You Lie!

[k12311997]

That's exactly what was intended by the comment which started this thread. The nincompoop who made the original statement knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. The talk is now all about his outburst rather than the subject at hand. I cannot believe these people get elected! My guess is, however, he put a nail into his political coffin.

PS I am referring to Rep Joe Wilson, NOT the originator of this thread!

Harry the fact that i'm conservative has nothing to do with my disconnect between the op statement and follow up. Out of context I thought the op was starting a philosophical disscussion since I was not overly focused on the debate I did not make the connection.

[bob_f_aboc]

Your suggestions as to what sick illegals can do strike me as absurdly impractical. Do you know what the closest embassy of any nation is to, say, Waco? What's a sick illegal to do, walk there? And how likely is he to get care where he came from (oh, sorry, that's not our problem...)?

Maybe we could have the Marines airlift sick aliens back home?

I find it remarkable that there appears to be an incredibly strong sense of community underlying your attitude towards illegals... that being an American makes one part of a group, membership in which is so important, that it forms the basis for something as important as deciding whether or not one gets medical care. You're one of "us", we take care of you; not one of us, go die, you're someone else's problem. Yet despite that strong sense of community in this context, when it comes to the essentially communitarian idea of government action, you're (I suspect) ardently opposed.

Were that not true, I suppose that by your burglar analogy, we shouldn't provide care to convicts in our prisons, either. They've broken laws, too (felonies, in most cases, unlike illegal entry). Too bad there are so many of them. What a relief that they get pretty poor care presently.

I'm probably looking for consistency where there is none... it's probably really just about the money.

Does anyone have any documentation on the 'State Provided Healthcare' that is being received by the American hikers that 'illegally' entered Iran? How about the American journalists that 'illegally' entered North Korea?

I am sure they receive the same level of care as every other citizen of the respective countries, whether they can pay for it or not.

We have a duty to protect the sovereignty of our nation. This calls for a bit of us vs. them. If we are as concerned about the health of anyone who can make it here by whatever means available, then how sovereign are we? Sneak into Canada or Mexico or France or China without documentation and demand free health care. See how well that works.

Perhaps illegal aliens should be treated more like criminals in our prison system. If you are speeding away from a bank you just robbed and roll your car, you will be taken to the hospital and treated...then locked up until you have paid your debt to societ. When an illegal alien goes to an ER, they should be treated and then put in prison until they have served the time required for illegal entry into the country. When the time has been served, then they can be deported to try again. I would wager that if this system was implemented, the number of illegals trying to obtain free healthcare would dramatically decrease.

This has definately drifted away from the original post. I will leave this thread alone after this post.

[Jubilee]

Speaking with a friend from Australia, what they do is bill the person who is from out of the country, and thus not part of their health care plan. Collecting those fees is another story though.

Currently we are already paying for their care. Care through ERs, which is more costly, and in some ways endanger more US citizens. What if that "illegal" has TB, a deadly form of flu, etc. Sure.. don't check them for it if they come crawling to the hospital with no papers and obviously ill.. release them back into general public at large.. and lets start another outbreak!

With so many other people coming here for care (such as our rich Canadians, Wealthy Arabs, and other people with $$$) are we to assume that those who aren't covered by insurance are people without the means or desire to pay? Or do we give someone a 3 min diagnostic to come up with an estimate and collect cash upfront?

------

Its funny how some politicians *hate* the medicare advantage programs.. but aren't they the compromise people are wanting? Sure they are a bit more costlier to run compared to the straight 80/20 medicare provided by the fed, but the plans are ran by private companys who can make a limited amount of $$$ catering to the seniors. Anything over X dollars of profit has to be reinvested back into services for seniors.. and their is competition among the private insurers to attract the seniors to boost their count of "lives" while competing with a public plan as well. Many seniors pay a bit extra for some of these services, sorta like they pay extra now for medicare supplements.. (oh another blend of public and private insurance at work!) and they have the option to move around every year as desired.

