Wait times is not just prostate cancer. That was just the particular examples I listed. The rankings on wait times speak for themselves- the U.S. fares far better. Canada ranks last among 11 OECD countries in a new survey in terms of how quickly people can get in to see their regular family physicians

People from Canada routinely come to the US for care. Although, things are getting better in Canada now that more private providers are opening up to provide prompter care for those who can afford it.

When we look at overall indicators such as mortality morbidity infant mortality maternal mortality the results are clear - you spend a greater percentage of GDP on health care and you have much worse results.

There are many reasons for some of these stats, including that we use more care (driving up costs), the government isn't rationing care (driving up costs), we have more obesity (driving up costs), and there are a wide variety of societal differences between the U.S. and Canada and other countries.

You can always pick and choose particular metrics you want to look at, in order to get the answers you want to support the system you believe is best. For example, if you look at things like 5-year cancer survival rates, the U.S. generally achieves much better outcomes than socialized systems. You also cite the fact that Canadians report satisfaction with their care... well, so did 87 percent of 85 percent of the U.S. before Obama got involved).

I've also seen studies suggesting far lower happiness with the Canadian health system, so, again you can find statistics to paint whatever picture you want.

50 per cent of respondents in Ontario said that on the whole, the health-care system works pretty well, compared with 23 per cent in Quebec.

More than two-thirds of Canadians think the health-care system needs major repairs or a complete overhaul, says a national poll that regularly gauges public attitudes on health. http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/2008/02/12/health-system-needs-fixing-poll

It's all a question of what metrics you look at and what you define to be better. Should everyone have care that is worse, just so we could try to improve care for a small portion of the population (even when there is no proof that alternative programs implemented in the U.S. would actually improve outcomes for that population when so many other factors come into play... again, Medicaid studies have shown no actual positive health outcomes from this government program, veterans would have been better off w/ private care than the VA and obamacare co-ops have failed and left 750K without coverage)?

There's no easy answers, but I think that the innovative, adaptable private sector- which rewards success- could answer the hard questions far better than the clunky, inefficient, poorly-run government.

In addition, the system we had before wasn't free market either and in socialized medicine systems most people have supplementary private policies because the government cannot provide high enough quality care... so it's not like we're comparing a pure free market system to a true socialized medicine system.

the government does not provide health CARE, beagles.

And your "president nobel peace prize" snark was juvenile. HE didn't award himself the prize.

Privatizing the VA. Now there's an idea. Send soldiers who earn $30K a year to private health insurers!

Wow. There you go.

Beagles, remind me again, where was it your fab-yoo private sector banks ran to to save their sorry butts when they caused the economy to tank?

The government tries (and fails) to provide care with the VA. It also aims to provide access to care in single payer systems, but people end up getting private policies anyway because the government can't provide that access very well.

It's better to let veterans die on the waiting list than to let them go to private providers?

The proposal is to make permanent the “choice card” pilot program allowing veterans to get private care. The proposal would lift the restrictions to private care in the 2014 law, getting rid of criteria like allowing private care only after long wait times or only for veterans living 40 miles from a VA facility.

I don't think the banks would have failed in a true free market, I believe the government involvement led to that collapse... and I don't think the government should have socialized their losses either.

Many of the banks were actually forced by the government to take the bailout money in the first place.

The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.

Several other recipients of the funds, including JPMorgan and American Express Co., have stressed their desire to return the money as soon as possible.

Again, Beagles, answer the question: To whom did the banks run to bail them out?

"To whom did the banks run to bail them out?" To politicians, of course.

Most of the banks didn't run to anyone. The government caused the collapse, and then forced banks who didn't want money to take it.

Also, one of the BIGGEST problems with big government is it leads to things like crony capitalism, and to big companies counting on big government to bail them out or to pass favorable laws (big business doesn't care which party they donate to, and most donate to both so they can get the protection of the government no matter who wins. Doesn't that disturb pro-government people, to put so much faith in an institution to handle so many important functions in our daily lives where the leaders can all be bought off so very easily? If government stuck to its essential core functions only, there'd be a significantly reduced need for industry lobbyists)

No big government= no bailouts= companies that can't be profitable on the open market fail= efficiency in markets.

She can't answer the question.

I think I know why.

I answered the question. Here is the answer:

Most of the banks didn't run to the government. The government forced many of the banks to take the money, over their objections, and the banks were very eager to give it back but were not allowed to for a long time by regulators.

The businesses that did go to the government, of course they went to the government--- why not, they failed as businesses (in part because of government regulations and terrible incentives imposed by government regulations) and the government was handing out free money. The private sector wouldn't bail them out, and shouldn't bail them out!

