So apparently they don't think it will get through the house.
If they change the bill at this point, can they still keep it 'budget neutral' or whatever so they can use reconciliation?
Yes. Just depends on the exact changes.
Since some of the complaints are from the freedom caucus and it being too lenient....well there's always more tax cuts for the rich to balance out those cuts!
Uh, maybe I'm trying to figure out how best to capitalize on something and worried about a documented phenomenon that's been happening for the last fifteen years that makes it harder to predict the future?
It's hardly fantasizing, given, you know, people are horribly biased and where people consume news from has become extremely partisan, and I explicitly said that there are ways to manipulate things to our advantage, so it's kind of... dumb to complain a second time that I'm saying they're unpeelable, and regardless, rejecting something as "stupid" has no real logical basis.
In short, I'm not convinced things are fine and we can just ignore how the world's changed and refuse to adapt tactics to shifting landscapes.
It is much much harder to persuade people that bad things are good and you should reward your leaders, than to persuade people that good things are bad and your leader's need to be punished.
People believe and reinforce their personal hero narrative where they are responsible for good things in their life. Propaganda relies on this fact to prevent good things which are happening while they aren't in power from damaging their narrative. While the Propaganda issuer is IN power, and things are going badly, they need to find unifying, ideally powerless, enemies to blame for these failures. These enemies should be perceived to be common, but in fact be rarely encountered. These enemies should be perceived to be influential and powerful, but in fact be powerless and silenced in society. The Democrats are not this enemy.
Most long lived regimes which rely on Propaganda share one or two initial features.
1) They came to power after the defeat of a widely unpopular regime
2) Their early years exploited enormous failures of the prior regime to achieve great success
3) They were widely popular when they first came to power
The Republicans have none of these things.
They have all of these things
or rather, they have convinced they're rabidly loyal base of it.
The two solutions for reviving the bill are the medicaid work requirement, as well as block-granting the *entire* program rather than just the expansion to get the far right on board, and making the tax credits at the high end of the age scale more generous (though they'd have to be a hell of a lot more generous to offset the 7x higher premiums) to defuse the AARP, which probably won't work.
The Medicaid work requirement probably makes the bill worse though, since it would make the expansion harder to get soon.
Uh, maybe I'm trying to figure out how best to capitalize on something and worried about a documented phenomenon that's been happening for the last fifteen years that makes it harder to predict the future?
It's hardly fantasizing, given, you know, people are horribly biased and where people consume news from has become extremely partisan, and I explicitly said that there are ways to manipulate things to our advantage, so it's kind of... dumb to complain a second time that I'm saying they're unpeelable, and regardless, rejecting something as "stupid" has no real logical basis.
In short, I'm not convinced things are fine and we can just ignore how the world's changed and refuse to adapt tactics to shifting landscapes.
It is much much harder to persuade people that bad things are good and you should reward your leaders, than to persuade people that good things are bad and your leader's need to be punished.
People believe and reinforce their personal hero narrative where they are responsible for good things in their life. Propaganda relies on this fact to prevent good things which are happening while they aren't in power from damaging their narrative. While the Propaganda issuer is IN power, and things are going badly, they need to find unifying, ideally powerless, enemies to blame for these failures. These enemies should be perceived to be common, but in fact be rarely encountered. These enemies should be perceived to be influential and powerful, but in fact be powerless and silenced in society. The Democrats are not this enemy.
Most long lived regimes which rely on Propaganda share one or two initial features.
1) They came to power after the defeat of a widely unpopular regime
2) Their early years exploited enormous failures of the prior regime to achieve great success
3) They were widely popular when they first came to power
The Republicans have none of these things.
They have all of these things
or rather, they have convinced they're rabidly loyal base of it.
which is really all they need
No it isn't and no they haven't. There is no point pretending we live in a fantasy world where Trumps base is big enough to win elections alone, and everyone who voted for him (or didn't vote against him) will ever change their mind.
This bill will KILL people. People who voted for Trump will be starving in the street, out of work, cold and sick. Their relatives will die. Their children will be sick. Real negative things. Trump voters only THINK they aren't the ones sucking on the welfare teat. In fact, they are the biggest recipients of federal aid from all programs.
