You don't insure tune-ups and tires

Here's what I believe is the solution to all of our healthcare problems. I believe that the majority of the problems in healthcare is because we have removed or isolated the consumer from the equation. The problem is with insurance companies. However that problem will not be solved by adding another layer called government. The problem also not be solved by substituting insurance companies with government. Both scenarios remove the consumer from the equation. Here's an example: The insurance company has an agreement with the doctor. The insurance company then tells you to go to the doctor(s) that they have an agreement with. If you disagree with the doctor you are told that it's part of an agreement. If you complain to the insurance company, you are also told that it's part of an agreement. I've lived this scenario. The problem here is that the consumer was never involved in the agreement but is beholden to it. Interjecting the government will not change this. The solution lies in removing the problem layer, be it government or insurance company. Here's what I would propose:

• Stop trying to insure all medicine or medical procedures. You do not insure tune-ups or tire changes on your car. Preventative medicine like physicals, annual exams, and normal visits for things like the flu or common ailments should be paid directly by the consumer. This is possible because nearly all medical professionals still make payment plans with patients. This is affordable as evidence by the majority of Americans' ability to afford a cell phone.
• Stop all employer paid for insurance. This too removes another layer of "no control" for the consumer. When your employer decides on health plans, s/he has to make a financial decision with limited options. The plans put forth for you to choose from may not be the best plans for you as an individual. I believe that employers will benefit from this too. Employers can immediately shift the total moneys expended for employee health coverage to the employees. Shifting these money's to the employee then "fixes" the cash outlay, as current insurance programs are continually rising creating a major burden on the company.
• Individual consumers would then shop in an open market for health insurance to cover major illnesses, accidents, and/or catastrophes. This would reduce the over all cost of insurance because of the open market for competition and because we are not insuring every sniffle or scrape. Many who pay for the insurance will rarely ever use it. Those who pay and rarely use the insurance will help to offset the costs of those who do need to use it thereby reducing the overall cost of the insurance to all. The details, extent of coverage, and issues such as pre-existing conditions would be worked out directly between the insurer and the consumer.
• Prescription drugs can be treated in the same manner. They can be included in the plan or excluded. All of these "options" allows for the consumer to taylor a plan that best fits their individual needs.

This plan places the consumer back in control of their own individual health. This plan cuts any and all layers out the doctor patient relationship. This plan allows for coverage of "big ticket" items that would otherwise be financially devastating to working families.

This plan removes the over taxation required to have the government manage healthcare for all Americans. This plan eliminates the chance of government control of yet another aspect of respective Americans' lives.

Programs like Medicare would still exist and could be somewhat modified be be more like the above but none-the-less would still be in existence to support those who are elderly and/or struggling. Addition of more government entitlements would no longer be needed. Payments already made under State and Federal welfare type programs are enough to now offset the costs under my plan. By modifying Medicare to be more like my plan, the costs of Medicare could be brought under control thereby reducing the drag on the deficit and economy.

My Plan adds the element of the "healthy" paying into the system thereby offsetting the costs for those with pre-existing conditions. As we've seen with the automotive insurance industry, having a free market approach has driven down the cost of automotive insurance. Even those with bad driving records pay less because of those with good records that still pay for insurance. Roughly 85% of Americans have health insurance now, even without a federal mandate. I can only speculate but I would presume that number to only go up if the cost of health insurance went down. Factually speaking, we do not need a federal mandate to force American's into paying for health insurance.

Of those 15% of Americans who are currently uninsured, how many of them can afford preventive medicine? How many simply can't afford a big plan that covers the tune-ups and tire changes?

Under my plan I would support an "elected" government review panel to regulate and fight against abuses. There are already existing governmental entities that could manage this with little to no change in their structure or tax burden. This would eliminate abuses by "big" insurance companies.

I believe that just as with auto insurance or with gasoline prices, we as consumers are the ones with the ultimate power. Big business is ultimately accountable to the consumer. If we do not buy from Wal-mart, they will go out of business. The big businesses of the world must meet our demands if they wish to continue to receive our dollars. When the government mandates that we buy a product or service it affectively removes the power of the consumer.

