Your Wages Garnisheed? [policital]

[R. Richard]

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
This is easily the most insane thing that I have read recently. Hillary wants to force you to have health insurance. If you don't voluntarily pay for health insurance, she wants to garnishee your wages. Hillary says, "health care will be affordable for everyone," because she would limit premium payments, "to a low percent of your income."

You are a single parent, trying desperately to furnish your children with such luxuries as a roof over their heads [rent,] enough heat that they don't freeze [utilities,] food, clothing and even a bit of doctoring. You are barely making it. Each month sees a race to the finish line between your take home pay and the bills. Now, Hillary comes in and says, "All I want is a low 5% of your pay. If you don't pay, I take it from your wages."

You say, "I can't afford it!"

Hillary says, "Let the kids starve, health care is my dream! Anyone can afford 5%."

I say, "It may be 5% now, but it will grow, as taxes do. It will force people out of jobs where garnisheement of wages will result in termination of employment. It will force people into the underground economy, where there are no taxes and no safety.

If you like Hillary's plan and yo0u are a low income, perhaps single parent, I would suggest that you learn one of two phrases:
Girls: "Fuckee, suckee!"
Boys, "This be a dime bag, cash and carry."


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

This is easily the most insane thing that I have read recently. Hillary wants to force you to have health insurance. If you don't voluntarily pay for health insurance, she wants to garnishee your wages. Hillary says, "health care will be affordable for everyone," because she would limit premium payments, "to a low percent of your income."

The price structure may need to change (people below a certain income should pay zero premium) but the concept is valid. Middle-income Americans are paying a fortune through employer-sponsored health insurance that they have no control over (Sorry, I'm not going to work for you? I don't like the the health plan? Yeah, right.). Why not just pay the government and let them handle it rather than pay through our employer? Let's just get this over with, have a centralized health care system like the rest of the freakin' civilized world, and stop ruining our business competitiveness and bogging down our economy by tying health insurance to employment!

 

[R. Richard]

The price structure may need to change (people below a certain income should pay zero premium) but the concept is valid. Middle-income Americans are paying a fortune through employer-sponsored health insurance that they have no control over (Sorry, I'm not going to work for you? I don't like the the health plan? Yeah, right.). Why not just pay the government and let them handle it rather than pay through our employer? Let's just get this over with, have a centralized health care system like the rest of the freakin' civilized world, and stop ruining our business competitiveness and bogging down our economy by tying health insurance to employment!

Because, you can quit your job if things get too bad at work. You can't quit the government.

Let's just take a look at the UK, where they do have a centralized government controlled health care system. If you are a cigarette smoker, too fat or too elderly, you may not be able to get health care. It turns out that it is just too expensive and some of the citizens have to go over the side of the lifeboat. Aint no problem, as long as its the other bloke goes over the side.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's incredible to me how many blue-collar people were bamboozled into hating the Clintons for their health plan by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Now, half of those same Blue-collar guys are out of work and applying to the states for help.

At that time, I had a great job, part-time. My boss, a Limbaugh listener, was very proud and happy to tell me that he was making me full-time and giving me health insurance. That lasted about six months, and then he couldn't afford paying for all of his employees-- so I lost the job. I told him I now had no job and no insurance, and I'd rather have one job-- so that at least I could afford the cheapest clinics.

What the fuck ever.

Let's just take a look at the UK, where they do have a centralized government controlled health care system. If you are a cigarette smoker, too fat or too elderly, you may not be able to get health care. It turns out that it is just too expensive and some of the citizens have to go over the side of the lifeboat. Aint no problem, as long as its the other bloke goes over the side.

At least there IS a lifeboat. There is no lifeboat at all here in the U.S. My children have lived most of their lives without adequate health insurance. Right now, we have Medi-Cal. The tax-payers of California are paying for us. I don't think that's fair, but there is no in-between.

 

[sr71plt]

I amazes me that people do seem to want roads and schools and a whole range of protection mechanisms and to have access to health care when/as/to the level they need it--but they somehow think it's going to be someone else other than them who pays for it.

