Every generation doomed to repeat the failed Socialism experiment..

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I would not trade it for the US system which i think is an enormous waste since it costs MORE tax payer money AND you need insurance to get quality care.

Then you get to spend up to 600x more on a drug to cure you, these price differences are not because of government subsidations but rather because there is no regulation and the respective companies have a monopoly on certain drugs (this isn't the entire truth, the lobby will make doctors perscribe medications that are more expensive for some medications where a much cheaper alternative that is the exact same drug exists)

In short, the US system is built around corporations making money, the European, Canadian, South American and Asian systems are built around helping the patient.

Those monopolies are guaranteed by our constitution. Pharma patents are short as it is.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there is nothing preventing it, however uhc would lead to lower costs, and we are already paying for the uninsured/future bankruptcy's through hospitals allowance for delinquent accounts. They know that alot of people aren't going to pay, so they figure that into their prices. Furthermore, UHC has lower overhead costs since there is less legal bullshit to deal with, particularly compared to private health insurance.

Funny. It didn't lower costs in Hawaii. It didn't lower costs in California. It didn't lower costs in Massachusetts.

Obamarama always rambles on about the jobs 'created' by treehuggers and their energy bullshit while they leave trillions of dollars of oil in the ground. What about the jobs created by the insurance industry and the Iraq War?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I would not trade it for the US system which i think is an enormous waste since it costs MORE tax payer money AND you need insurance to get quality care.

Then you get to spend up to 600x more on a drug to cure you, these price differences are not because of government subsidations but rather because there is no regulation and the respective companies have a monopoly on certain drugs (this isn't the entire truth, the lobby will make doctors perscribe medications that are more expensive for some medications where a much cheaper alternative that is the exact same drug exists)

In short, the US system is built around corporations making money, the European, Canadian, South American and Asian systems are built around helping the patient.

Those monopolies are guaranteed by our constitution. Pharma patents are short as it is.

I know, but some meds are 1/600th of the price elsewhere and YET the most innovations come out of companies that don't do business in the US.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's Ironic to be hearing cries about failed "Socialism" in these days of the biggest failure of "Capitalism" in 8+ decades.

There are some folks out there who aren't real bright...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there is nothing preventing it, however uhc would lead to lower costs, and we are already paying for the uninsured/future bankruptcy's through hospitals allowance for delinquent accounts. They know that alot of people aren't going to pay, so they figure that into their prices. Furthermore, UHC has lower overhead costs since there is less legal bullshit to deal with, particularly compared to private health insurance.

Funny. It didn't lower costs in Hawaii. It didn't lower costs in California. It didn't lower costs in Massachusetts.

Obamarama always rambles on about the jobs 'created' by treehuggers and their energy bullshit while they leave trillions of dollars of oil in the ground. What about the jobs created by the insurance industry and the Iraq War?

Realise this, twat, you pay MORE in taxes for your healthcare that you don't even have access to if you don't have insurance.

How IN THE HELL is that better? How is it less socialist? how is it even fucking sane?

No pharmaceuticals, let's take a simple one for an asthmatic, long lasting, free of cortisol, you name one to make it fair, after all i could just name the most expensive one and while it is sold at a RETAIL PRICE for 1/600 here it might just not be sold for all that much there.

Go ahead, bring it, we can do heart medication after that or discuss how steroidal inhalers are what weakens the lungs and is KNOWN to weaken the bronchs and still it is administered frequently because salbutamol and salmeterol isn't cheap.

You're selling out your populations health so that big pharma can make more money and you're seriously asking for indifference for it?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there is nothing preventing it, however uhc would lead to lower costs, and we are already paying for the uninsured/future bankruptcy's through hospitals allowance for delinquent accounts. They know that alot of people aren't going to pay, so they figure that into their prices. Furthermore, UHC has lower overhead costs since there is less legal bullshit to deal with, particularly compared to private health insurance.

Funny. It didn't lower costs in Hawaii. It didn't lower costs in California. It didn't lower costs in Massachusetts.

Obamarama always rambles on about the jobs 'created' by treehuggers and their energy bullshit while they leave trillions of dollars of oil in the ground. What about the jobs created by the insurance industry and the Iraq War?

They instituded government regulation? IE, this is the cost we will accept?