We as Americans need to come up with our own solutions that retain our own control over our lives and our respective economic future. If you agree with me, copy and send this to everyone you know via email and most importantly to your representatives and your employers. I believe that this plan is possible as well as most economical for Americans. Most importantly, I believe that this plan retains personal responsibility, accountability, and freedom.

What came of the Healthcare Summit

Everyone was waiting to see just what would come of President Obama's Healthcare Summit. All of the pundits from right and left speculated but everyone seemed to say the same thing; nothing would come of it. President Obama knew that nothing would come of it. I say this because his actions from the very onset made it very clear that he expected nothing to come of it.

President Obama expected that he could show the American people that the republicans had no plan and that they simply refused to cooperate and the opposite happened. The Republican's came with plans. Both sides simply postured and did nothing more than try to pick apart the other. All of the polls show that the majority of Americans (almost 60%) still do not want the President's plan. The President simply believes that if you hear more about his plan then you'll finally come to your senses and agree.

I saw something altogether different. Think about this for a moment. If you didn't get the chance to watch it, then youtube it and watch it; even if it's just parts of it and you'll see what I'm about to tell you.

What I saw was an extreme imbalance of powers. I saw that the Executive Branch of our government summoned a meeting with the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch lectured and even reprimanded the Legislative Branch. Which reminded me of the State of the Union address where the President excoriated the Legislative and even the Judicial Branches of the government.

All of this show me nothing more than sheer arrogance. President Obama believes that He (Executive Branch) is somehow senior to the other two branches of the government. If he did not feel superior he would not be speaking to what should be his governmental peers in this manner. Even when Congress refused to setup a bipartisan group to tackle the deficit He used his executive power to create one and then slapped the Congress in his State of the Union. I didn't agree with Congress on there inaction with regard to the deficit but this just illustrates the President's willful disregard for the balance of power. Just watch the video from the summit and look closely at the look on his face when Republicans were speaking.

To make things worse the Democrats in the congress have capitulated. By doing so they have allowed the and even fostered the imbalance of power. I believe that every American should write to their representatives in the Congress and tell them to take their rightful authority back and not simply bow to the President's every whim.

In the end, the only reason that this summit was held for the public to see was so that President Obama could then say to the American people that they (Republicans) wouldn't deal. Because they wouldn't deal, he must move forward with reconciliation. He's forgetting one fact. Sixty percent of Americans do not want this and all of those Americans are not stupid, they saw what happened. The President didn't even get a full sixty percent of the vote to get elected. This should scare Democrats.

Jobs and Domestic Violence

Here we go. Senator Reid wants you buy into more government spending on a jobs bill because us men are beating our wives because we're out of work.

Article

I can tell you that I'm no psychologist but neither is the good Dr. Reid. Domestic violence is a major problem in this country and should be attacked with a fervor. A weak attempt at blaming unemployment for the domestic violence is ludicrous at best. The only loose connection that may possibly be made is that those who already abuse their wives just have more time on their hands to do it now. Even that connection is weak at best.

What really upsets me about this, as it should you, is that this really spells out Senator Reid's attitude about the "common man." Senator Reid believes that you are so lowly and unsophisticated that you'll just start beating your wife if you're out of work. He must really see us common folk archaic cavemen.

Really?

We've really got to wake up and vote Senator Reid and all of the other elitist politicians out of office. America never got to be what it is because the common man was this archaic.

Senator Reid needs to believe that we are just this mindless so that he can justify going against the will of the people and forcing more government control over our lives. If he believes that we are this mindless then there is a real need, in his mind, for the elite ruling class to control and provide for us as if we were infants.

This is a Senator who claims to champion the little guy. This is a Senator that claims to be looking out for you. He's not looking out for you, he's looking down upon you with pity.

Take a minute and just ponder this. Are you that mindless? Do you need multiple degrees or to be part of the government in order to care for yourself. Would you really just decide to beat your wife because you're out of work? If you agree with me then write Senator Reid and all of your representatives to re-educate them about the strength (and wisdom) of the common man.

Accountability and Healthcare

I had a nice debate today with a co-worker of mine who is very much a liberal democrat and feels that we absolutely must pass comprehensive health reform. He believes, as many liberals and journalist do, that it's the extra-ordinary health costs that are destroying the economy. He further believes that having everyone on health care will provide enough paying healthy people to offset the costs of those who are plagued by illnesses and astronomical health costs.