The "affordable" part of any services plan is in the economies of scale of everyman oaring in one direction in the same boat--it isn't in getting it all for yourself with someone else footing the bill.

 

[starrkers]

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
This is easily the most insane thing that I have read recently. Hillary wants to force you to have health insurance. If you don't voluntarily pay for health insurance, she wants to garnishee your wages. Hillary says, "health care will be affordable for everyone," because she would limit premium payments, "to a low percent of your income."

You are a single parent, trying desperately to furnish your children with such luxuries as a roof over their heads [rent,] enough heat that they don't freeze [utilities,] food, clothing and even a bit of doctoring. You are barely making it. Each month sees a race to the finish line between your take home pay and the bills. Now, Hillary comes in and says, "All I want is a low 5% of your pay. If you don't pay, I take it from your wages."

You say, "I can't afford it!"

Hillary says, "Let the kids starve, health care is my dream! Anyone can afford 5%."

I say, "It may be 5% now, but it will grow, as taxes do. It will force people out of jobs where garnisheement of wages will result in termination of employment. It will force people into the underground economy, where there are no taxes and no safety.

If you like Hillary's plan and yo0u are a low income, perhaps single parent, I would suggest that you learn one of two phrases:
Girls: "Fuckee, suckee!"
Boys, "This be a dime bag, cash and carry."


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."

That's the way our health system "works". Everyone pays a "Medicare levy" as part of their tax ( it used to be 3% but it's probably gone up, I haven't paid tax for quite a few years). Medicare covers most of the "scheduled fee" of a doctor's visit which would be great if that's what doctors charged, but they tend to charge nearly twice that.
Medicare also covers the cost of hospital stays. If it is an emergency or non-elective procedure and you don't want to choose which doctor looks after you. Unfortunately there is a waiting list for many "non-urgent" procedures of anything up to 2 years (things like hip replacements and knee reconstructions...)
Cost of prescription drugs is also held at around $22 (I think) for drugs on a set list If you're a pensioner or someone on a low income, this is further subsidised to less than $5 (that's me). If the drug is not on the list you pay full freight regardless. Some drugs would be cheaper than $22 if not on the list, but tough titty.
Dentistry is only covered in a dire emergency (and if you live in or near a large city).
If you decide you actually want decent health care, pay for it yourself or get private health insurance. This will cover some of the costs of getting procedures done in a reasonable timeframe by your choice of doctor, and the governemnt subsidises the cost of the premiums.

 

[oggbashan]

Let's just take a look at the UK, where they do have a centralized government controlled health care system. If you are a cigarette smoker, too fat or too elderly, you may not be able to get health care. It turns out that it is just too expensive and some of the citizens have to go over the side of the lifeboat. Aint no problem, as long as its the other bloke goes over the side.

Those are rare exceptions to the general provision of health care for all.

If you are too fat or too elderly, the risks of a proposed operation could be too high. If you have lung problems and will not accept help to stop smoking, then any medical treatment could be useless.

Each case where treatment is refused has significant publicity. Prevention of medical problems is more effective (and generally cheaper) than treating a condition once established. There is still conflict between what is possible and what is affordable within the NHS's budget. Advances in medical science can be extremely expensive and cannot always be afforded even for those in the US who have medical insurance - read the small print of your policies.

The UK's National Health Service does not abandon patients who have long-term incurable problems.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

The UK's National Health Service does not abandon patients who have long-term incurable problems.

Og

Let me give you an example of a 'long-term, incurable problem.' I was working out in a gym. This VERY fat woman came in and talked with the 'counsellor' [sales] ladies. The government would have done something. probably. Her private doctor told her, 'Get out of my office! You weigh some 400 pounds [at maybe an inch or two over five feet in height.] You are going to DIE! Don't come back until you have lost at least 50 pounds.