I also agree that education should be funded by the goverment. W/o having to pay for an extremely costly eduction, and reducing the amount of overhead needed/administration in the office, that by itself would reduce some of the costs associated with medical care.

Cassandra

[shanbaum]

Does anyone have any documentation on the 'State Provided Healthcare' that is being received by the American hikers that 'illegally' entered Iran? How about the American journalists that 'illegally' entered North Korea?

I am sure they receive the same level of care as every other citizen of the respective countries, whether they can pay for it or not.

We have a duty to protect the sovereignty of our nation. This calls for a bit of us vs. them. If we are as concerned about the health of anyone who can make it here by whatever means available, then how sovereign are we? Sneak into Canada or Mexico or France or China without documentation and demand free health care. See how well that works.

Perhaps illegal aliens should be treated more like criminals in our prison system. If you are speeding away from a bank you just robbed and roll your car, you will be taken to the hospital and treated...then locked up until you have paid your debt to societ. When an illegal alien goes to an ER, they should be treated and then put in prison until they have served the time required for illegal entry into the country. When the time has been served, then they can be deported to try again. I would wager that if this system was implemented, the number of illegals trying to obtain free healthcare would dramatically decrease.

This has definately drifted away from the original post. I will leave this thread alone after this post.

Do you really want to use North Korea and Iran as the standards by which we should evaluate our behavior (in other than a negative sense)?

I fail to see the connection between "sovereignty" and "provision of care to illegal aliens." I suppose that one element of sovereignty is the power to exclude non-citizens from the country; but "power" and "ability" and "decision to exclude" are three different things (and none of them bear directly on health care).

Again, your "solution" is impractical. There are some 12 million illegals in this country; where do you propose that we imprison them, and what do you think that would cost?

By the way, repeated illegal entry is a felony.

[shanbaum]

The government should pay the tuition for all healthcare providers and require a set period of mandatory public healthcare service in the area the graduate received their degree in. During the mandatory public healthcare service, the HCP should have housing, cafeteria, and other necessesities covered along with a small stipend. The return on the investment should more than cover tuition.

Built-in incentive programs for the HCP should be in place covering all areas of patient management and care which rewards effective care coupled with fiscal responsibility. The healthcare service would be available to insured and uninsured. The billable services should be based upon the cost to operate each specialty unit not based upon usual and customary fees. Payed managers of units would be rewarded for efficient operation, not denia of service. Penalties would be in place for inefficiency and/or denial of service as a means to keep costs down. Billable servies to insurance companies should be reduced thereby lowering the cost of insurance for this persons opting into this service. This would be a hybrid version of an HMO.

I need more coffee..apparently I am still half asleep. :hammer:

Hiya, Doc,

I presume you're not suggesting that we send illegal aliens to medical school, but there's an out-of-the-box idea!

A program like the one you describe already exists:

http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/

I mentioned it in an article I posted here:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...20&postcount=8

Stay away from the coffee, it's not good for you. No, wait, it is good for you. Oh, bother...

[Spexvet]

That's great! They aren't allowed to receive government money for health care. So when an illegal alien goes to the ER, will they be made to pay up front before they are treated OR will they be seen, treated and released with absolutely no intention of paying the bill.

If they are treated and do not pay, then that is more money that is being lost by the doctors and hospitals on top of the $550 Billion that will be cut from payments over the next 10 years.

I haven't had the time to read the entire bill. How is this addressed in the proposed legislation?

I apologize. It indeed is not "more money". It is money that is currently being lost that will now be in addition to the $550 Billion that will be cut from Medicare payments over the next 10 years.

Who wants to cut Medicare? Oh, I see...
From here

May 3, 2006 – The budget cuts to Medicare - $36 billion – proposed in the 2007 budget by President Bush have received a cool welcome by the Congress...

And I seem to remember that in July, 2008, no Medicare checks were sent to providers.

...
My opinion concerning illegal aliens in this country is: if they chose to break the laws when coming here, why should they be entitled to anything? If they are sick and need medical care, they can go back to their home country for treatment. Or they can make a trip to the embassy for their country and seek treatment from the doctors on staff there.

from here

JACK KILPATRICK

Shana, they bought their tickets, they
knew what they were getting into. I say,
let 'em crash!