Soon after Charla McComic’s son lost his job, his health-insurance premium dropped from $567 per month to just $88, a “blessing from God” that she believes was made possible by President Trump.
“I think it was just because of the tax credit,” said McComic, 52, a former first-grade teacher who traveled to Trump’s Wednesday night rally in Nashville from Lexington, Tenn., with her daughter, mother, aunt and cousin.
The price change was actually thanks to a subsidy made possible by former president Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which is still in place, not by the tax credits proposed by Republicans as part of the health-care bill still being considered by Congress.
People will literally believe anything to hang on to their preconceived notions.
But then who the fuck knows? 45% of the country are morons or moron enablers.
This is unhelpful and insulting rhetoric.
It is only unhelpful and insulting for those who voted for Trump. It is also true, they knew who they were voting for and now they're paying the price - and they'll likely vote for him next election, as well.
Trump'd get 60 million votes if he started burning "burdensome" people in ovens
well 60 million minus however many of his voters he kills
+3
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Can we can it with the "zomgz Trump will never get adequately blamed by Republicans voters!" Doom saying?
Who cares, we don't need them- just pissed off Democrats and the generally apathetic voters jolted awake by Trump's terribleness.
But then who the fuck knows? 45% of the country are morons or moron enablers.
This is unhelpful and insulting rhetoric.
It is only unhelpful and insulting for those who voted for Trump. It is also true, they knew who they were voting for and now they're paying the price - and they'll likely vote for him next election, as well.
Trump'd get 60 million votes if he started burning "burdensome" people in ovens
well 60 million minus however many of his voters he kills
This thread is not about the voting population, who voted for Trump, etc.
And let's cut down on the nihilism and doom saying in this and other politics threads, please.
The President listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1700 to $14,600 per year. The President looked me in the eye and said, ‘These are my people and I will not let them down. We will fix this for them.’
"I also asked the President point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported. He told me he supports it ‘one thousand percent.’
“After receiving the President’s word that these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes.”
Trump is near simultaneously saying the bill needs significant changes and has major issues while also saying he supports it 1000%, presumably even without the issues fixed.
I think Adherholt was considered iffy on the bill previously, but the House was never the likely place for the bill to die if it does.
Meanwhile there is a new Yougov poll on the bill. The strong oppositions is larger than the total support for the bill in the poll. And it looks like there is still room for it to worsen.
But after being told that the CBO estimates about 24 million more people would be uninsured under the Republican legislation, just 35 percent of Americans say they’re confident that figure is correct, with 65 percent either not confident or not sure.
People having a hard time believing the bill would be that godawful might work in its favor.
Meanwhile there is a new Yougov poll on the bill. The strong oppositions is larger than the total support for the bill in the poll. And it looks like there is still room for it to worsen.
But after being told that the CBO estimates about 24 million more people would be uninsured under the Republican legislation, just 35 percent of Americans say they’re confident that figure is correct, with 65 percent either not confident or not sure.
People having a hard time believing the bill would be that godawful might work in its favor.
To be fair to those doubting the CBO, the CBO's estimates are often off by a fair margin. This isn't to impugn the folks running these analyses, by any means. I run these kinds of estimates fairly often, and you have to make a whole lot of assumptions and educated guesses.
It's almost certainly the case that this bill, as written, would cost millions of people their health care. But it could be far more or far less than what the CBO is saying, exacerbated by the short time they had to run the numbers.
That said, I'm sure most of the doubters are of the "CBO is a liberal scam" variety, and fuck those dudes.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, once the externalities are taken into account, I'm pretty sure that "saving money on the budget" thing would end up being false, for one.
Probably not. It's pretty easy to add up subsidy outlays and then cut revenues by ~$that. Especially with new subsidies a flat amount and cohort based. It will probably cut the deficit by that much and give the rich that amount of money back. The more questionable thing is how it impacts coverage, insurance companies, and private outlays.
They basically go over a lot of stuff from the CBO report and what is going on with the plan and such.
