Healthcare reform effects start today

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I wonder which will occur first: Democrats improving the changes further or Republicans repealing the system...Logan1616

Something like half of the people who disapprove of the health care reform that was passed disapprove because they felt the law didn't go far enough. No way it's getting repealed.

Huh? It's only 12:17 AM on a Saturday night.

[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Something like half of the people who disapprove of the health care reform that was passed disapprove because they felt the law didn't go far enough. No way it's getting repealed.

GabuEx

Huh? It's only 12:17 AM on a Saturday night.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Logan1616"] Gabu, why are you up so late?Logan1616

Huh? It's only 12:17 AM on a Saturday night.

[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Huh? It's only 12:17 AM on a Saturday night.

jaydough

Canadian citizenship, living in Washington state.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="Logan1616"] I remembered you live in WA right as I posted. It's 2:19 here in Minnesota on Sunday. I want football already. ;)GabuEx

Canadian citizenship, living in Washington state.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="jaydough"] I thought he was Canadian.

jaydough

Canadian citizenship, living in Washington state.

[QUOTE="jaydough"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Canadian citizenship, living in Washington state.

Logan1616

[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="jaydough"] Eh, close enough.

jaydough

I'm also not sure how living in America affects my status as a Canadian, either. :P

[QUOTE="Logan1616"][QUOTE="jaydough"] Eh, close enough.

jaydough

Mark this day, you will thank Obama later.GazaAli

No one ever said that those benefits are bad, but the price tag of those benefits is going to be tremendous both for insurance companies and the government. Who is going to pay the price when someone has a preventative procedure that doesn't have a co-pay for example? The insurance companies sure aren't going to take a loss on those, they will just raise the price of the policy in order to make money. This is going to be the result of all of these benefits.

(Also, I should note that what Pixel-Pirate said was a rock-solid point against what you said. You said that people shouldn't be forced to do something against their will, yet you then agreed that people can be forced to pay taxes against their will.)

GabuEx

And I then explained what I meant more clearly because, let's face it, I don't always get my point across the first go around.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

(Also, I should note that what Pixel-Pirate said was a rock-solid point against what you said. You said that people shouldn't be forced to do something against their will, yet you then agreed that people can be forced to pay taxes against their will.)

airshocker

And I then explained what I meant more clearly because, let's face it, I don't always get my point across the first go around.

Fair enough. Although to be honest I'm not quite sure what you meant, as in a later post you seemed to reaffirm the assertion that one should not force one to do what that person doesn't want to do.

No one ever said that those benefits are bad, but the price tag of those benefits is going to be tremendous both for insurance companies and the government. Who is going to pay the price when someone has a preventative procedure that doesn't have a co-pay for example? The insurance companies sure aren't going to take a loss on those, they will just raise the price of the policy in order to make money. This is going to be the result of all of these benefits.

Jacobistheman

I disagree. I think this logic is what eventually leads to revolutions that ultimately destroy societies. There is nothing intrinsic to the being of a wealthy person that ultimately entitles them to a ridiculously comfortable lifestyle at the expense of the time, money, and humanness of the millions of less fortunate. The whole point of having a society is to create an environment that is beneficial and livable for all people involved. It is not supposed to be a means for a few to exploit the many and get away with it for no other reason than that is how the die roll of chance went.

QuetzaIcoatl

Is a wealthy person not a free person just like you and I? Last time I checked, we were all born free men and have the exact same rights. So where do you get off telling one side they should give more just because you think it's their duty?

The vast majority of wealthy people aren't exploiting anybody. Until you can provide proof that every single one of them sacrifice poor people to the dark gods of prosperity, I'm not going to buy into your statement.

Like people have said the problem here is the price that we are gonna pay. This wouldn't be a problem I guess if the market was socialised so they could deal with the prices of these services, but that would open a whole 'nother can of worm that people just don't want deal with.

So I am kinda ok with what is gonna be given, being that the alternatives that have been presented just don't seem as plausible. for now.

Fair enough. Although to be honest I'm not quite sure what you meant, as in a later post you seemed to reaffirm the assertion that one should not force one to do what that person doesn't want to do.