And don't call me Shirley!

This is along the same lines as a burglar breaking into someone's house and cutting their hand on the window they broke or being attacked by the dog, then suing the homeowner for the medical bills.

If the Mexican who is mowing your lawn cuts himself, are you going to check for a green card before you staunch the aterial bleeding?

Does anyone have any documentation on the 'State Provided Healthcare' that is being received by the American hikers that 'illegally' entered Iran? How about the American journalists that 'illegally' entered North Korea?

Do you really think that Americans should treat people the same way that Iran and North Korea treat people?

...
We have a duty to protect the sovereignty of our nation. This calls for a bit of us vs. them. If we are as concerned about the health of anyone who can make it here by whatever means available, then how sovereign are we?

Are you saying that we should make sure that only every American citizen should be provided with high quality, affordable healthcare?

...
Perhaps illegal aliens should be treated more like criminals in our prison system. If you are speeding away from a bank you just robbed and roll your car, you will be taken to the hospital and treated...then locked up until you have paid your debt to societ. When an illegal alien goes to an ER, they should be treated and then put in prison until they have served the time required for illegal entry into the country. When the time has been served, then they can be deported to try again.

I tend to agree with you, here.

I would wager that if this system was implemented, the number of illegals trying to obtain free healthcare would dramatically decrease...

But there will be an increase of untreated sick, injured, and dead illegal aliens. Do you think that's a good thing?

[bob_f_aboc]

<withdrawn>

[opticianbart]

I wonder how an American Indian would feel about this attitude? I believe every treaty we made was broken.

that is about as nonsensical as equating death by abortion and death during war which I've heard both from liberals.

Heh, remember that one time when we sent the Amerindians west of the Mississippi River? and the Cherokee fought (and won) in the Supreme Court. And ummm the President said "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." (John Marshall was the Justice who rendered the decision.)

[ksquared]

I guess we "all" need to keep our thoughts to ourselves in this new age of change.....

President Obama was telling the truth when he made the statement below even if his CBO "quietly" disagreed. The current plan for Health Care Reform will certainly "not" add "one dime" to the deficit. It will be a few more than that. So in this sense he was telling the truth.

[Spexvet]

...
President Obama was telling the truth when he made the statement below even if his CBO "quietly" disagreed. The current plan for Health Care Reform will certainly "not" add "one dime" to the deficit. It will be a few more than that. So in this sense he was telling the truth.

What is "the current plan"? Has Obama signed it? Is "the current plan" his plan? If the bill that makes it to the President's desk increases the deficit Obama will veto it. K, your arguments always entertain. They're not very substantial, but it's nice to hear what Hannity tells you to think.

[shanbaum]

There actually is a line of reasoning based on the (Congress', not Obama's) CBO that supports a claim of deficit-neutrality - but it is admittedly a stretch.

See a critical take on it here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lth-care-refo/

It is worthwhile, but difficult, to try to keep these numbers in perspective. Doing so is made harder by the use of 10-year projections, because it's hard to deal with really large numbers. A one-trillion dollar incremental cost is more than 10 times as frightening as a $100 billion dollar incremental cost; but the $100 billion sounds still less significant when compared to the $2.5 trillion that we'll spend on healthcare this year - because that is an incremental 4%. It's the $2.5 trillion that's unsustainable - not the 4% add-on. And of course, a substantial purpose of the endeavor is to reduce the $2.5 trillion, or at least keep it from growing so rapidly. The assertion that that is possible is supported by the fact that many other countries manage to obtain better outcomes on most measures, while spending substantially less than we do per capita (like, half). They all spend less, but not all achieve better outcomes (just 36 or so).

[KStraker]

More great publicity for the people of SC. I'm not sure why the people are so stupid here. Many people here in SC don't seem to be too disturbed by this outburst. I mean, no one in the history of our country has ever done it, but since our president is a black man with the middle name Hussein, some how its OK now. I don't understand.