One of the more interesting things they mention I didn't know is that the CBO talks about premiums different from how they are normally discussed. Specifically when the CBO talks about the price of premiums they are talking about the price paid, not the price offered. What this basically means is that the CBO says premiums will drop under the ACHA but this is not because they get overall cheaper but because they get so much more expensive that huge amounts of people can't even afford them and so only young healthy people with lower premiums are buying insurance.
The President listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1700 to $14,600 per year. The President looked me in the eye and said, ‘These are my people and I will not let them down. We will fix this for them.’
"I also asked the President point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported. He told me he supports it ‘one thousand percent.’
“After receiving the President’s word that these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes.”
Trump is near simultaneously saying the bill needs significant changes and has major issues while also saying he supports it 1000%, presumably even without the issues fixed.
I think Adherholt was considered iffy on the bill previously, but the House was never the likely place for the bill to die if it does.
Trump is saying whatever because Trump doesn't know or understand anything about this debate. This is all just Paul Ryan's plan to pay for tax cuts by slashing Medicaid.
The President listened to the fact that a 64-year-old person living near the poverty line was going to see their insurance premiums go up from $1700 to $14,600 per year. The President looked me in the eye and said, ‘These are my people and I will not let them down. We will fix this for them.’
"I also asked the President point blank if this House bill was the one that he supported. He told me he supports it ‘one thousand percent.’
“After receiving the President’s word that these concerns will be addressed, I changed my vote to yes.”
So if I understand this, this guy is saying that an old person would be screwed Shkreli-style, asked an inveterate liar if they'd fix it, the liar said 'yes', and this guy decides to go ahead and announce his support for legislation that even Schrödinger can't predict will exist?
Yeah, once the externalities are taken into account, I'm pretty sure that "saving money on the budget" thing would end up being false, for one.
Probably not. It's pretty easy to add up subsidy outlays and then cut revenues by ~$that. Especially with new subsidies a flat amount and cohort based. It will probably cut the deficit by that much and give the rich that amount of money back. The more questionable thing is how it impacts coverage, insurance companies, and private outlays.
Macroeconomic knockoff effects returning back to the budget through an increase or decrease in taxable income are what is being talked about. CBO didn't have time to score that.
So apparently they don't think it will get through the house.
If they change the bill at this point, can they still keep it 'budget neutral' or whatever so they can use reconciliation?
Pretty sure if they make any amendments... no? They could throw this one out and institute a similar one but they'd have to go through all the rigamarole again.
He's admitted that the bill needs to be kinder to the elderly, though i imagine the only way to get AARP on-side would be to retain ACA's restrictions on age-based pricing.
0
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
He's admitted that the bill needs to be kinder to the elderly, though i imagine the only way to get AARP on-side would be to retain ACA's restrictions on age-based pricing.
Given how hard the Medicaid cuts will hit seniors in assisted living that probably won't be enough.
Anything they can do to get the AARP on board would make it extremely not budget neutral.
At the end of the day, they're cutting out billions of dollars in subsidies to older americans to try and balance the cuts to taxes on the wealthy. There isn't anywhere else they can get that money and still pretend to go through reconciliation.
When you consider the only thing about the AHCA that Ryan cares about is gutting medicaid and cutting taxes on the ultra rich, there is no way to square that circle.
+11
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Anything they can do to get the AARP on board would make it extremely not budget neutral.
At the end of the day, they're cutting out billions of dollars in subsidies to older americans to try and balance the cuts to taxes on the wealthy. There isn't anywhere else they can get that money and still pretend to go through reconciliation.
When you consider the only thing about the AHCA that Ryan cares about is gutting medicaid and cutting taxes on the ultra rich, there is no way to square that circle.
But much like Thomas Hobbes, gym bro Ryan will never stop trying to force that square peg in a round hole.
You can't knock him for lacking persistence.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
House Republican leaders are poised to release Monday evening an expansive series of changes to their Obamacare repeal bill in a last-ditch attempt to win enough support to get the bill passed.
Requested by President Donald Trump, the amendment includes perks for restive conservatives who wanted optional work requirements and block granting in Medicaid, as well as a potential olive branch to wary centrists who demanded more help for older Americans to buy insurance, POLITICO has learned.