The woman was scared. They put her on an exercise bike at very low resistance level. After about two minutes, she sounds like she is driving for the finish of the Olympic 1,500 meters. She does a few simple exercises and she nearly passes out. However, she keeps at it and gradually improves. After a time, her doctor takes her back. She has decided to live.

A civil servant can't just abandon a woman, such as I just described. So, the civil servant gives her some pills and watches her die, over the course of not too much time. A private doctor explained her choices and her options. The woman then chose to live. More power to her! More power to the private doctor. Forget the government, I already have a bottle of pills.

I don't claim that private health care is a total answer. However, we have Canadians, who qualify for 'free' government health care come to the US for private treatment. The only US involvement with the Canadian health caer system is for some US consumers to attempt to buy a restricted number of prescription drugs at the low prices the Canadian monopoly system makes possible.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

This... this is why I don't generally trust Democrats (well intentioned and as economically sensible as an eight year old dicking around with SimCity who builds fifty amusement parks so the town is happy and doesn't understand the tax/budgeting part).

Clinton wants some $250 billion in new spending, Obama wants slightly more.

*headdesk*

I love people much, I think helping the poor and destitute is good, and we should all do what we can... but fuck the liberals, fuck them. Fuck them for wanting to take what money I earn (and on my own without any help from them, certainly because things like "minimum wage" have absolutely no effect on my paycheck). Fuck them for wanting to sit on high and take /my/ time and labor and sweat and buy weak sauce and guns and butter for others.

My neighbor is not entitled to my groceries.

Blue Staters are want to spend us into bankruptcy faster than the Bush Admin did... and that's saying something. Hey...! Clinton! You Liberal douche! Why must you take a dump in the punchbowl of MY freedom (remember that word?) for "moral authority" reasons? How is that ANY goddamn different that the religious right pushing for a ban on gay marriage?

Neither are covered by the Constitution. Fuck off.

 

[gauchecritic]

Blue Staters are want to spend us into bankruptcy faster than the Bush Admin did... and that's saying something. Hey...! Clinton! You Liberal douche! Why must you take a dump in the punchbowl of MY freedom (remember that word?) for "moral authority" reasons? How is that ANY goddamn different that the religious right pushing for a ban on gay marriage?

Neither are covered by the Constitution. Fuck off.

One word, without which you would probably not even exist: society.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

One word, without which you would probably not even exist: society.

"Moral Obligation"... "Protect Americans"... and "For the Good of Society"

Remarkably similar to the reasons given for half the atrocities to civil liberties and the Constitution for the last seven years. I really don't want more of it.

One word: Liberty.

 

[angelicminx]

*Caution, vent follows*

IMO, healthcare would be affordable if the cost of healthcare wasn't so fucking high.

I've experienced a few things that have just pissed me off to no end. I had to have a mental evaluation (long story, don't ask. I DID pass.) and had insurance at the time. My copay with insurance was $40.00. If I had NOT had insurance I would only have paid $35.00. WTF?!

My cousin went to the emergency room with stomach pain a few months ago. She signed in, went to triage and then back to the waiting room. When she still hadn't been seen 8 hours later, she left. She was just informed that she had an outstanding balance from the ER of $125.00, because she had her temp, blood pressure and list of symptoms taken in triage.

While I still had insurance through my ex-husband's company, I went through a series of expensive tests to find out what was causing a headache that lasted 28 days and was unresponsive to medication. 6 weeks later, the divorce was final and the insurance cancelled as of two months before the dissolution date. I am now paying a $5000.00 bill out of pocket for the tests.

I do NOT have insurance now. I can't afford the premium, and I've learned just how much insurance doesn't cover. The only time I go to the doctor now is for strep throat or UTI, which require antibotics I know I need and can't get without a prescription, which I can't get without paying the doctor $125.00 to hear him say, "Yep, you're right, you need antibiotics." (Plus any labwork the doc deems is needed to confirm what I already know)

All I can say is, leave my tiny fucking paycheck alone! I can't make ends meet as it is! We are surviving on noodles and peanut butter. Yes, I smoke. My only vice, and I'll give it up when I'm damned good and ready. Why don't we focus on the inflated prices for medical care, and EVERYTHING ELSE.