GabuEx

My statement was too broad, there are certain things everyone is expected to do: Paying taxes for the basic things that benefit the entire country are one of them.

But when you have one group paying for another's medical bills, social security, welfare, etc, then I think the government is over-stepping their bounds.

Take the Hulk Hogan example again. If the Hulk wants to be charitable and offer his services to move whatever, he is more than free to do so. But to expect him to do it, even punish him if he doesn't, is wrong.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Fair enough. Although to be honest I'm not quite sure what you meant, as in a later post you seemed to reaffirm the assertion that one should not force one to do what that person doesn't want to do.

airshocker

My statement was too broad, there are certain things everyone is expected to do: Paying taxes for the basic things that benefit the entire country are one of them.

But when you have one group paying for another's medical bills, social security, welfare, etc, then I think the government is over-stepping their bounds.

Take the Hulk Hogan example again. If the Hulk wants to be charitable and offer his services to move whatever, he is more than free to do so. But to expect him to do it, even punish him if he doesn't, is wrong.

But someone has to carry that load. "No one" is not an acceptable answer in society. So in that situation who would be more able to carry the load?

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]

I disagree. I think this logic is what eventually leads to revolutions that ultimately destroy societies. There is nothing intrinsic to the being of a wealthy person that ultimately entitles them to a ridiculously comfortable lifestyle at the expense of the time, money, and humanness of the millions of less fortunate. The whole point of having a society is to create an environment that is beneficial and livable for all people involved. It is not supposed to be a means for a few to exploit the many and get away with it for no other reason than that is how the die roll of chance went.

airshocker

Is a wealthy person not a free person just like you and I? Last time I checked, we were all born free men and have the exact same rights. So where do you get off telling one side they should give more just because you think it's their duty?

The vast majority of wealthy people aren't exploiting anybody. Until you can provide proof that every single one of them sacrifice poor people to the dark gods of prosperity, I'm not going to buy into your statement.

I am not saying that every wealthy person is a terrible person as much as I am saying that this is, in fact, a problem in our society. We were all born free and supposedly equal people, so let me flip your question around and ask you why someone deserves to live an extravagant life while another struggles to survive on a daily basis? How do you define freedom? Are the lower classes ability to choose between working at Mcdonalds and working at Burger King true freedom?

I am not saying the rich deserve to be punished, but the fact is that the poor are already being punished every day. Society needs to find a better way to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor, between the laborer and the CEO.

But someone has to carry that load. "No one" is not an acceptable answer in society. So in that situation who would be more able to carry the load?

Pixel-Pirate

Hulk, obviously, but that's the problem. You can't just force someone to do something because they're better able. That goes against every principle this country stands on.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Fair enough. Although to be honest I'm not quite sure what you meant, as in a later post you seemed to reaffirm the assertion that one should not force one to do what that person doesn't want to do.

airshocker

My statement was too broad, there are certain things everyone is expected to do: Paying taxes for the basic things that benefit the entire country are one of them.

But when you have one group paying for another's medical bills, social security, welfare, etc, then I think the government is over-stepping their bounds.

Take the Hulk Hogan example again. If the Hulk wants to be charitable and offer his services to move whatever, he is more than free to do so. But to expect him to do it, even punish him if he doesn't, is wrong.

Health insurance seems like a rather basic thing that benefits the entire country.

The vast majority of wealthy people are in fact exploiting the lower classes. It is virtually a requirement for a pure capitalist economy to work. We are not purely capitalist but still in ours those at the top of the economy (business owners) naturally are going to pay the lowest possible wages they can get away with to the laborers for the sake of profits.

I am not saying that every wealthy person is a terrible person as much as I am saying that this is, in fact, a problem in our society. We were all born free and supposedly equal people, so let me flip your question around and ask you why someone deserves to live an extravagant life while another struggles to survive on a daily basis? How do you define freedom? Are the lower classes ability to choose between working at Mcdonalds and working at Burger King true freedom?