[LilKim]

His supporters feel that he's simply echoing what a fairly large portion of the US already thinks--that they're going to get socialized medicine, and the gov't is out to screw them over. When has the gov't ever NOT been out to waste taxpayer money? LOL In either case, they don't think THEY'RE stupid, oh no, it's the other way around! Free Bandwagon rides! C'mon everyone, jump on! ;)

[Jubilee]

So if everyone is against socialism, lets get rid of public schools, police, fire departments and every thing else our taxes pay money for. How about transportation and roads, etc?

What? that's infrastructure and necessary for to support our country and its economy? Afterall how can Detroit sell cars if we don't have roads to drive them on?

Too bad our people aren't worth anything to the economy. Except taxes.

[For-Life]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-d...tml?view=print

Guaranteed Health Care In Iraq - But Not For You
digg stumble reddit del.ico.us
Read More: Bush Policies, Health Care, Iraqi Constitution, Max Baucus, Public Option, Single Payer, Politics News

You'd better sit down, folks.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:

"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics,or private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another. Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.

So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us. Not good for you. They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.

Indeed, reading the Iraqi Constitution so near to the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is instructive. It is the very definition of American right-wing hypocrisy.

We have (thus far) sacrificed more blood to wrest Iraq from tyranny than we lost on 9/11. In addition, according to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 15, 2009 (Report 7-5700/RL33110) we have spent and/or authorized $864 Billion in military operations on Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of those funds have been for the war in Iraq. Additional secret funding has been authorized for intelligence and special operations.

The total is more than (or, in the worst case, equal to) the funding required to guarantee minimally decent health care here.

In other words, the most senior members of the Republican establishment - and some Democrats like Max Baucus (D-MT) - have gladly spent more taxpayer funds to ensure health care as a Constitutional right in Iraq than they are willing to spend to give you any level of guaranteed coverage.

The source document I used is from the official United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. If you'd like to download and review the full Iraqi Constitution, click HERE

This news is an example of the benefit of our online viral information age. The situation was first called to my attention late yesterday (September 8) by a long-term blogger, Korkie Moore-Bruno, on a think tank list of Obama supporters. Korkie posted an alert from her Facebook friend Jubal Harshaw. Give them credit for the heads-up; all I've done was verify the rumor with the United Nations.

It would seem that U. S. citizens might find out if their Representative and/or Senators have supported or voted to fund the war in Iraq. If so, do they support health care as a civil right for you?

If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no," respectively, you might consider less hypocritical representation.





Copyright © 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | Archive | User Agreement | Privacy | Comment Policy | About Us | Powered by Movable Type

Wait, wait, wait. You mean to tell me that when these Conservative politicians were trying to implement freedom around the World, that they brought in a public health care system? That can't be right!!! That is socialism. Why would these Conservatives spread socialism around the World?

I wonder if YOUR tax dollars are paying for the health care of people in Iraq, even if it is not paying for you...

Why would these same Conservatives be against a public option for you?

[KStraker]

I'm all for some good ole fashioned Socialism in health care. If we blow 10 billion a month in Iraq it's good foreign policy. If we blow 10B a month on helping our own people it's Socialism, and somehow bad. Our country doesn't do isms.....isms are bad mmmkay. What good has come from isms? Communism, Sectarianism, Totalitarianism, Socialism? Crap, I said Socialism, now I'm going to hell. :angry:

[DragonLensmanWV]

Well, they DO have an image to maintain. At least here. At least for themselves.

[For-Life]

i'm all for some good ole fashioned socialism in health care. If we blow 10 billion a month in iraq it's good foreign policy. If we blow 10b a month on helping our own people it's socialism, and somehow bad. Our country doesn't do isms.....isms are bad mmmkay. What good has come from isms? Communism, sectarianism, totalitarianism, socialism? Crap, i said socialism, now i'm going to hell. :angry:

death panel!!!

[Pete Hanlin]

I think it's too bad that the politics are such that it's not possible to include all persons in the U.S. under some kind of care regime.