 

[Liar]

One word, without which you would probably not even exist: society.

One word: Liberty.

And if I read you guys correctly, you can't have one without crapping on the other?

/Liar, official fence-sitter

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And if I read you guys correctly, you can't have one without crapping on the other?

/Liar, official fence-sitter

You can. You just have to have clear ground rules--we have the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it say that I, the citizen, have a moral obligation to (1) peacetime bomb other countries, (2) nation-build overseas, (3) donate to charity, (4) be insured for health care, (5) have an opinion for or against gay marriage, (6) feed or cloth or educate my fellow man (citizen or immigrant or anyone). Amongst other things.

It does tell me that I have obligations, the rule of law is certainly one, but I watch year after year as more and more of the liberties I saw promised there... they dwindle away in the name of social good.

Fuck social good.

Leave me be.

 

[R. Richard]

You can. You just have to have clear ground rules--we have the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it say that I, the citizen, have a moral obligation to (1) peacetime bomb other countries, (2) nation-build overseas, (3) donate to charity, (4) be insured for health care, (5) have an opinion for or against gay marriage, (6) feed or cloth or educate my fellow man (citizen or immigrant or anyone). Amongst other things.

While it doesn't specifically say in the constitution that you must educate your fellow man, you must educate your fellow boy or girl. Each and every state in the union requires kids to go to school and official US government TAXPAYERS to pay for said schools. Sad, but true.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

While it doesn't specifically say in the constitution that you must educate your fellow man, you must educate your fellow boy or girl. Each and every state in the union requires kids to go to school and official US government TAXPAYERS to pay for said schools. Sad, but true.

It doesn't say, specifically or not, in the Constitution that I must educate children. State constitutions may have those kinds of bureaucracies, but the Federal Government isn't structured, by our Constitution, to have anything to do with it.

The Federal Government, however, chooses to pass spending and legislation--independant of Constitutional limitations--that give billions to things like NCLB and the Department of Education to improve education... I find it to be a wasteful bureaucracy--I think No Child Left Behind was a failure.

 

[Guest]

. . .

The Federal Government, however, chooses to pass spending and legislation--independant of Constitutional limitations--that give billions to things like NCLB and the Department of Education to improve education... I find it to be a wasteful bureaucracy--I think No Child Left Behind was a failure.

I completely agree.

 

[Liar]

You can. You just have to have clear ground rules--we have the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it say that I, the citizen, have a moral obligation to (1) peacetime bomb other countries, (2) nation-build overseas, (3) donate to charity, (4) be insured for health care, (5) have an opinion for or against gay marriage, (6) feed or cloth or educate my fellow man (citizen or immigrant or anyone). Amongst other things.

Well yanno. Take any piece of paper with words on it. The Constitution. The UN declaration of human rights. The Bible. The Communist Manifesto. It will say some things and it will leave other things out. Maybe because the author had a bias. Maybe because he ran out of ideas. Maybe because there was no more room on the paper.

But the point is, it's an arbitrary collection of thoughts. And unless one believes it to be of divine origin, and thus infallible, it's kind of amusing to see people swear by it with such religious conviction.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well yanno. Take any piece of paper with words on it. The Constitution. The UN declaration of human rights. The Bible. The Communist Manifesto. It will say some things and it will leave other things out. Maybe because the author had a bias. Maybe because he ran out of ideas. Maybe because there was no more room on the paper.

But the point is, it's an arbitrary collection of thoughts. And unless one believes it to be of divine origin, and thus infallible, it's kind of amusing to see people swear by it with such religious conviction.

It was a document drawn up by the founders of our country intended to place distinct limits on the scope of government's authority, giving the people the power to govern and decide the vast majority of their own lives for themselves. An experiment in liberty, so to speak.