I am not saying the rich deserve to be punished, but the fact is that the poor are already being punished every day. Society needs to find a better way to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor, between the laborer and the CEO.

QuetzaIcoatl

And we have checks to make sure people are paid a fair wage for their work. If you don't like making minimum wage, do something with your life.

We are all born free and equal, but what we end up becoming might not be that way. Some people will always out-perform others. It is a waste of resources to focus on a group that might not want to work as hard as another group to do so. That happens. That's life. No, it's not fair, but it's not the government's job to correct. The government is there to provide you the CHANCE for happiness. You aren't guaranteed happiness itself. If I become rich and I want to leave my money to my kids so they can live comfortably their entire lives, that is my choice.

The gap doesn't need to be closed. So long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed in this country, and they do, that is all we should be asking for from the government.

Health insurance seems like a rather basic thing that benefits the entire country.

GabuEx

Agreed. But you shouldn't be forced to own it if you don't want it.

We are all born ... equal

airshocker

I can't exactly agree with that. Someone born into a rich family has a much better chance at being successful in life. Better chances at education, more resources, better neighborhood... the works.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Health insurance seems like a rather basic thing that benefits the entire country.

airshocker

Agreed. But you shouldn't be forced to own it if you don't want it.

Wait, you agree with that? You just mentioned "one group paying for another's medical bills" as something that shouldn't happen.

The gap doesn't need to be closed. So long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed in this country, and they do, that is all we should be asking for from the government.

airshocker

Agreed...Let's look at a success story. Steve Jobs didn't have a college degree, yet he founded Apple. Anyone can realize a dream if they apply themselves.

Wait, you agree with that? You just mentioned "one group paying for another's medical bills" as something that shouldn't happen.

GabuEx

You said health insurance, Gabu. Health insurance is good.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

The gap doesn't need to be closed. So long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed in this country, and they do, that is all we should be asking for from the government.

topsemag55

Agreed...Let's look at a success story. Steve Jobs didn't have a college degree, yet he founded Apple. Anyone can realize a dream if they apply themselves.

See, the thing I hate about this sort of statement is that it necessarily implies that every single poor person who doesn't become like Steve Jobs in their lifetime only failed to do so because they were lazy, and that they therefore deserve their current state of affairs because it's their fault they're still poor.

And that, frankly, is rather offensive.

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]

The vast majority of wealthy people are in fact exploiting the lower classes. It is virtually a requirement for a pure capitalist economy to work. We are not purely capitalist but still in ours those at the top of the economy (business owners) naturally are going to pay the lowest possible wages they can get away with to the laborers for the sake of profits.

I am not saying that every wealthy person is a terrible person as much as I am saying that this is, in fact, a problem in our society. We were all born free and supposedly equal people, so let me flip your question around and ask you why someone deserves to live an extravagant life while another struggles to survive on a daily basis? How do you define freedom? Are the lower classes ability to choose between working at Mcdonalds and working at Burger King true freedom?

I am not saying the rich deserve to be punished, but the fact is that the poor are already being punished every day. Society needs to find a better way to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor, between the laborer and the CEO.

airshocker

And we have checks to make sure people are paid a fair wage for their work. If you don't like making minimum wage, do something with your life.

We are all born free and equal, but what we end up becoming might not be that way. Some people will always out-perform others. It is a waste of resources to focus on a group that might not want to work as hard as another group to do so. That happens. That's life. No, it's not fair, but it's not the government's job to correct. The government is there to provide you the CHANCE for happiness. You aren't guaranteed happiness itself. If I become rich and I want to leave my money to my kids so they can live comfortably their entire lives, that is my choice.

The gap doesn't need to be closed. So long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed in this country, and they do, that is all we should be asking for from the government.

I am not sure where you live and what you have seen, but if you think that being rich is directly proportionate to how hard you work, then i question whether you have seen the true American economic system maybe watch this video and read this book.

The problem is not with the work ethic of the lower CIasses, the problem is that our economic system REQUIRES that a majority of jobs in it be low wage regardless of how qualified an individual is. Are there avenues that are available to get higher paying jobs? Yes. Are these avenues available to everyone? Not even close.

