can you explain how you know, for sure, that you are not stopping the evolution of the human species? I would like to see your proof.

Sincerely,

Tim Hirota

Timothyhirota1@gmail.com

Post Script:

Once again, Liberals, in Iceland and right here in America, are proving that the Parties HAVEN’T “switched sides”. Liberals (Democrats) are, once again, suggesting that one (or more) humans (this time, based on their genetics) are not fully human and are, therefore, NOT entitled to the same protections under the law. This is EXACTLY the argument that drove the continued legalization of slavery. With slavery, race was the target. With abortion, stage of life is the target.

Democrats, through the years, have targeted race MANY times (slavery, anti-Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, etc). Democrats have targeted gender (anti-Suffrage), etc. If there is a vulnerable segment of humanity, Democrats WILL target it at some point. One day, age and infirmity will be their target (as we are seeing in, for example, Oregon, with healthcare).