It may be a "documented drafted by men", but it is hardly arbitrary. Its the social contract by which we choose to govern, violations of it is a side-stepping of the checks against governmental power intended to keep people free. When our military swears their oath "to protect and defend the Constitution" or our politicians to "uphold the Constitution"... it's far from arbitrary.

 

[Liar]

It was a document drawn up by the founders of our country intended to place distinct limits on the scope of government's authority, giving the people the power to govern and decide the vast majority of their own lives for themselves. An experiment in liberty, so to speak.

It may be a "documented drafted by men", but it is hardly arbitrary. Its the social contract by which we choose to govern, violations of it is a side-stepping of the checks against governmental power intended to keep people free. When our military swears their oath "to protect and defend the Constitution" or our politicians to "uphold the Constitution"... it's far from arbitrary.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't mean that it's arbitrarily (is that a word?) followed, but that it was, when it was originally written, made up by whatever thoughts and ideals that the founding fathers, at that time and place, for whatever reasons we may speculate, chose to include. Other thoughts and ideals, that they chose to exclude, are naturally not there.

It could and it would look different, perhaps only in chioce of words, perhaps also in content and spirit, had it been written by another bunch of distiguished gentlemen.

I don't see how you can call that anything but arbitrary.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't mean that it's arbitrarily (is that a word?) followed, but that it was, when it was originally written, made up by whatever thoughts and ideals that the founding fathers, at that time and place, for whatever reasons we may speculate, chose to include. Other thoughts and ideals, that they chose to exclude, are naturally not there.

It could and it would look different, perhaps only in chioce of words, perhaps also in content and spirit, had it been written by another bunch of distiguished gentlemen.

I don't see how you can call that anything but arbitrary.

Specially since they had to add the 'bill of rights' later which were all concerned with limiting federal government.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This... this is why I don't generally trust Democrats (well intentioned and as economically sensible as an eight year old dicking around with SimCity who builds fifty amusement parks so the town is happy and doesn't understand the tax/budgeting part).

Clinton wants some $250 billion in new spending, Obama wants slightly more.

*headdesk*

I love people much, I think helping the poor and destitute is good, and we should all do what we can... but fuck the liberals, fuck them. Fuck them for wanting to take what money I earn (and on my own without any help from them, certainly because things like "minimum wage" have absolutely no effect on my paycheck). Fuck them for wanting to sit on high and take /my/ time and labor and sweat and buy weak sauce and guns and butter for others.

My neighbor is not entitled to my groceries.

Blue Staters are want to spend us into bankruptcy faster than the Bush Admin did... and that's saying something. Hey...! Clinton! You Liberal douche! Why must you take a dump in the punchbowl of MY freedom (remember that word?) for "moral authority" reasons? How is that ANY goddamn different that the religious right pushing for a ban on gay marriage?

Neither are covered by the Constitution. Fuck off.

Blue states are net producers of welfare dollars; red states are net consumers.

It's headdesk time again.

 

[SensualCealy]

I don't claim that private health care is a total answer. However, we have Canadians, who qualify for 'free' government health care come to the US for private treatment. The only US involvement with the Canadian health caer system is for some US consumers to attempt to buy a restricted number of prescription drugs at the low prices the Canadian monopoly system makes possible.

It is true that "We" Canadians come over for health treatments, only due to shortage of facilities or shortness of time. However, it isnt FREE for us to have this treatment in the US! Because many of us pay into health insurance (basically what this thread was about) we get extended care coverage which varies in the coverage for out of Province care. If we agree to take the treatments out of Province on the request of the Dr. the government covers a percentage as well-basically taking ownership of the fact there isnt enough treatment centres or drs to do the work.

I think the US has taken advantage of the Canadian "freebees" long enough NOT to have to worry about a few very sick individuals having to "pay" for treatment, lodging, meals, long distance phone charges, laundry services, travel expenses and being hundreds of miles away from loved ones in their delicate time of need.