Of course not, they just let it through to the people who need it at the cost big pharma finds the golden spot, if some can't afford it, let them die, no biggie.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Then they can sell "ALL" of their products to China and other countries. Let's see how far it works without a decently paid consumer "labor" force to pay for the items, eh? They can pack their asses and capital up and get out, as far as I'm concerned.

While I dislike unions, the rich are laying the ground for a rebirth of the union and, unless something changes to move the little guy up a tad, it's going to explode, just like it did in the early 20th century.

Basically, the self-proclaimed "capitalists" seem to be doing an excellent job of pulling Marx out of his grave.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

True capitalism can only end in one way, imagine Soviet Union except the government is a corporation, under true capitalism no one regulates the market, under true socialism the government sets all the rules of the market, under communism, the governmet owns the market.

Many starry-eyed wannabe capitalists don't realize it, but under true capitalism you can end up with dictatorship just like what you might have under communism. If all of the property is privately owned then what happens if the owner of the street won't let you (personally) walk or drive down it? What if no one will hire you if you don't have the right religion or philosophical belief?

We're already starting to see some of this in instances where businesses are firing people for smoking in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Funny. It didn't lower costs in Hawaii. It didn't lower costs in California. It didn't lower costs in Massachusetts.

Did those states have real socialized medicine? Were healthy people prevented from fleeing the state as a result of their being unable to enter other states? (Oh yeah, that's right, unlike a program instituted on a national scale, people and businesses can move to other states at will.) Did people purposely move into those states to take advantage of the programs?

I predicted that those programs would fail before they were implemented. It really needs to be done on a national scale and, of course, you also need to protect against the force of global labor arbitrage--that is to say--you have to prevent businesses from leaving to manufacture goods in other countries (where they wouldn't have to pay for health care) for U.S. consumption.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
True Laissez faire capitalism was tried in the US during the Robber Baron Era.

We have never had a true laissez faire free market economy. And I like to use the terms wisely. We can call the kind of economy the United States has had, Capitalism. It would be defined as an economy that basis in free market economics, but is far from it because it is consistently distorted and intervened with by the state.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Sure there were social programs like public education BUT in terms of the market, it was entirely unregulated.

Far from it. Just one example, our banking system has been regulated and manipulated since 1781.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
It lead to corruption, monopolization, social stratification, and domestic violence, not to mentioned a consistent 15 year cycle of booms and busts (depressions).

Corruption? Like when the state steals $700 billion and gives it to the wealthy? Corruption exists in life, but always has a chance of disappearing in the market place through competition. Try competing with the State and its guns though.

Monopolization? The only detrimental monopolies that have existed in the United States have been the ones that work with the government. I assume you're referring to the case of Standard Oil. Standard Oil was not truly a monopoly, but even if it was it would be an example of a beneficial monopoly. If one company lowers the price of kerosene from $2 a gallon to $.06 a gallon then does it really need to be broken up? This is the same concept with Wal-Mart (although technically the Wal-Mart corporation would not exist in its current state if it was not for the State).

Domestic violence? This is a social issue, not an economic issue.

A depression is a relatively new term. The United States experienced its first depression in the 1930's. We all know who to thank for that. Previously it was just a serious of economic recessions, which were also caused by lots of government intervention.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Capitalism in the US has always worked when tempered by socialism. Socialism has worked when tempered by capitalism.

Capitalism has always existed in the United States as a form of socialism.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: winnar111


Obamarama always rambles on about the jobs 'created' by treehuggers and their energy bullshit while they leave trillions of dollars of oil in the ground. What about the jobs created by the insurance industry and the Iraq War?

Energy bullshit? A comprehensive energy independence plan in the country could create jobs, eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, eliminate the need to fight wars overseas, and increase the security of our country.

With only 3% of the world's oil supply, drilling is only a stop-gap measure, won't help us for 6-8 years, and even then the oil will go on the world market, only slightly lowering the price of oil,the profits benefiting the oil companies.

(What, you thought the oil would be reserved only for US consumption or would benefit our treasury? Why, that's socialism!)

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Many starry-eyed wannabe capitalists don't realize it, but under true capitalism you can end up with dictatorship just like what you might have under communism.

If you define capitalism as the kind of economy the United States has always operated in, then yes you're completely right.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
If all of the property is privately owned then what happens if the owner of the street won't let you (personally) walk or drive down it?