Hmmm, I happen to be quite pleased that there is at least some opposition to the establishment of such a regime (your word, not mine).

I believe there is disinformation being spread by both sides of this debate- anyone who believes that EITHER side is being totally truthful is, well- delusional.

End of day, personal health care does NOT fall under the perview of the Federal Government (then again, neither does one's retirement savings plan- but that bird flew the coop under FDR).

[fvc2020]

As one of the few conservatives on this board I am appalled by the lack of understanding of what is really wrong with what's going on.

First and foremost I do oppose this "healthcare proposal" 1st reason there is nothing in our Constitution that states the government is responsible for the healthcare of this country. 2nd- Medicare and Medicaid are in the hole already, where do we get the money to pay for the $858 billion tab for the newest proposal? 3rd I took the time to read about the illegal issue. Republicans in the house want exact wording for no healthcare insurance whether throught "co-op's, a public option or medicare/medicaid. The Dems didn't want to put it in there. I think sometimes that so many people here think it's ok for illegals to get everything they want here without having to pay. They cost hospitals alot of money.
I honestly can't believe anyone here is ok with the change in payments we receive as doctors/opticians. Can any of you live on medicare/medicaid reinbursements? What staff gets cut? What new technology do you choose not have in your office? Can you afford to give the best of who you are if you aren't paid well?

My final reason is I personally do not want to pay for anyone's healthcare bill. You can't afford it, don't want it, or choose to not take care of yourself too bad. I work hard. I like to pay my own bills, enjoy my life, and choose whom I give my money to. Selfish yes, but when this country was set up, there was nothing stating I had to share everything I earned with everyone who choose not to....

christina

[Jubilee]

So what does fall under the government's perview? And why?

Here is how I view the illegal's access to health care..

If we continue with how we currently run things, they will still have access to our hospitals. They will use the ER and other such avenues where they can not be denied, and the fed will still end up paying for it, or subsidizing it to keep the hospitals afloat in these "poor" areas.

If they can purchase insurance through a cooperative, or though taxes, etc.. then they at least are PAYING SOMETHING towards the cost of their care, and would most likely cost us less $$$ in the long run.

There is also the very real public health concern. Many outbreaks of disease are hard to contain or difuse, if we have a sizeable segment of the population being kept out of the health care system. So that one illegal you saved $100 on by refusing them access to a wellness clinic just cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars in lost work, productivity, wages, and health care expenses cause that one sick person made dozens of others ill.

It seems that transportation, industry, roads, police, and fire all provide for the common good and important aspects of the infrastructure of the US.

Some of us are very blessed to have either a company the provides excellent insurance at a value based cost, or have spouses/partners who can. Many of us work our @sses off and get no insurance from the small businesses we work for. You know, like the private offices many of us are employed at. I know a gal who works 2 jobs to provide for her family. Her primary job's ins coverage is more like 50/50 in terms of both premium and in the cost of services. Her second job would like to offer her a promotion to make more $$ that would come in handy as the first one is going through layoffs to keep afloat. Too bad it doesn't come with insurance benefits, and if she accepted it, it would mean having to give up the first employer.

So should she make an extra $500 a month to pay off bills and provide for her kids eduction.. which would be impossible to do since she would then have to provide insurance coverage for a family of 6 through COBRA or some other plan..

or should she stick with the place doing layoffs since they provide insurance coverage, but.. have been working reduced schedules and laying people off.

If there was a government exchange where she could pay the same amount she pays currently for her coverage ($400/month for the family) and have the same or better insurance, it would be a no brainer. Make more money for the family. But due to insurance, she would be irresponsible for leaving.. though her own job could be in jeapordy.

This is the paradox many are going through. There is also companies getting rid of their health plans, or reducing the benefit by going to High deductible plans, etc.. which is putting more burden on the american worker.

GM would not have needed a bail out had it been able to shed the retiree health coverage in prior years. That the cost of retiree health care completely wiped out any profit and caused a substantial lost in the years leading up to this debate.

Healthcare is already bankrupting us and the US. Status quo is not an option.