The amendment would establish a reserve fund of at least $75 billion for tax credits to help the core constituency that propelled Trump to the White House: Americans between 50 and 64, who would see their premiums skyrocket under the current repeal plan. But the amendment would not set up the tax credits – it would instruct the Senate to do so, forcing House Republicans to take a vote on something the upper chamber would do later.
The amendment is also expected to repeal Obamacare's taxes a year earlier than originally planned, a win for conservatives who want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act as quickly a possible.
There is also a targeted change to Medicaid funding that’s specifically designed to garner support from New York’s delegation. It would attempt to transfer more Medicaid spending from counties to the state, by blocking New York from obtaining federal reimbursements for payments made by counties.
So part of the plan is to force the Senate to come up with a plan. And the other part of the plan is to please New York Republicans by fucking with states rights.
That sounds kind of stupid.
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
I thought it had to be budget neutral? Where does this new 75 billion come from?
House Republican leaders are poised to release Monday evening an expansive series of changes to their Obamacare repeal bill in a last-ditch attempt to win enough support to get the bill passed.
Requested by President Donald Trump, the amendment includes perks for restive conservatives who wanted optional work requirements and block granting in Medicaid, as well as a potential olive branch to wary centrists who demanded more help for older Americans to buy insurance, POLITICO has learned.
The amendment would establish a reserve fund of at least $75 billion for tax credits to help the core constituency that propelled Trump to the White House: Americans between 50 and 64, who would see their premiums skyrocket under the current repeal plan. But the amendment would not set up the tax credits – it would instruct the Senate to do so, forcing House Republicans to take a vote on something the upper chamber would do later.
The amendment is also expected to repeal Obamacare's taxes a year earlier than originally planned, a win for conservatives who want to eliminate the Affordable Care Act as quickly a possible.
There is also a targeted change to Medicaid funding that’s specifically designed to garner support from New York’s delegation. It would attempt to transfer more Medicaid spending from counties to the state, by blocking New York from obtaining federal reimbursements for payments made by counties.
So part of the plan is to force the Senate to come up with a plan. And the other part of the plan is to please New York Republicans by fucking with states rights.
It is painfully obvious that they have no idea what they're doing.
If I were a Republican (and the party was at least somewhat rational, I know that's fantasy but stick with me a sec), I would have been working on a functional alternative since the passage of the ACA and would have been championing it for years. This thing's not a plan, it's a poorly-thought out suicide pact.
Rather than trying to stick a band-aid that is pretty much exclusively and obviously directed at older, ignorant white folks on it, they should be scrapping this shit and starting from scratch. Or working with the Dems on improving it in ways that their base would like, while maybe compromising some. Or any other thing a rational actor would do. Instead they're going to try and shove this square peg into a round hole and end up turning the country into splinters as a result. Because they're ignorant, dumb, and uncompromising.
Not only that, based on the margins it passed in the state House, there is a non-zero chance they could override the inevitable Brownback veto.
Isn't the whole state basically bankrupt without any money they can find?
More or less. The attempt to override the income tax cuts that are responsible for many of Kansas' budget woes was two votes shy of overriding the veto, and the Kansas Supreme Court has basically said that more money needs to go into the public school system (with a deadline of fixing it by June 1st if there is going to be any summer school). Most of the proponents have been selling it as at least 4 years of the federal government injecting nearly $2 Billion into the state economy. The session goes on till end of June though, so this probably won't be the only thing contrary to what's been going on in Kansas before the year is over.
I'm just constantly amused with just how much the Kansas legislature has slingshot to the left this election, especially with Trump still getting into the White House.
It is painfully obvious that they have no idea what they're doing.
If I were a Republican (and the party was at least somewhat rational, I know that's fantasy but stick with me a sec), I would have been working on a functional alternative since the passage of the ACA and would have been championing it for years. This thing's not a plan, it's a poorly-thought out suicide pact.
Rather than trying to stick a band-aid that is pretty much exclusively and obviously directed at older, ignorant white folks on it, they should be scrapping this shit and starting from scratch. Or working with the Dems on improving it in ways that their base would like, while maybe compromising some. Or any other thing a rational actor would do. Instead they're going to try and shove this square peg into a round hole and end up turning the country into splinters as a result. Because they're ignorant, dumb, and uncompromising.