My friend explained to me how insurance works and how the costs will go down because there would be a much larger paying base to cover all of the costs. My friend further explained to me that a good government should do things for it's people. His belief is that we have an obligation as a society and as a community to care for those who cannot care for themselves. My friend further explained to me about how much better Canada, Germany, and many other countries are because they have government run or controlled healthcare. He further stated that these example countries are pulling out of the recession faster than the U.S. because they do not have the burden of healthcare costs like the U.S. does.

Here's the catch… None of that matters. Even if any one of those points were accurate, and most of them are not, the real argument has been glossed over by those on the left. The left does not want to argue the real issue at hand because they cannot win on the real core issues at hand.

The real issue can be found in a few simple questions.

• Do we as American's and as a Government have the right to demand that one man pay to bear the burden of another man?
• Is it legal for the Government to demand under threat of penalty to purchase any product or service?
• Is this what our founding fathers intended when they founded this nation?

There are no facts to support much of the arguments presented by my friend. On some of the merits of his arguments, I do actually agree. However, if we look at what the real questions are (listed above) then there is no argument.

Let's look quickly at how we come about determining the need for a law. Most laws are derived from a need to promote good order and safe living within a community. Most laws are created because there is a need to prohibit some activity that brings some harm to individuals or the society as a whole. This is where the waters get muddy. Most liberals will tell you that not having healthcare is harmful to the community on the whole and certainly harmful to those who cannot afford it and need it. Although you might loosely be able to make this assertion, you would then also have to make the assertion that drinking alcohol, eating fast food, smoking, not exercising, and even turning on your car also harm society as a whole.

The way to stay out of that muddy water is to truly look at what things should not be allowed within a society. Things like murder, stealing, coercion, etc… are all great examples of where there is a real justification to take away and individual's freedom. We all do something that in some loose way can be construed as a "drain" on society. Trust me, I do and you do.

When I questioned my friend about how does he feel that it's his right to impose a financial burden on another to pay for what should be his own responsibility. Sidebar: It is our own responsibility to care for our own selves. The Constitution never guaranteed happiness, it only guaranteed that the government would not impose upon your "pursuit" thereof. My friends response was that it was not he that was imposing these burdens but that it was society as a whole. If you vote to take another man's freedom or to impose some burden upon him then it IS you as an individual who is taking this action. There is no other way to look at it.

I know that this sounds like an old cliche but I do mean this in all seriousness. If you are seeking a system that supports you. If you are seeking a system that you work and get almost no pay but your "needs" are met, move to one of those countries. The reason that I bring up this point is not to say, "Just leave." The reason that I bring this up is that those places already exist and it is well within your rights and abilities to have those things.

This country was based on individual freedoms, freedoms from the government, freedoms from the burdens of overtaxation, and on the God given freedom to pursue happiness. It is every American's freedom to step out and take risks, to save, to work, to invest, and to pursue a higher standard of living. Every American has the opportunity and the RIGHT to succeed or fail. This country was based on these values and there is no other country like it on earth. There are plenty other countries that do exactly what the liberals would prefer.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, you are well within your right to do so. That's just one more reason that I love this country. However I ask one thing, take a minute and really look at what you think is an individual's responsibility and what is not. Think about this, do you believe that you are responsible for yourself or is the government responsible for you? If the majority of American's believe that the government is responsible and that we as individuals are not, then the country is lost. If this is the case, we are the new Canada and rapidly on our way to becoming the new France.

I, for one, do not believe that the majority of Americans are not responsible for themselves. I believe that if we can continue to push forward the real conversation as illustrated herein, then we can get back to what matters.

What's Stimulus Doing?

I just went out to the recovery.gov website where all of the economic Stimulus Funding is tracked. They have a nifty page that allows you to see the dollars of contracts, grants, and loans for specific areas in the country. I put in the zip code for downtown Bakersfield, where I live and was surprised to see how that money is working. Here's the breakdown as of February 10th, 2010:

$23,561,960 in Contracts which created 1.21 jobs.
$103,984,148 in Grants which created 60.36 jobs.
$0 in Loans which created 0 jobs.

$127,546,108 in Total which created 61.57 jobs.

I'm not an economist but that's roughly two million dollars for each job created. This is money that's never going back to the government. Notice there was zero dollars in loans.