You can put on a sad face. That's always an option. We've been so accustomed to government roads that we can't imagine a system that could have existed without the government. Its one of the hardest ideas to imagine today and one of the things hardest to revamp if the government were to suddenly disappear. But normally private property is treated like anyone's property so you have to obey the rules or leave.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What if no one will hire you if you don't have the right religion or philosophical belief?

As a human being I hope that individual refuses to work for bigoted people. But as a business owner, they have every right to hire the labor they see fit. Most businesses would be crazy to exercise prejudice, they are excluding valuable customers. However, if the case then any minority has the ability to start a business and tap into the potential capital pool that has potentially been rejected by someone else.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
We're already starting to see some of this in instances where businesses are firing people for smoking in the privacy of their own homes.

That's their business. I think its unfair that people get fired for smoking pot in their free time, but I don't see you standing up for them.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

So you make ~350 bucks a week? What a surprise you love the system!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

True capitalism can only end in one way, imagine Soviet Union except the government is a corporation, under true capitalism no one regulates the market, under true socialism the government sets all the rules of the market, under communism, the governmet owns the market.

Many starry-eyed wannabe capitalists don't realize it, but under true capitalism you can end up with dictatorship just like what you might have under communism. If all of the property is privately owned then what happens if the owner of the street won't let you (personally) walk or drive down it? What if no one will hire you if you don't have the right religion or philosophical belief?

We're already starting to see some of this in instances where businesses are firing people for smoking in the privacy of their own homes.

Not only CAN, but WILL, in fact, i'd say the Pinochet regime, the only true capitalist regime to date was definently a dictatorship.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Funny. It didn't lower costs in Hawaii. It didn't lower costs in California. It didn't lower costs in Massachusetts.

Did those states have real socialized medicine? Were healthy people prevented from fleeing the state as a result of their being unable to enter other states? (Oh yeah, that's right, unlike a program instituted on a national scale, people and businesses can move to other states at will.) Did people purposely move into those states to take advantage of the programs?

I predicted that those programs would fail before they were implemented. It really needs to be done on a national scale and, of course, you also need to protect against the force of global labor arbitrage--that is to say--you have to prevent businesses from leaving to manufacture goods in other countries (where they wouldn't have to pay for health care) for U.S. consumption.

Truth is, we don't have any REAL socialised medicine either, it's just that we have billions to deal with since we don't sell them at the price they are suggesting but rather the price we're willing to pay as a whole.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

So you make ~350 bucks a week? What a surprise you love the system!

I used to make £6000 a month (for those who remember, that was the stated sum, plus some extras that i specified) but right now and since June i make £8500 a week and i am happy with the current system.

Now what twat?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Europe and Canada call it democratic socialism...American liberals call it welfare, equity of outcomes or wealth redistribution...Obama calls it change.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Europe and Canada call it democratic socialism...American liberals call it welfare, equity of outcomes or wealth redistribution...Obama calls it change.

Incorrect on all accounts.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Incorrect on all accounts.

Enlighten me.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
True Laissez faire capitalism was tried in the US during the Robber Baron Era.

We have never had a true laissez faire free market economy. And I like to use the terms wisely. We can call the kind of economy the United States has had, Capitalism. It would be defined as an economy that basis in free market economics, but is far from it because it is consistently distorted and intervened with by the state.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Sure there were social programs like public education BUT in terms of the market, it was entirely unregulated.

Far from it. Just one example, our banking system has been regulated and manipulated since 1781.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
It lead to corruption, monopolization, social stratification, and domestic violence, not to mentioned a consistent 15 year cycle of booms and busts (depressions).

Corruption? Like when the state steals $700 billion and gives it to the wealthy? Corruption exists in life, but always has a chance of disappearing in the market place through competition. Try competing with the State and its guns though.

Monopolization? The only detrimental monopolies that have existed in the United States have been the ones that work with the government. I assume you're referring to the case of Standard Oil. Standard Oil was not truly a monopoly, but even if it was it would be an example of a beneficial monopoly. If one company lowers the price of kerosene from $2 a gallon to $.06 a gallon then does it really need to be broken up? This is the same concept with Wal-Mart (although technically the Wal-Mart corporation would not exist in its current state if it was not for the State).

Domestic violence? This is a social issue, not an economic issue.

A depression is a relatively new term. The United States experienced its first depression in the 1930's. We all know who to thank for that. Previously it was just a serious of economic recessions, which were also caused by lots of government intervention.