They don't have a plan because they didn't expect to need one.
Their opposition was never about anything they said with regards to the ACA. There was never a plan to provide better healthcare for less money like they claimed for so many years because that was never where their opposition to the ACA was. It is entirely about the little uptick for the top 1% in this graph.
The problem is they spent 8 years framing it as an opposition to the manner in which the healthcare was being given, not that the healthcare was being given at all. That is why there is no plan, and why this plan is a suicide pact.
The plan was to ride the Tea Party wave to a win in 2012 and repeal it before the majority of it went into effect.
Unfortunately, they did not win, and the wave that got them the house was going to drown them if they didn't keep beating on that horse, so they did, futilely hoping that by the time they did control the government, either the Tea Party would have self-imploded and they get to slide on just grumbling about entitlements and the welfare state, or someone not them would come up with the fantasy conservative plan that would do all the things they had be promising to do despite how impossible that was.
Posts
Yes. Just depends on the exact changes.
Since some of the complaints are from the freedom caucus and it being too lenient....well there's always more tax cuts for the rich to balance out those cuts!
They have all of these things
or rather, they have convinced they're rabidly loyal base of it.
which is really all they need
The "parasites", to quote another Ryan.
The Medicaid work requirement probably makes the bill worse though, since it would make the expansion harder to get soon.
No it isn't and no they haven't. There is no point pretending we live in a fantasy world where Trumps base is big enough to win elections alone, and everyone who voted for him (or didn't vote against him) will ever change their mind.
This bill will KILL people. People who voted for Trump will be starving in the street, out of work, cold and sick. Their relatives will die. Their children will be sick. Real negative things. Trump voters only THINK they aren't the ones sucking on the welfare teat. In fact, they are the biggest recipients of federal aid from all programs.
People will literally believe anything to hang on to their preconceived notions.
arent most of the medicaid dollars going to old people to supplement medicare, children, or disabled people
Trump'd get 60 million votes if he started burning "burdensome" people in ovens
well 60 million minus however many of his voters he kills
Who cares, we don't need them- just pissed off Democrats and the generally apathetic voters jolted awake by Trump's terribleness.
his voters aren't and have never been the targets, his voters number around Romney's voters
We don't need his voters
There's a fine line between "oh no we're doomed because these people are awful!" and "these people are fucking awful."
This thread is not about the voting population, who voted for Trump, etc.
And let's cut down on the nihilism and doom saying in this and other politics threads, please.
https://aderholt.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/aderholt-statement-american-healthcare-act
Trump is near simultaneously saying the bill needs significant changes and has major issues while also saying he supports it 1000%, presumably even without the issues fixed.
I think Adherholt was considered iffy on the bill previously, but the House was never the likely place for the bill to die if it does.
Meanwhile there is a new Yougov poll on the bill. The strong oppositions is larger than the total support for the bill in the poll. And it looks like there is still room for it to worsen.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cc4279e4b0ec9d29dc180e People having a hard time believing the bill would be that godawful might work in its favor.
Reminds me of this:
I'm not sure how to attack "the numbers on this are so bananas that they are literally not believable" but here we are?
It's almost certainly the case that this bill, as written, would cost millions of people their health care. But it could be far more or far less than what the CBO is saying, exacerbated by the short time they had to run the numbers.
That said, I'm sure most of the doubters are of the "CBO is a liberal scam" variety, and fuck those dudes.
This applies to pretty much every GOP plan.
Probably not. It's pretty easy to add up subsidy outlays and then cut revenues by ~$that. Especially with new subsidies a flat amount and cohort based. It will probably cut the deficit by that much and give the rich that amount of money back. The more questionable thing is how it impacts coverage, insurance companies, and private outlays.
http://www.vox.com/2017/3/14/14869376/the-weeds-ahca-republican-replace-plan
They basically go over a lot of stuff from the CBO report and what is going on with the plan and such.