I've never denied that people (and businesses) like to get free stuff from the government. I think it's just as bad (or worse) when companies do it as when people do it. I think it is wrong to do it, and I don't think we should have a government big enough to make it possible.

No, here is the answer. I didn't ask about banks that didn't need bailing out. I asked about those that did.

they ran to: the government.

The government bailed their sorry butts out.

The government bailed their sorry butts out with those taxes they're always screaming THEY need breaks from.

They didn't run to their private sector friends in other countries.

They didn't run to their parents.

They rant to the US government.

That is the answer, Beagles.

Yup. They did. Failing businesses went crying to their friends in the government (many of whom they probably paid to get elected) for help. And the government let them do it (well... actually, the government encouraged them to do it and said hey, come on, we've got free money- we'll even make banks that don't need it take it so you don't look so bad!). And the private sector wouldn't have done it. And THIS is exactly what is wrong with big government. Big government rewards, incentivizes, and subsidizes failure, the private sector punishes failure.

I don't know why you think I'm in favor of the government bailing out banks or in favor of banks asking for bailouts or why you believe I think that those running failed businesses aren't sometimes hypocritical?

Reminded me of the sign some Tea Partier was holding: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."

I never said I thought you were in favor of the government bailing them out. Where did you get that I think that? My point is, it's always the evil, horrible, incompetent, no-good government people (and huge banks) run to for help, all the while yammering about how much they hate the government, hate paying taxes, etc.

It was a simple, straightforward question: To whom did they run to be saved (and who saved them?): the government. Period.

Whether you supported the bailouts or not is not relevant. Just the fact that it was the government they went to for salvation - and got it.

Btw, Beagles, you might notice that we nearly had out second Great Depression JUST after Glass-Steagall was repealed, and the first Depression was the reason it was created.

You don't see a correlation there? That kind of blows your "too much regulation" argument. Indeed, the problem was lax regulations.

I'm not sure why you think it is helping the pro-government case to argue that failed businesses run to the government to bail them out and are handed taxpayer money....

I think the fact that the government subsidizes failure is exactly what is wrong with it and this is a perfect illustration of my point that the government is too big and does things it very much should not do.... like help loser businesses.

I'm supposed to be in favor of the government and find it more competent or somehow better than the private sector because it takes taxpayer money and redistributes it to failed enterprises whereas the private sector wouldn't?

Also, Wall Street donates far more money to democrats than republicans, so I don't believe they are particularly anti-government.... There's a very symbiotic relationship between Wall Street and our excessive oversized government, which makes everyone much worse off.

And I don't think people who hate government are necessarily running to it for help. Republicans aren't exactly clamoring for more government programs... in fact, they are electing candidates nationwide who promise to roll back government programs (It will be interesting to see if Bevin follows through w/ dismantling Obamacare in Kentucky as he promised, and how the politics of that play out- it's very rare to see government programs actually dismantled so it is hard to know if people will reward politicians who follow through w/ promises to end them, or not).

I'm pretty sure I already had this argument about why it was government policy, not under-regulation, that led to the financial crisis. Was it with someone else in a different thread?

I"m not having that argument again.

beagles- you must have been a member of a successful debate team! your focus and stamina are admirable!

So you don't see a correlation between the two worst economic catastrophes coming just before Glass-Steagall was implemented (because of the 1929 collapse) and just after its repeal.

No, overregulation did not cause the 2007 collapse. Quite the opposite. There has been very little regulation, SEC oversight has been lax at best, as noted, even Glass-Steagall was repealed.

It makes absolutely no sense that Congress would repeal Glass-Steagall only to turn around and impose MORE regulations on banks. The reason for the repeal was in fact to lessen and weaken regulations, i.e.: let the "Free market" work.

It didn't.

busybee3 I'm a lawyer- it's in my nature :)

Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999--- and had been chipped away at for many years before then. So, it's not like it was repealed and collapse immediately followed. There's absolutely no evidence, and no economists, who believe the repeal of Glass Steagall was the cause of the collapse

Let's just ask Bill Clinton:

"Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall," Bill Clinton said in an interview with Inc. magazine for its September issue. "There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash."

Government policies (not simply regulations in this case) caused the collapse- once again the free market didn't get to work without interference.

And here's some more info on the government policies that came together to cause the crisis and worsen it, for those who are interested:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2015/01/26/government-policies-caused-the-financial-crisis-and-made-the-recession-worse/

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

https://www.aei.org/publication/how-government-failure-caused-the-great-recession/

And you'll point to other sources, and on, and on. I've already had this argument. I'm not going to get into it again.