Buck up, if you want better medical care and more opportunity to use medical services, put some money where your mouth is!
In Canada, we didn't use to have "free" health care, employers saw the benefits of paying into health care on behalf of their employees- healthy employees means better work, less time off. Now a day, if you work for a good company or are on Government assistance, you pay less than $1.00 a day for prescriptions. Its the people who decide not to go to school and get an education who end up with minimum wage jobs that usually end up being sick all the time due to the fact they cant afford medications. I know my dr asks if we have a drug plan before prescribing anything, this way, if he has samples he can give them out, or if you admit you haven't the money to fill the prescription, they have ways of getting it for you. (submitting papers to the government etc.)

Many of our provinces pay higher taxes then your states, someone has to pay to live they way we are accustomed to.
Both governments have to figure out how to help those who have enough to live, but not enough to be sick!
JMO C

 

[R. Richard]

It is true that "We" Canadians come over for health treatments, only due to shortage of facilities or shortness of time. However, it isnt FREE for us to have this treatment in the US! Because many of us pay into health insurance (basically what this thread was about) we get extended care coverage which varies in the coverage for out of Province care. If we agree to take the treatments out of Province on the request of the Dr. the government covers a percentage as well-basically taking ownership of the fact there isnt enough treatment centres or drs to do the work.

In Canada, there is government provided health care, which is not always able to provide the heakth care. In the USA, there is for profit health care that is able to provide health care. Now Hillary wants to force the USA into the Canada system. Dumb.

Buck up, if you want better medical care and more opportunity to use medical services, put some money where your mouth is!
In Canada, we didn't use to have "free" health care, employers saw the benefits of paying into health care on behalf of their employees- healthy employees means better work, less time off. Now a day, if you work for a good company or are on Government assistance, you pay less than $1.00 a day for prescriptions. Its the people who decide not to go to school and get an education who end up with minimum wage jobs that usually end up being sick all the time due to the fact they cant afford medications. I know my dr asks if we have a drug plan before prescribing anything, this way, if he has samples he can give them out, or if you admit you haven't the money to fill the prescription, they have ways of getting it for you. (submitting papers to the government etc.)

I live in the USA. I went to school in the USA as often as I was forced to go. The USA schools were in no way, shape or form interested in providing the learning that provides a decent job. Education the USA schools provide, not learning. In order to get into a class that provides learning, the student has to fight a fang and claw battle with the school administration. The fine arts classes are required. The only job I can see the fine arts classes providing is pimp or whore. I worked for pimps and wanted to be one. The pimps told me I was too vicious to even be a sucessful pimp.

Many of our provinces pay higher taxes then your states, someone has to pay to live they way we are accustomed to.
Both governments have to figure out how to help those who have enough to live, but not enough to be sick!
JMO C

The cure to the problem is a simple one. Train people to do useful things. Then, the people can afford medical care. [If you gots the style hand, you can be ona' tha' playsz. However, you tries to cut in on a playaz' territory, he done hires R. Richard (aka Willie Green.) Dealin' wi' Willie Green can be very hazardus to yo' health.]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't mean that it's arbitrarily (is that a word?) followed, but that it was, when it was originally written, made up by whatever thoughts and ideals that the founding fathers, at that time and place, for whatever reasons we may speculate, chose to include. Other thoughts and ideals, that they chose to exclude, are naturally not there.

It could and it would look different, perhaps only in chioce of words, perhaps also in content and spirit, had it been written by another bunch of distiguished gentlemen.

I don't see how you can call that anything but arbitrary.

Much of the argument presented in the Constitution is rational and orderly. As such, it isn't ideologically arbitrary. Kind of like saying "this contract is arbitrary" because "it could have been different" when the contract is functional, elegant, rational, and very well structured and the model for many other contracts that follow.

Could our country have existed with another document? Maybe, likely not though--we had "The Articles of Confederation" before and it was a dramatic failure. The utility and well-founded philosophy in the Constitution sorta makes it "less arbitrary" than, say, "The Articles of Confederation"--and if there are degrees of arbitrary, maybe it isn't so silly that one document can be more respected than another.