One of the more interesting things they mention I didn't know is that the CBO talks about premiums different from how they are normally discussed. Specifically when the CBO talks about the price of premiums they are talking about the price paid, not the price offered. What this basically means is that the CBO says premiums will drop under the ACHA but this is not because they get overall cheaper but because they get so much more expensive that huge amounts of people can't even afford them and so only young healthy people with lower premiums are buying insurance.
Trump is saying whatever because Trump doesn't know or understand anything about this debate. This is all just Paul Ryan's plan to pay for tax cuts by slashing Medicaid.
only about 60%
So if I understand this, this guy is saying that an old person would be screwed Shkreli-style, asked an inveterate liar if they'd fix it, the liar said 'yes', and this guy decides to go ahead and announce his support for legislation that even Schrödinger can't predict will exist?
What a time to be alive!
Macroeconomic knockoff effects returning back to the budget through an increase or decrease in taxable income are what is being talked about. CBO didn't have time to score that.
It will almost certainly be negative.
Pretty sure if they make any amendments... no? They could throw this one out and institute a similar one but they'd have to go through all the rigamarole again.
Given how hard the Medicaid cuts will hit seniors in assisted living that probably won't be enough.
At the end of the day, they're cutting out billions of dollars in subsidies to older americans to try and balance the cuts to taxes on the wealthy. There isn't anywhere else they can get that money and still pretend to go through reconciliation.
When you consider the only thing about the AHCA that Ryan cares about is gutting medicaid and cutting taxes on the ultra rich, there is no way to square that circle.
But much like Thomas Hobbes, gym bro Ryan will never stop trying to force that square peg in a round hole.
You can't knock him for lacking persistence.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
That sounds kind of stupid.
Sounds like par for the course, to me.
That's for the Senate to find out.
Anyway, Barometer to how conservatives else think of the likelihood this is all going to work: Kansas State Senate is voting to expand Medicaid the same day the House is going to vote on the AHCA. Yes, That Kansas.
Not only that, based on the margins it passed in the state House, there is a non-zero chance they could override the inevitable Brownback veto.
It's instructing the Senate to come up with a bill to create the fund. It is not a bill to create the fund itself.
Isn't the whole state basically bankrupt without any money they can find?
If I were a Republican (and the party was at least somewhat rational, I know that's fantasy but stick with me a sec), I would have been working on a functional alternative since the passage of the ACA and would have been championing it for years. This thing's not a plan, it's a poorly-thought out suicide pact.
Rather than trying to stick a band-aid that is pretty much exclusively and obviously directed at older, ignorant white folks on it, they should be scrapping this shit and starting from scratch. Or working with the Dems on improving it in ways that their base would like, while maybe compromising some. Or any other thing a rational actor would do. Instead they're going to try and shove this square peg into a round hole and end up turning the country into splinters as a result. Because they're ignorant, dumb, and uncompromising.
More or less. The attempt to override the income tax cuts that are responsible for many of Kansas' budget woes was two votes shy of overriding the veto, and the Kansas Supreme Court has basically said that more money needs to go into the public school system (with a deadline of fixing it by June 1st if there is going to be any summer school). Most of the proponents have been selling it as at least 4 years of the federal government injecting nearly $2 Billion into the state economy. The session goes on till end of June though, so this probably won't be the only thing contrary to what's been going on in Kansas before the year is over.
I'm just constantly amused with just how much the Kansas legislature has slingshot to the left this election, especially with Trump still getting into the White House.
They don't have a plan because they didn't expect to need one.
Their opposition was never about anything they said with regards to the ACA. There was never a plan to provide better healthcare for less money like they claimed for so many years because that was never where their opposition to the ACA was. It is entirely about the little uptick for the top 1% in this graph.
The problem is they spent 8 years framing it as an opposition to the manner in which the healthcare was being given, not that the healthcare was being given at all. That is why there is no plan, and why this plan is a suicide pact.
Unfortunately, they did not win, and the wave that got them the house was going to drown them if they didn't keep beating on that horse, so they did, futilely hoping that by the time they did control the government, either the Tea Party would have self-imploded and they get to slide on just grumbling about entitlements and the welfare state, or someone not them would come up with the fantasy conservative plan that would do all the things they had be promising to do despite how impossible that was.