If the government truly wished to create jobs, why are the funds going out to so many grants? Why are there so few jobs created for our tax investment? The twenty-three million in contracts obviously went to companies that were already fully staffed. Twenty-three million dollars just became a net loss in terms of job creation. The one-hundred three million went for grants which are only temporary employment for those employees. If more grants do not come later, those jobs/programs will go away.

This approach is counter-intuitive. We have a jobs problem. We have a deficit/debt problem. Why isn't this money invested where more jobs can be created which will ultimately result in more tax income to the state and federal governments?

Let's define a small business as one that's been in business for at least five years and employs more than ten employees. Let's select the top sixty of these companies determined by earnings before interest & tax. Let's now award each of these companies two million dollars for expansion and growth. How many employees do you think that each of these companies would hire?

If the economic recovery was the so important why has only one-third of the stimulus money been spent? Where has that money gone to? How many small businesses have you heard of that received stimulus funds? I know of the banks and some very large companies. This tells me that the Democrats are not quite so big on helping the middle and low income earners in the country as they purport to. Take a look at all the new taxes rolling out at the state and, soon to be, federal level. These new taxes on products and services hit the lower and middle classes in this country the hardest. Without the jobs the tax base dwindles. The smaller tax base causes a demand for creative new taxes to recover loss tax revenue.

Do you see what's really happening? Those without jobs get benefits extended to them. Those with jobs get taxed more. Those without jobs are still taxed every time they consume a product or service. If a more jobs were created there would be less expense in benefit payouts and more wage earners as a tax base. If this isn't happening then what is? Now that's a good question.

I would encourage you to visit the recovery.org site and look for yourself how the money is affecting your area. See if it's anything like my area.

Toyota v Government - Conflict of Interest?

Seriously think about this for a minute. The problems with Toyota accelerators have been happening since roughly 2000. I, in no way, will come to the defense of Toyota or the company's actions to correct the problems. I will however, point out just a couple of issues that cause me to be concerned and ask you to keep your eyes open.

The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) has recently stepped up its public campaign against Toyota. At this point in time this may just be my paranoia however I ask that you just think about it and ask yourself, "What do you think?" I find it suspicious that Toyota has been dealing with these issues now for roughly ten years but the NHTSA just now decided to step up and take real action.

In typical political expedience the Congress is looking to do a full hearing and investigation. Congress will now haul the Toyota executives into the capital and demonize them for all the world to see. By doing so we voters can get a view of how our political leaders are taking action to ensure our safety. This will be nothing more than another grandstanding show by our leaders (Republicans and Democrats alike).

Is the fact that we have so much (as taxpayers) invested into GM and Chrysler a conflict of interest? Why is just now that the government has decided to take political action against Toyota with so much publicity and fanfare?

President Obama and Congress bailed out GM and against popular public opinion went in and dictated to GM who will lead the company, how much they'll be paid, and even what cars that GM will produce. Now that they have such a political stake in GM, are they truly unbiased with regard to dealing with Toyota?

Lastly, keep in mind that this will negatively affect future Toyota sales. The factories that are being affected most are those right here inside the United States. When Toyota has to cut costs because of the lawsuits and the negatively impacted sales, they'll certainly make those cuts within the U.S. first.

Again, this may just be my paranoia but just keep an eye on this and watch how if unfolds. While doing so, watch for those politicians who are grandstanding the loudest. Look seriously at their motives and do your best to read through the political double-speak.

Hook or Crook

The President has now stated that he will begin to use his Executive Power to get done what the Congress cannot. Is this an abuse of his Executive Powers? You'll have to decide that. I personally believe that it is.

Executive Power Abuse?

The President is reviewing ways of doing away with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" laws even though the Congress is currently reviewing the possibility of repealing that law. When Congress would not create a bipartisan budget commission, President Obama decided to do it on his own and announced it at the State of the Union address. An apparent attempt at "shaming" congress.

The President's cabinet is currently reviewing how they can use Executive Power to make changes on all of the President's major agenda items such as Health Care reform and Environmental policies. The White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer said, “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” The EPA is already moving forward with Heat Trapping Gasses regulations even when the most recent news coming out on Global Warming shows that many of the former supporters are doubting the scientific data.