You can hide behind this idea that a majority of those that live lavish lives where they don't even have to show up to work if they don't want to somehow deserve to make 50 times more than laborers who struggle everyday to get by. All this "let them eat cake" mindset will lead to is this vast majority of people getting fed up eventually and another revolution. Again the point of society is not to allow a small minority of supposedly "superior" people to live lavish lives off the broken backs of the lower cIasses, but to create an economic and cultural system that benefits all of the members within it. Those "superior" people need the working cIass much more than the working CIass needs them.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Wait, you agree with that? You just mentioned "one group paying for another's medical bills" as something that shouldn't happen.

airshocker

You said health insurance, Gabu. Health insurance is good.

Now I'm confused. Are you for or against government-provided or government-funded universal health insurance?

Now I'm confused. Are you for or against government-provided or government-funded universal health insurance?

GabuEx

I'm against government-provided healthcare.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Now I'm confused. Are you for or against government-provided or government-funded universal health insurance?

airshocker

I'm against government-provided healthcare.

...But... you just said that paying taxes for basic things that benefit everyone is something that one is expected to do, and you also just said that health insurance is a basic thing that benefits everyone...

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

The gap doesn't need to be closed. So long as everyone has the opportunity to succeed in this country, and they do, that is all we should be asking for from the government.

GabuEx

Agreed...Let's look at a success story. Steve Jobs didn't have a college degree, yet he founded Apple. Anyone can realize a dream if they apply themselves.

See, the thing I hate about this sort of statement is that it necessarily implies that every single poor person who doesn't become like Steve Jobs in their lifetime only failed to do so because they were lazy, and that they therefore deserve their current state of affairs because it's their fault they're still poor.

And that, frankly, is rather offensive.

I didn't make that implication, you're over-broadening.:)

I am not sure where you live and what you have seen, but if you think that being rich is directly proportionate to how hard you work, then i question whether you have seen the true American economic system maybe watch this video and read this book.

The problem is not with the work ethic of the lower CIasses, the problem is that our economic system REQUIRES that a majority of jobs in it be low wage regardless of how qualified an individual is. Are there avenues that are available to get higher paying jobs? Yes. Are these avenues available to everyone? Not even close.

You can hide behind this idea that a majority of those that live lavish lives where they don't even have to show up to work if they don't want to somehow deserve to make 50 times more than laborers who struggle everyday to get by. All this "let them eat cake" mindset will lead to is this vast majority of people getting fed up eventually and another revolution. Again the point of society is not to allow a small minority of supposedly "superior" people to live lavish lives off the broken backs of the lower cIasses, but to create an economic and cultural system that benefits all of the members within it. Those "superior" people need the working cIass much more than the working CIass needs them.

QuetzaIcoatl

I'm benefitting from society, and I'm not rich. Last time I checked a rich boogey-man didn't come into my apartment and murder me and my family in our sleep. Or throw a torq around my neck and force me to pick his crops.

I don't see the problems you're insisting are there. Sorry, man.

See, the thing I hate about this sort of statement is that it necessarily implies that every single poor person who doesn't become like Steve Jobs in their lifetime only failed to do so because they were lazy, and that they therefore deserve their current state of affairs because it's their fault they're still poor.

And that, frankly, is rather offensive.

GabuEx

If you take notice, I posted "a dream". I know of a Pakistani couple, whose dream was to lease a storefront and turn it into a successful neighborhood grocery store...they did. They pursued their dream, and accomplished it.

...But... you just said that paying taxes for basic things that benefit everyone is something that one is expected to do, and you also just said that health insurance is a basic thing that benefits everyone...

GabuEx

I've gotten mixed up somewhere along the line. It is five thirty for me and I've been working all day.

I think some forms of contributions(from all of us) to medicare aren't bad. Some people need the help. As long as it's within reason. But should it become a platform for government-run universal healthcare? No.

