Today's letter to the President

Dear Mr. President:

I shall be brief. If you do not appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection it will be widely seen as a betrayal of the middle class and likely abandonment of hope for real economic reform.

There is far too much compromise in today's political atmosphere and it is neither buying the good will of the opposition nor the confidence of the electorate.

I urge you to appoint the one person we feel confident will represent the vast majority of the people of the United States. This nation has become a corporatocracy and we need a strong signal that you really mean to do something about it.

Half measures are not enough.

Thank you.

--the BB

I signed

Several Senators called on Senator Reid to restore the public option to healthcare reform through reconciliation. Those few have grown to 18 signers and some more supporters.

I joined as a citizen signer tonight and sent e-mails to both my Senators, thanking Udall for joining and urging Bingaman to add his name.

--the BB

My letter to Senator Jeff Bingaman

Here is Senator Jeff Bingaman's further information on Public Option (from his website):

How does the "public option" fit into health care reform?

The Need for a Public Option

One key element of the debate we’ve been having is whether to create a so-called “public option” – a health care plan available to all Americans that ensures that there is at least one health insurance option for Americans that is affordable and would focus exclusively on providing meaningful care, not turning a profit. With my strong support, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved a bill which contains a robust public option described below:

• Run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Secretary of HHS would have the authority to negotiate provider payment rates that are no more than the local average private rates, which would help control costs. The government would provide funding for the first three months of the plan in order to get it up and running and make the public option available in all parts of the country. The funding would be repaid once the public option began operating.
• Public option would be one of the Gateway choices. The public option would be available to all Americans alongside private insurance options within the newly established health insurance “Gateways.” .
• States would help tailor a public plan to their needs. Each state would create an Advisory Council to recommend strategies for quality improvement and affordability. This would allow states to implement strategies that would provide efficient, affordable care to their residents.
• Participation would be purely voluntary; Americans would have the choice of participating in the public option but there would be no obligation to do so.

Good stuff. I like reading it.

Then I read this from Ryan Grim on HuffPo:

The committee chairman, Max Baucus, released a framework of his proposal for the group to discuss Tuesday. The three Republicans declined either to endorse or reject the proposal on their way into the meeting.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said that there was much in the proposal that he could go along with but that he wasn't sure where his Republican counterparts stood. "I don't know anything about their position," he said.
Bingaman, however, has never been the reluctant negotiator. The third Democrat, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), declined to tell a reporter if he could support the Baucus proposal.

Snowe said much of the negotiations will focus on costs.

[Emphasis mine.]

Negotiation is an important and valuable skill. Unfortunately, recent years have taught us that negotiating with Republicans in Congress is nothing more than giving away the store and they STILL won't give anything significant in return - certainly not their support.

I also don't want any part of the Max Baucus plan these folks are pondering. Nothing I have read about it sounds like good news.

The WSJ - a notoriously non-progressive source - says today:

[Obama's] support for the public plan sets up a split with the Senate Finance Committee, which has been drafting the health bill that has been seen as the only hope of winning bipartisan support for a health overhaul in Congress. Over the weekend, the committee's chairman, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, distributed a draft of his health proposal that leaves out the public plan in order to win support from a small group of Republicans. Mr. Baucus's plan costs less than $900 billion over 10 years and would expand insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans. (Read the health proposal here.)

"The only hope of winning bipartisan support for a health overhaul in Congress"? My friends, there is no hope of winning bipartisan support for anything that will meaningfully overhaul health in this nation. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

So they are considering sacrificing the health and economic well being of the American People "to win support from a small group of Republicans." Hey, why not toss in thirty pieces of silver while you're at it?

The NYT reported on August 26 that:

At a town hall meeting, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, arguably the most liberal of the Democrats in the group, said he would back the use of a procedural tactic called reconciliation that would allow Senate leaders to move a health bill forward with a simple majority, instead of 60 votes.