[shanbaum]

As one of the few conservatives on this board I am appalled by the lack of understanding of what is really wrong with what's going on.

fvc2020,

1st - despite your and Pete's protestations to the contrary, while your statement is possibly facially true (the Constitution doesn't "make government responsible" for health care), both the spending clause (Article 1, section 8, paragraph 1) and the commerce clause (I.8.3) empower the government to provide health care, and regulate it. As I wrote elsewhere, the federal government did so in 1798, without so much as a peep from any of the framers. There were heated disagreements about other aspects of federal power (famously, a nationally-chartered bank, which Jefferson argued was unconstitutional - but Jefferson lost the argument and Washington signed the bill); there's no reason to think they wouldn't have argued about this, had it been controversial.

As a side note, it's interesting that two of the Republican proposals appear to assume federal power to act in this area - first, they would preempt state laws that prevent interstate competition among health care plans (as though that wouldn't quickly cause a levelling into uniformity), and second, they would preempt state laws regarding malpractice. Up to this point, regulation of insurance, and malpractice torts, have been governed (almost) solely by state law. It's interesting how quickly the GOP gives up on states' rights when it suits them.

2nd - Medicaid is not "in the hole" in any sense at all (other than being chronically underfunded, so that access to it is limited), and Medicare is only if you cling to the utter fiction that there is such a thing as a "Medicare Trust Fund." There is no such fund; there's only (in effect) a journal entry that tracks Medicare tax receipts. The same is true of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Medicare tax may fail to cover Medicare expenses, but that can be corrected easily, by raising taxes, or eliminating benefits (or otherwise reducing costs, see below).

You mention the deficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid payments, and I agree that these payments should be the same as "customary" payments for health services. I do not, however, believe that there is an effective pricing mechanism for health services presently operating in this country, which is why costs are absurdly high here compared to other countries, and why they continue to rise at a disproportionately high rate. Creating an effective pricing mechanism should be a priority (hint: we could study how other, more successful countries do it). Unfortunately, I don't see where any of the proposals I've seen actually do this, but I haven't read them all.

3rd - As I understand it, the Republicans want one or more provisions that would require proof of citizenship before anyone could get any health care - not just subsidized participation in the national insurance plan. Now, they oppose such a national plan anyway, so the obsession with excluding illegals seems a bit superfluous. But even if you are obsessed with excluding illegals, it would be absurd to require everyone to provide proof of citizenship even when seeking emergency care ("Sir! Are you a citizen? Respond or leave!" "Uhhhh...."). And the fact that there was no enforcement provision in H.R. 3200 doens't mean that there wouldn't be any enforcement; the regulations that are created around the Act could provide them (that happens all the time; statutes are always full of holes that have to be filled in by the agencies and the courts). However, while I would include illegals in my ideal care regime (if you think that word usage is odd, Pete, look it up), I would not oppose including some enforcement mechanism if they are to be excluded. I just wouldn't care about it too much.

Finally - you are entitled to be selfish. But when this country was "set up", the national government was indeed empowered to require that you share your property (perhaps even "everything you earned") so long as the government used "due process of law" (which, in the case of taxation, probably amounts to bicameralism and presentment) in doing so. Of course, whether the government would actually do that is something left largely up to Congress, and in turn, the voters who elect it.

Of course, your side might lose.

[Spexvet]

...it would be absurd to require everyone to provide proof of citizenship even when seeking emergency care ("Sir! Are you a citizen? Respond or leave!" "Uhhhh....")....

I think the Repubicans might go for a "citizenship" tatoo on the inside of the forearm...;)

Oh, wait
Leviticus 19:28 (KJV)

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

[opticianbart]

Shanbaum...can I just like hang out with you so my IQ will rise by like..osmosis? I feel smarter having just read your comments.

[braheem24]

Shanbaum...can I just like hang out with you so my IQ will rise by like..osmosis? I feel smarter having just read your comments.

Since you want to be smarter:D

Osmosis is for the diffusion of water.

Passive diffusion is for everything else.

If that dont work, you could always try more episodes of Star Trek.