Even as Americans are speaking out and even as congressional representation is slowly starting to listen, the President says, "I'll do it on my own anyway." The President will ram this junk legislation down our throats come hook or crook.

The science is not settled

I've addressed this earlier regarding the money behind global warming so I won't reiterate here. I said then and have always said that I am not a scientist but that there were too many differing opinions from scientist to call the science "settled".

Al Gore and even President Obama in his State of the Union address accuse those with differing opinions of just disregarding science. Take a look at this article. These scientists referenced in this article were previously supporters of the global warming theory and have now cast doubts.

Unsettled Science

The fact is that it is not settled either way. So again, I say let's not radicalize the way we produce and use energy. Let's not skyrocket the cost of energy to somehow punish Americans into using less. All of this ultimately affects the poorest families in America more than any other. This administration does not need to raise taxes on the poor when their policies are killing middle and lower income America.

When there is a consensus then we can look at decisive action and I'm sure that the vast majority of Americans will be supportive.

Transparency & Debt; Business' Ball-n-Chain

Take a look at the article that I've linked here. The Obama administration continues to try and control what we as American's see and don't see.

Debt Limit Raised Behind Closed Doors

The President does not want you to see this publicly because he knows that it's wrong and he knows that you know it's wrong. Raising the debt ceiling and spending more money that we don't have to spend is not the answer and will not fix the problem. How is it that every other bill signing has been done with cameras and fan fare?

Because the government is not a business it does not have to balance a budget or, God forbid, be profitable. When a business is efficient and provides a needed or valuable product and/or service the business is rewarded with profits. Conversely when the business is inefficient or does not provide that needed product or service, they are punished by revenue loss and eventually by going out of business.

The government has none of the above. They are neither rewarded or punished based on need or efficiency. This is the exact reason why the government should NOT be involved in anything that is not part of the original powers set forth by the constitution.

Even with medicine, Doctors must be proficient and accurate or they will go out of business. Introducing more layers of financial cushion between the consumer and the provider only allows for mediocracy and additional costs.

Think about this for a minute... if you only pay the doctor with no one in the middle to absorb more costs, wouldn't the cost come down? The existing insurance companies and eventually the government has to pay for the employees and facilities, etc. thereby adding additional cost to the entire process. Perhaps a system of insurers that only insure for catastrophic illness and accidents but not for normal Doctor visits. I can't help but believe that when there is a need for affordable "normal" healthcare with limited oversight by the government that there'll be entrepreneurial Doctor's that will gladly meet that demand. The government is just simply not structured for this.

This is just one example of how these major problems can truly be solved with simple common sense exercised by the common man. Big executives' and big government's idea of fixing problems is not by re-evaluating a problem and finding simple cost effective solutions. The solutions proposed by massive companies and big government are nothing more than adding layers or bureaucracy and throwing more money at the problem. We see that here. Increasing the debt ceiling and spending more money on things that are not truly needed is just a short term fix. The jobs are temporary but the debt is long term.

Tell your republican and democrat leaders to get out of the business trying "take care" of people. This is not their job. The government will do far more by simply reducing its own drag on society. The over taxation and over regulation does nothing more than act as a dead weight or ball-n-chain on business thereby inhibiting business' ability to function efficiently.

I ask, why did President Obama feel the need to hide this?

Bipartisanship

Nancy Pelosi unveiled an $80 Billion Jobs Bill today that is intended to extend jobless benefits and more infrastructure projects.

President Obama called for Bipartisanship on this bill. The President also reached out for a bipartisan effort on the health care reform. Why does he want bipartisanship now? The obvious answer is because of Scott Brown's election victory and subsequent confirmation as a U.S. Senator. However, Scott Brown's victory is but only a small part of a much larger equation.

Bipartisanship means both Democrats and Republicans working together to come to some common ground on these two very important matters. The problem is that the majority of Americans have clearly stated that they do not want either. That being said, bipartisanship is exactly the opposite of what Americans want. If the debate is shifted from being a simple "do or don't" argument to a "look how we're coming together" argument, the President and other party progressives believe that they'll be able to continue with their agenda.

The Scott Brown victory certainly threw a monkey-wrench into the progressive agenda but as you can see, it did not stop it. The victory merely slowed it down. The agenda will only be broken down into smaller segments and pushed in smaller increments while we all sit idly back and applaud the Democrats and Republicans working together.