If the money is used to provide health insurance through some private insurers, I'm okay with that too.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Agreed...Let's look at a success story. Steve Jobs didn't have a college degree, yet he founded Apple. Anyone can realize a dream if they apply themselves.

topsemag55

See, the thing I hate about this sort of statement is that it necessarily implies that every single poor person who doesn't become like Steve Jobs in their lifetime only failed to do so because they were lazy, and that they therefore deserve their current state of affairs because it's their fault they're still poor.

And that, frankly, is rather offensive.

There are at least two serious problems in this country:

1. There is too much focus on providing equally distributed and cheap health care to everyone across all ages. This should never be the case. The primary focus group should be those individuals ages 0-50. During that time, education regarding personal health should be the primary focus with special attention to immunizaiton, fitness, and prevention. Once, you reach age 50, it really should be the luck of the draw. Those that live longer will have earned it. Those that die will likely have suffered for the choices that they've made.

2. The belief by the American people that everyone should live until they're 80-100 years of age is flawed. I'm sorry, but if you've lived such a crappy life that you've developed numerous chronic diseases, then it's probably time to throw in the towel. Living for an extra ten years after a devastating heart attack and spending every day basically drowning in your own secretions at the expense of everyone else really does nothing to benefit society. Death should not be feared and those that make poor decisions as smokers, people that make poordiet choices, individuals with obesity resulting in coronary artery disease/diabetes mellitus/chronic kidney disease, etc. should have to answer for their choices. In fact, many of those people shouldn't even be allowed to receive medical care for the afflictions that they develop. It's one of humanity's greatest blunders that it continues to care for those that bring nothing, but idiocy into the world.

Medical care is a privilege and not a right.To receive the care that you need to live a long and fruitful life, you should have to earnit. Inthe Unitied States, the primary focus after the age of 50should be on comfort care for those who are sick and not the "make a person better by any means necessary"philosophy that permeates families and the healthcare system. There should be no second chances to change. To be honest, the nearly 400 million Americans that exist today really do not need to survive until they are 90. In fact, this entire country would be a much better, and healthier, place if the total population of the United States was about a 10th of that number.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

See, the thing I hate about this sort of statement is that it necessarily implies that every single poor person who doesn't become like Steve Jobs in their lifetime only failed to do so because they were lazy, and that they therefore deserve their current state of affairs because it's their fault they're still poor.

And that, frankly, is rather offensive.

MoonMarvel

"Can" means it is within the realm of possibility, I didn't say that everyone would be winners.

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]

I am not sure where you live and what you have seen, but if you think that being rich is directly proportionate to how hard you work, then i question whether you have seen the true American economic system maybe watch this video and read this book.

The problem is not with the work ethic of the lower CIasses, the problem is that our economic system REQUIRES that a majority of jobs in it be low wage regardless of how qualified an individual is. Are there avenues that are available to get higher paying jobs? Yes. Are these avenues available to everyone? Not even close.

You can hide behind this idea that a majority of those that live lavish lives where they don't even have to show up to work if they don't want to somehow deserve to make 50 times more than laborers who struggle everyday to get by. All this "let them eat cake" mindset will lead to is this vast majority of people getting fed up eventually and another revolution. Again the point of society is not to allow a small minority of supposedly "superior" people to live lavish lives off the broken backs of the lower cIasses, but to create an economic and cultural system that benefits all of the members within it. Those "superior" people need the working cIass much more than the working CIass needs them.

airshocker

I'm benefitting from society, and I'm not rich. Last time I checked a rich boogey-man didn't come into my apartment and murder me and my family in our sleep. Or throw a torq around my neck and force me to pick his crops.

I don't see the problems you're insisting are there. Sorry, man.

I don't really appreciate that you keep misconstruing my views to make it seem as though I hate rich people. I don't hate rich people anymore than you hate poor people ( I am assuming you don't hate poor people). I only recognize a problem within American society that you are either unaware of or don't feel like it has impacted you enough, if at all. You claim that there is no problem and that everyone (or at least most) deserves to be where they are economically, but it is an objective fact that this is just wrong. This is not a fair system that gives everyone a chance. This is a system that for the most part:

1. Preserves the status of the rich

2.Increases the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

3. Cherry picks the extremely exceptional from the lower CIassess to join the upper CIass. Leaving the rest as economic slaves.