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Capitalism in the US has always worked when tempered by socialism. Socialism has worked when tempered by capitalism.

Capitalism has always existed in the United States as a form of socialism.

You are wrong on absolutely every count. THere was true laissez fair capitalism in the mid to late 1800's. The banking system was regulated since when? The central bank was left to die! And there were several monopolies! TR and TAFT were prosecuting anti trust cases for years!

Try again sir. And when I am discussing domestic violence I am referring to bombings, violent strikes, and a near police state against organized labor.

No depression until 1930? What fuckin fucks are you talking about? THat was called the GREAT DEPRESSION not the GREAT AND ONLY DEPRESSION. The U.S. suffered several depressions during the era I refer to.

Once again, the lack of knowledge with people is ASTOUNDING.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Europe and Canada call it democratic socialism...American liberals call it welfare, equity of outcomes or wealth redistribution...Obama calls it change.

*sigh*

When you don't know shit and spout about it, it makes you look really, really ignorant.

EVERY first world nation is a mixed economy, ALL of Europe and ALL of north America too.

Socialism has to do with governmental regulation of the free market and as it stands right now, the most socialistic country in the first world is the USA, it's the country that has interfered MOST with the free market this year.

Now you may not like that and it might distort your views of how things are and you might crawl up and scream nononoonononono or something, but that is the way it is.

Social democrat is different than democratic socialism, you just turned the words around to make some non-existant point, go look it up son, i fucking double dare you, go look that up.

Liberalism is the only way to go, in short, liberals believe in individual freedom and individual rights but also in individual responsibility.

I could make the argument that conservatives are against freedom but that is obvious, isn't it? A woman should not have the right to her own body... conservative mantra.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I could make the argument that conservatives are against freedom but that is obvious, isn't it? A woman should not have the right to her own body... conservative mantra.

Political conservatism is much different from social conservatism...factor in that American social conservatism has a spark of religious ideology thrown in for good measure, and it really isn't conservatism at all. Your example is the fringe position of the far religious right...most true fiscal conservatives are actually rather socially liberal.

EVERY first world nation is a mixed economy, ALL of Europe and ALL of north America too.

True...what I wrote was a simplistic sound byte.

Socialism has to do with governmental regulation of the free market and as it stands right now, the most socialistic country in the first world is the USA, it's the country that has interfered MOST with the free market this year.

I agree...the Bush Administration, and its policies, is not an accurate representation of fiscal conservatism...there is irony that Neo-Conservatism delved into socialism.

Liberalism is the only way to go, in short, liberals believe in individual freedom and individual rights but also in individual responsibility.

Ahh, but the far left in America also believes in the nanny state...that the government knows better than the individual...personal responsibility is a foreign term to many on the far left of American politics...not to mention that American liberals play the class warfare card better than anyone. Conservatism also has its merits, so to claim that liberalism is the only way to go is a partisan position with no merit.

Take these rocket scientists for example:
Sarah Palin Effigy in West Hollywood


Call it what you will...political parties never hold true to a particular ideology...they shift positions to sustain their position of power, inevitably abuse it, and cause an ideological shift that inevitably removes them from power...perhaps it is a necessary cycle of checks and balances...neither side is right or wrong...liberalism and conservatism both have their merits.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I could make the argument that conservatives are against freedom but that is obvious, isn't it? A woman should not have the right to her own body... conservative mantra.

Political conservatism is much different from social conservatism...factor in that American social conservatism has a spark of religious ideology thrown in for good measure, and it really isn't conservatism at all. Your example is the fringe position of the far religious right...most true fiscal conservatives are actually rather socially liberal.

EVERY first world nation is a mixed economy, ALL of Europe and ALL of north America too.

True...what I wrote was a simplistic sound byte.

Socialism has to do with governmental regulation of the free market and as it stands right now, the most socialistic country in the first world is the USA, it's the country that has interfered MOST with the free market this year.

I agree...the Bush Administration, and its policies, is not an accurate representation of fiscal conservatism...there is irony that Neo-Conservatism delved into socialism.

Liberalism is the only way to go, in short, liberals believe in individual freedom and individual rights but also in individual responsibility.

Ahh, but the far left in America also believes in the nanny state...that the government knows better than the individual...personal responsibility is a foreign term to many on the far left of American politics...not to mention that American liberals play the class warfare card better than anyone. Conservatism also has its merits, so to claim that liberalism is the only way to go is a partisan position with no merit.