Contact your representatives and let them know that bipartisanship is NOT what Americans want. Americans want the federal government to get out of trying to run their lives. Americans do NOT want more social programs and more big government and more debt.

Contact your representatives and remind them that you do not want them to go to the table and debate a matter that is not debatable simply because they were invited. Do not fall for the typical rhetoric and double-speak. Read between the lines. President Obama has already clearly stated that he will not stop pushing for health care. The President has telegraphed his next move, let's stop him before he takes another step.

Lastly, be upset. Be upset that after such a clear message has been sent, the President still refuses to hear you. Moreover, the President simply believes that you're wrong.

Economic Stimulus - Again

Today President Obama will be traveling to New Hampshire to push his new economic stimulus. President Obama is suggesting that Congress take 30 Billion that was paid back by the larger banks and pumping into smaller banks so that they can increase lending to small businesses. Everyone agrees that small businesses are the tool to help stimulate and grow the economy. Everyone agrees that small businesses need help.

Did we as a nation already learn what this Administration does to businesses and banks when they lend money? Didn't we already see? Please write to your senators and congressmen and remind them how this Administration stepped in and basically took control of these entities. We do not want the White House running what they've already taken over much less making a power play to take control of small banks and businesses.

We just heard in the State of the Union that those banks who took bail outs should be able to pay extra money to help the taxpayers that bailed them out. That's code for another tax. That's how this Administration punishes those who may (or may not) have needed help. With this example, how can we trust that President Obama will not do the same with small businesses? Taking control or over taxing the small business community will kill them.

This may sound good on the surface because we'd be helping small businesses but look deeper. Look at the examples that we have before us and you'll see that this is bad. This is bad for the people that you know, for your neighbors. Your friends and neighbors are the little guys that we are talking about this time.

Don't be naive and believe that only those who take money will be taxed or controlled. The President's Administration instituted policies to allow them to take over banks that did not take money. President Obama is going to tax ALL large financial institutions, not just those who took the money. Follow the actions, not the rhetoric.

This is actually a brilliant move on behalf to the Obama Administration. Stop and think about this for a minute. First, He can take the money from the "evil" big banks and give it over to the "little guy." Second, American's will love this because it helps the small businesses. If you wish to change over to a Socialist economy, you need to have control of the entities that generate jobs and income. To do grab this control you must have support from the populace. If the populace despises these entities, they'll gladly give over control. As it pertains to Big Business and Wall Street fat cats, this is complete. Grabbing control of small business is the next step. American's may never despise the little guy but it won't matter when they're beholden to the government in the form of debt.

What will the government do with all of this control and money? They'll give over the entitlements programs which will make American's dependent. Dependent upon the government health care, social security, and now the jobs that they will control.

Bipartisanism

In the State of the Union address the President says that the Republicans can no longer be the party of "no" and must come to the table and meet the Democrats half way. Many Democrats have said that the Republicans are not meeting them in the middle. Here's two problems...

The first was illustrated by Glenn Beck last night. Beck showed how even with Scott Brown's victory there is a clear majority in the house and the senate for the Democrats. The Democrats do not need even one Republican vote to pass a bill. If every Republican voted no in the house and the senate, they could still pass a bill. That being said, why can't they pass bills? Why no health care? The truth is that the Democrats are split into two factions, the Progressives and the Blue Dogs. The Progressives are pushing for extreme socialism and the Blue Dogs are more middle of the road. The Blue Dogs are your traditional Democrats that are in support of more social programs but still believe in the original American values and freedom. These two are clashing and cannot seem to meet somewhere in the middle. The Progressives want major reforms that will literally create a socialism within the U.S. and the Blue Dogs are just left of conservative but no where near socialist or marxist. That being said, it's not the Republicans that are holding up the progress.

Secondly, and I've not heard any of the major pundants bring this up is that the American people have not told the Republicans to meet the Democrats in the middle on issues like Bail outs and Health care. The American people have said "No." The American people have said clearly and resolutely, "No." Under no circumstances do the majority of Americans want their health care to be run centrally by the Federal Government.

This clearly shows that, as of now, the Republicans are listening and more importantly following the will of the American populace as well as adhering to traditional American values. Please write your senators and representatives to let them know how they are doing relative to their respective positions.