I have been to and seen sides of America (and there are a lot of them) where people are extremely unsatisfied with the current economic climate, and I don't just mean since the start of the recession.

I always find it funny when people mention "poor people success stories" without the context of how it happened. Like JK Rowling (lived off the government for years), Bill gates (was privledged. How many kids in 1960 did you know who owned a computer?)

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]In your opinion...don't say it's mine, you don't know me at all.

topsemag55

"Can" means it is within the realm of possibility, I didn't say that everyone would be winners.

Technically not everyone can realize their dream, no.

Well, if you don't have a problem with the current system and find satisfaction hand happiness from it, more power to you. I think if we had a better system you could find more satisfaction and happiness than you do now, but to each his own.

I don't really appreciate that you keep misconstruing my views to make it seem as though I hate rich people. I don't hate rich people anymore than you hate poor people ( I am assuming you don't hate poor people). I only recognize a problem within American society that you are either unaware of or don't feel like it has impacted you enough, if at all. You claim that there is no problem and that everyone (or at least most) deserves to be where they are economically, but it is an objective fact that this is just wrong. This is not a fair system that gives everyone a chance. This is a system that for the most part:

1. Preserves the status of the rich

2.Increases the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

3. Cherry picks the extremely exceptional from the lower CIassess to join the upper CIass. Leaving the rest as economic slaves.

I have been to and seen sides of America (and there are a lot of them) where people are extremely unsatisfied with the current economic climate, and I don't just mean since the start of the recession.

QuetzaIcoatl

Oh I could definitely find more satisfaction and happiness in my life, if my taxes were lowered considerably and our government became responsible.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"] I agree with GabuEx. unless thats not what you meant I find it rather offensive as well. You could find millions of people who work their behinds off only to end up nowhere in life. For every 1 success story there are 100 failures. (Thats not a factual number, just a saying)

"Can" means it is within the realm of possibility, I didn't say that everyone would be winners.

Technically not everyone can realize their dream, no.

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"]

Well, if you don't have a problem with the current system and find satisfaction hand happiness from it, more power to you. I think if we had a better system you could find more satisfaction and happiness than you do now, but to each his own.

I don't really appreciate that you keep misconstruing my views to make it seem as though I hate rich people. I don't hate rich people anymore than you hate poor people ( I am assuming you don't hate poor people). I only recognize a problem within American society that you are either unaware of or don't feel like it has impacted you enough, if at all. You claim that there is no problem and that everyone (or at least most) deserves to be where they are economically, but it is an objective fact that this is just wrong. This is not a fair system that gives everyone a chance. This is a system that for the most part:

1. Preserves the status of the rich

2.Increases the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

3. Cherry picks the extremely exceptional from the lower CIassess to join the upper CIass. Leaving the rest as economic slaves.

I have been to and seen sides of America (and there are a lot of them) where people are extremely unsatisfied with the current economic climate, and I don't just mean since the start of the recession.

airshocker

Oh I could definitely find more satisfaction and happiness in my life, if my taxes were lowered considerably and our government became responsible.

[QUOTE="MoonMarvel"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]In your opinion...don't say it's mine, you don't know me at all.

topsemag55

"Can" means it is within the realm of possibility, I didn't say that everyone would be winners.

But that's not what you said. You did say that it would garner 100% success: "Anyone can realize a dream if they apply themselves." This is a direct if-then statement: if one applies oneself, one can realize a dream. And this also has a very obvious contrapositive to it: if one does not realize a dream, then one did not apply oneself. Your statement carried with it the undeniable corollary that anyone with an unfulfilled dream has that dream unfulfilled because they did not apply themselves. Which is exactly what I said.

The statement that anyone can achieve their dream if they really try, while it sounds nice on paper, carries with it undeniably offensive implications for everyone on Earth who has failed to achieve their dreams. Sometimes someone's best really just isn't good enough. And those are the people that need help.