Take these rocket scientists for example:
Sarah Palin Effigy in West Hollywood


Call it what you will...political parties never hold true to a particular ideology...they shift positions to sustain their position of power, inevitably abuse it, and cause an ideological shift that inevitably removes them from power...perhaps it is a necessary cycle of checks and balances...neither side is right or wrong...liberalism and conservatism both have their merits.

1. it's FISCAL conservatism and social conservatism... Political conservatism? Wouldn't that imply a humble politician?

2. Separation of church and state make it irrelevant.

3. Nanny state? Like preventing people to do what is bad for them? Like the WOT or the WOD or seat belt laws or abstinence only or ban on stem cell research (i guess that is a ban on what is good for the population but you get my drift).

Now i'm not an American but i do know liberal values and they are the ONLY reason either you or me have ANY freedom today, if it had not been for Whigs we wouldn't have.

I'm all for a smaller government, i'm voting Tory, but restrictions in freedom is not something i will ever condone.

If i did, i'd just say fuck it, let the Talibans have their way and return home, what is a 7 year old girl with her uterus lying between her legs worth when we didn't have the manpower to stop it.

She's free now.

 

[Timorous]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
So you make ~350 bucks a week? What a surprise you love the system!

I make $520 in your money. Not all of my income is taxable because we have a tax free allowance and I also get small tax break for travel costs. I should also point out that I have not use the NHS for several years, I am young and healthy so do not need it as often as someone who is older than I. As I get older I will earn more money, I will pay more into the system but I will also take more from the system it seems pretty fair to me.

Even if I earned 10x what I do now I would not swap the system in the UK for what you have in the USA.

My mother had to have a life-saving operation about 10 months ago. The cost to her was £0 for the procedure and £5.50 for the medication after she left the hospital, she then had several post-op checkups again these cost £0. Granted she has paid into the national insurance and she has paid quite a lot because she is in a well paying job, but during this time we did not have to worry if she would be covered by her insurance policy, we did not have to worry about how much it would cost all we had to worry about was if she was going to get better - which she did.

In the USA not only would you be paying into your own insurance the same way my mother paid the national insurance but you would pay more for the operation and you would pay more for the medication and if your insurance company found a reason to deny your claim you would have to put up the entire bill which to alot of people is not affordable. My dad was worried enough about her getting better - he even had time off of work due to the stress. If he had other things to worry about like the insurance or cost of this treatment then he would have done even more harm to his health.

Not only that but if you are on the employers health care plan and during your employment you pick up a medical condition you find yourself in a situation where if you change jobs or lose your job you might not be able to get a new insurance policy due to the pre-existing condition clause.

I do not understand why a lot of American's consider UHC to be such a bad thing when if implemented properly it can do a lot of good.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: winnar111
It has nothing to do with trust; it has to do with history:

In the 1960s Medicare spent about $.1 billion a year (1% of the $10+b at the peak of the Vietnam War). It was $220 billion 8 years ago. Today its about $420 billion.

I don't think McCain's proposal will result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance. These gold plated expensive insurance programs are part of the problem.

All McCain's proposal will do is its face value result: It'll lower the cost of insurance by......$5000. For a family that's about $12k to $7k, minus the $3360 in taxes paid on that $12k for most families in the 28% bracket. You save a bit over $1500.

We spend far too much time worrying about a small fraction of the population that is 'uninsured'.

One of the missing parts of your equation when it comes to McCain's plan is that there is absolutely no guarantee that insurance companies will not raise their prices. You say they will save an average of $1500 but I say that there is nothing to stop the private insurance businesses from raising their rates by an average of $1000. There is no reason for me to believe that all of the companies will not do that. They are in the business to make money. They are not in the business to provide health coverage.

Obama's plan will provide more people with more coverage and it will be cheaper on average per family household for many reasons but one of them is because his plan relies more on services whose intent is truly to provide coverage.

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I disagree. Perhaps you can provide some proof as to why? I believe they will be reduced because many more people out there would be considered lower risk. Check ups are not what sinks these insurance companies. It is the expenses that their clients claim as a result of not getting check ups that really cost them some serious cash.

Why would a low risk person want to buy high risk insurance?

Because they are responsible and want to be healthy throughout their life. They understand a little evil word that insurance companies love to use called "preconditions".