I'm off to dinner.

forbes, spectator and aei?

Well, let me just pull of Mother Jones, and the Nation to show that it was not government policy that caused the collapse.

Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that a repeal of the most stringent and important bank regulations bill was followed by MORE regulations.

1929 - Economic collapse into Great Depression; Glass-Steagall is created to prevent the same from happening again;

70 years of relative stability

1999 - Glass Steagall repealed

2007 - 2008 - second greatest economic collapse in US history, near second Depression, around bad banking practices.

None of that is a coincidence, Beagles.

As for Bill Clinton's comment (I do appreciate that suddenly Bill Clinton is a truth teller and a conservative is using him as a source! Lol):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

"Our research shows the law’s demise was part of a broad deregulatory push that greatly contributed to the financial crisis. But Clinton has a point that a direct line from the 1999 repeal to the market crash in 2007-08 is hard to identify."

"By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton's statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasn’t very meaningful. It's a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn't find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clinton’s claim Mostly True."

Your timeline is awfully simplistic and ignores a whole lot of other factors affecting national markets. As Politifact stated, no economists claim the demise of Glass-Steagall caused the crisis.

It's a pretty big leap to just decide that eight years after a law was repealed, it suddenly led to a market collapse. It would be quite amazing if one magical law (which had already been chipped away at for decades) kept things perfect for 70 years (and I think you are ignoring some market ups and downs in there) and then its repeal made the whole market collapse suddenly... or, well, eight years later.

Also, you'll notice I said government policies were the cause of the collapse. If you had looked at the links (which are not inherently invalid because of where they came from), you'd see a list of specific policies that drove reckless lending behavior, specifically the Community Reinvestment Act. The involvement of Fannie and Freddie were also issues, among many other government policies interfering with the free market.

But, again, we are NOT going to agree. I will NOT be drawn into an argument about this. This is the last I'm commenting on this particular issue, which is a deviation from the topic.

Also, as one last point, I am not in favor of NO regulation. I am against overly burdensome federal regulation. The government must pass laws to protect public safety and property rights, but should not intrude unnecessarily into the free market.... especially because, when it does, it so often incentivizes failure.

You're not understanding, Beagles.

Yes, your links are inherently invalid because of where they came from. Those are very right-wing sites.

The CRA had NOTHING to do with the collapse. You say 8 years between the repeal of a bill and the collapse shows no correlation, but you say the CRA, from the 1970s did???

You claimed it was government policies and regulations that led to the collapse, but in fact, regulations were getting lax, fewer in fact, the government was practicing lesser oversight and imposing regulations.

The CRA nonsense is just the right wing, per usual, blaming poor people. But in fact,t if you want a loan repaid, loan to a poor person. They're called micro loans, and they have a very high rate of repayment.

However, there is a DIRECT correlation between the collapse of 1929, Glass-Steagall being created in 1933 as a result of the collapse, relative stability for the next half century, and then came the weakening of government regulations and oversights, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall..and voila! Another 1929. That is NOT simplistic. it's recognizing patterns and correlations.

Here you go. a few better sources:

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

Removing barriers helped consolidate the banking industry."

"As they grew, the large
banks pressed regulators, state legislatures, and Congress to remove almost all re-
maining barriers to growth and competition."

"Deregulation went beyond dismantling regulations"

Entire report on the economic collapse. CRA was NOT a factor

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

You don't say. A report prepared by government sources, did not blame the government!

CRA combined with other government policies was the causal factor. Not CRA alone. And I'm not saying REGULATIONS were the cause. I'm saying the government POLICIES interfering with the free market were the cause.

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.

You can take information from right and left wing sources and consider the validity of the points made. There are smart people on both sides of the aisle, and you can look at facts, charts, and statistics in the articles I provided (and many more) that explain the policies leading to the collapse.

And there I go being drawn into this argument... I'm not doing it. Nope. I'm done.

"The CRA called on banks and thrifts to invest, lend, and service areas where they
took in deposits, so long as these activities didn’t impair their own financial safety
and soundness. It directed regulators to consider CRA performance whenever a bank
or thrift applied for regulatory approval for mergers, to open new branches, or to en-
gage in new businesses.

The CRA encouraged banks to lend to borrowers to whom they may have previ-
ously denied credit. While these borrowers often had lower-than-average income, a
 study indicated that loans made under the CRA performed consistently with
the rest of the banks’ portfolios, suggesting CRA lending was not riskier than the
banks’ other lending. “There is little or no evidence that banks’ safety and sound-
ness have been compromised by such lending, and bankers often report sound busi-
ness opportunities,” Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said of CRA lending
in ."

"During the s, various federal agencies had taken increasing notice of abusive
subprime lending practices. But the regulatory system was not well equipped to re-
spond consistently—and on a national basis—to protect borrowers. "

Beagles, the government was DEREGULATING!

Cripes.

And the GPO is non-partisan. and does tho protect the government. Good grief.

The report was prepared by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

The Commission's final report was initially due on December 15, 2010, but was not released until January 27, 2011. In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Democrats Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Republicans Boehner and McConnell) all dissenting

Also... Not being drawn in. Not conceding your point- just not being drawn in.

As noted, the CRA was the (typical) scapegoat the right-wing fell back on because of its contempt for not only poor people but for black people, Ie: inner cities. However,r the CRA had nothing to do with the collapse. The government in fact was in a big DEREGULATION mode, which allowed the banks to conflate with investment vehicles and THAT is what caused it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/loans-to-low-income-households-did-not-cause-the-financial-crisis/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/inequality_and_crash_1

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24504598.html

Ok. Once again- I am not saying too many REGULATIONS caused the problem. I am saying government POLICIES caused the problem. Government incentivizing banks (and in some cases forcing- yes with regulations... just of a different type) to do things that would not make sense in a free market.

You have links, I have links. I could post 20 more. Then you could. I'm not conceding your point- but I'm not being drawn in.

Only "gov't policy" you can name, though, is the CRA, which did NOT have anything to do with the collapse.

It's n't that your'e not being drawn in, Beagles. It's that you are stubbornly sticking to what you WANT to believe is the case, the cruel, racist and classist garbage you were fed by right-wing media. It simply doesn't even make sense that the CRA had anything do with it, but you don't seem to want to understand why it makes no sense.

I've provided the actual report of findings on the collapse. You are feel to "not be drawn in" to read it and actually be informed, but turning something as serious as what happened in 2008 into so ideological/partisan anti-gov't platform is very irresponsible.

No. I could list multiple government policies, coming together, to create the crisis. But I won't... because I am not being drawn in.

The report on the findings of the collapse to which you refer was passed on partisan lines. In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines. I've read the report, as well as a great deal of other information... from the sources you provided, as well as from many other sources. You are also free to read the information I provide too. I could argue that you also stubbornly believe information fed to you by the left wing media. Everything is partisan in this country now.

I am very well informed on this issue- I read about things, from both sides of the aisles, and I form opinions. Just as you do. Mine aren't changing, and neither are yours. Which is why I am not being drawn in.

Except you keep going on ad nauseum about the same thing. Sigh.

Well, the same could be said about the other person in the discussion, it takes two right, so we shouldn't be insulting/picking on one, or the other, because we might not agree with their personal views/ideas.

There is also the option of skipping the thread if you are tired of reading about someone's views/ideas.

Except, Chispa, the other person isn't saying she isn't going to be drawn in....after days of debating the issue, nor is she accusing the other person of trying to "draw her in" simply because beagles is putting forth her position.

I saw it as Beagles not wanting to switch from a healthcare debate to a financial one, in the same thread, and not as attacking the other person in the discussion.

Neither of you is going to change your mind or be persuaded. I accept that. One of the many great things about the US, freedom of speech :-)

How could you read it as Beagles not wanting to switch....when she'd been arguing all along, i.e.: already "been drawn in", that it was government policies that caused the banks to fail?

Doesn't make sense

I read her "not being drawn in" as meaning she was not willing to look at information that might refute what she wants to believe.

No. I meant I didn't want to be drawn into an argument on why the banks failed, particularly since I've already had this argument in another thread. Sorry if that was not clear- I meant that I was not going to get into a long debate on that particular issue. You are right, I should not have posted about it at all and should have just stuck with my initial statement that I wasn't being drawn in to a discussion on that particular issue.

I have no problem reading information from all sources- right and left- but I've already read extensively on the issue (including the posted report) I remain confident that the evidence supports my position, just as you remain confident the evidence supports yours :)

Beagles, it wasn't clear because you'd been arguing your position on it for a while before you said you wouldn't be drawn in, which you only said after I put up some pretty reliable information about the whole unraveling. It was only then that you decided you didn't want to talk about it anymore.

And you dismissed even the government's GAO report on the failure! To say you have no problem reading info. from all sources, when you outright rejected that, is rather disingenuous.

The first thing I said when you switched to this topic is I didn't want to go into it again. See here:

I'm pretty sure I already had this argument about why it was government policy, not under-regulation, that led to the financial crisis. Was it with someone else in a different thread?

I"m not having that argument again.

Then, I took the bait- which I should NOT have- I should have just left it alone (As I said- you were right- I shouldn't have started arguing on the issue). I tried to pull back at every phase of posting on the issue, but I started to let myself be drawn in to an argument I did not want to have.

I also indicated I have read the report in the past, prior to its posting here and I briefly mentioned one of the many reasons I disagree with its conclusions. There are multiple reasons I do not agree the report is an accurate assessment of what occurred, including - but by no means limited to- the fact it was a partisan report.

It was prepared by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (not the Government Accountability Office) and was passed along partisan lines. In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Democrats Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Republicans Boehner and McConnell) all dissenting.

I will NOT get into an argument about why I believe the collapse was caused by intersecting government policies.

That's what I said at the start... then I started to be drawn in to that argument... and I should not have, and I won't be.

It's not because I find your posted information more reliable then everything else I've read (which has been extensive) or because I feel I can't make a convincing argument in the counter-direction.

It's because I don't want to have an argument on an entirely unrelated issue to this thread, which I have already had in the past, and which there will be no winner of because you are never going to agree with me and I am never going to agree with you.

Sorry, Beagles, again, you are being disingenuous. You were arguing that the government is always bad, incompetent, etc., and that health care, including the VA, should be privatized. All I did was point out that it was the government to whom the supposedly bullet-proof and fabulous private sector ran when it took the economy down.

YOU then responded with the CRA/government policies did it stuff. No one dragged you into anything. I was merely pointing out that the private sector went to the government for help when it needed it ,which was a fact. I did not bring up WHY the banks failed, you did that.

So again, it's disingenuous of you, or anyone, to accuse me of having tried to drag you into anything. And yes, when you brought up the usual right-wing canard, the CRA, I responded to it because it is a false, racist, and classist argument.

And I pointed out that the government was stupid to bail out failed businesses, and that subsidization of failure is a big part of what is wrong with big government.

I'm not sure why or how the topic of why the bank failure came up, when it has virtually nothing to do with healthcare... but either way, I don't want to have the argument and I should not have started to get into the argument.

I did not mean to be disingenuous, I'm sorry if you see it that way. I also was not trying to accuse you of trying to drag me into an argument. I was simply trying to say that I was not going to have an argument about the cause of the crash at this point. I'm sorry if it came across that I was trying to accuse you of anything.

I disagree with your assertion that the argument is a false, racist and classist argument. But you can and will continue to believe that, no matter what I post to refute it.

You two need to get a room.

I think we've got one, Cindy!

I'm done discussing this. Only reason I came back in is because I was being accused of something that I not only did not do, i.e.: "try to drag Beagles into a discussion about why the banks failed", but I was being accused of something I didn't do by the person who actually opened that can of worms. I have no problem with disagreement, I but don't like being accused of things I haven't done, and I don't like it when people don't take responsibility for what they do do, esp. when they try to put it on someone else.

And I came back because I thought I was being accused of something I did not do - namely refuse to read information I disagreed with. I certainly didn't mean to imply you were trying to drag me into the discussion- I just meant that I didn't want to let myself get caught up in such a discussion. Poor phrasing on my part.

I think it was a misunderstanding, and I'm also done.... Until next time, Tibbrix ;)

FWIW, this discussion (well most of it, anyway) would seem to be more appropriate for the 'Hot Topics' forum.

& also FWIW, I had to chuckle after a quick command + F shows 78 (very long) comments by beaglesdoitbetter - pretty good for someone who did not want to get drawn in....

Beagles, you said, "I'm not sure why or how the topic of why the bank failure came up, when it has virtually nothing to do with healthcare... So, I looked and this statement of yours was the first I found that moved away from health care:

"And government regulations and involvement in the mortgage market led to that collapse."

carolb_w_fl, I wanted to be involved in the discussion on health care- not an argument on the reason for the bank collapse.

Yes, cyn427, I did say that... I believe I said it in response to a comment in which the bank failure was brought up as an example used to demonstrate a failure of the private sector in which the government stepped in. I did indicate that I did not believe the bank failure was a failure of the free market and that I did not believe the bank bailout was a triumph of government. Guess you are right. Thanks.

My apologies, Beagles. You did say that in response to another poster's comment about your contention that Medicare will fail.

People are going to argue the chronology of events with a lawyer? If anyone is paying attention to and knows the sequence and consequence of the discussion, I think they would be the one. Day in, day out, logic is what they do.

Definitely was drawn into the argument, small wonder. But no matter how many times Beagles said no, she had already argued that one elsewhere and really didn't want to continue, the attack continued. Like a lawyer is going to drop an argument when they disagree. Common sense what occurred here.