“It would be my preference to come up with something we could get some bipartisan support for and try to move ahead with that,” Mr. Bingaman said at the meeting, on Monday in Albuquerque. But he left the door open to a reconciliation bill. “If we are unable to do it any other way, that is an option,” he said. “It is a very difficult option to get implemented, but clearly I would support that if that’s the only way” to enact a measure, he added.

On September 4, prior to the unveiling of the Baucus proposal, the NYT reported:

Two members of the group of six, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, have been pushing for a more generous package of benefits, with a higher “actuarial value.” The other Republicans have been pushing for a package that would be more affordable to consumers.

Well, what can I say? I say it's spinach and to hell with it.*

Mike Lux at AlterNet today writes:

The Baucus mark-up only adds to this conventional wisdom, of course. But keep in mind that Senate Finance is almost without question the most conservative committee in either house of Congress right now. Its chair, Max Baucus, is in the top five Democrats in terms of conservatism, and has been historically very close to big business and the ranking Republican on the committee (Grassley). He was happy to cut the deal with Grassley in 2001, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Democratic caucus, for the massive Bush tax cut for the rich that was the main cause of our massive federal deficit over the last few years. Other key committee Democrats like Conrad and Bingaman, of the Gang of Six fame, aren't exactly liberally stalwarts either.

[Emphasis mine]

In his latest newsletter, Senator Bingaman writes:

Ongoing health care reform negotiations have moved from Congressional debates in Washington to discussions in neighborhoods, districts, and town halls across the country. I held four town halls across the state in recent weeks to speak with New Mexicans and listen to concerns and priorities about potential legislation; in turn, I had the opportunity to discuss why I am fighting for reform. Watch footage of the New Mexico First town hall in Albuquerque, or listen to my in-depth interview on health care reform with Dr. Barry Ramo of KOAT News. I remain concerned about many of the misconceptions about the proposals for health care reform. The White House provides a good resource that debunks many of these harmful rumors.

And here is my letter tonight:

Dear Senator Bingaman:

We are now in the very hard work stages on health care reform. I imagine negotiating with some of your colleagues on the Finance Committee is arduous and often frustrating. I applaud you for hanging in there.

As I read these words in the Wall Street Journal today my flesh crawled:

"Over the weekend, the committee's chairman, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, distributed a draft of his health proposal that leaves out the public plan in order to win support from a small group of Republicans."

To my eyes that sounds like sacrificing the health and economic well being of the American People for a few Republican votes.

Has bipartisanship become some golden calf, some Molech to whom we will sacrifice our children?

My message to you is DON'T SACRIFICE THE PUBLIC OPTION. Collegiality is not worth it. For all the brilliant technology and dedicated professionals in this nation health care in the United States is a disgrace. We do not score well on life expectancy, infant mortality, and several other key indicia yet we spend more than any industrial nation. Over sixty per cent of our bankruptcies are related to medical costs. This is simply not acceptable. We need to do better. We must do better.

I beg you to stand firm and not merely support the public option but FIGHT for it.

I have written to you about this before but I cannot remain silent when so much is at stake.

Thank you.

Well, folks, that's all three letters. Have you contacted your elected representatives about health care lately?

--the BB

*I actually like fresh or lightly cooked spinach. This is an old aphorism and the younger among you need not worry if it rings no bells.

My letter to Sen. Tom Udall - updated to add header

Here is what my junior Senator, Tom Udall, has on his website:

Health Care
To provide every American with quality health care, control skyrocketing costs, and ensure patients have choices, we need to dramatically improve our health care system. Congress has already passed legislation to ensure that 11 million children have health insurance. We have also begun the process of reforming the health care system to cover every American man, woman and child. America deserves a health care system that reflects the ingenuity and compassion of the American people. President Obama has pledged to push for broad health care reform, and I will work with him and my colleagues in the U. S. Senate to enact a plan that increases coverage, improves quality of care, reduces costs, and refocuses our system on preventing illness and promoting wellness.

OK, Tom is a junior senator just getting his feet wet. Still, I would like something more forceful.

Here is what I wrote to him tonight.

Dear Senator Udall:

I was happy to support you and vote for you last fall and hope the first year in the Senate has not been too traumatic.

I appreciate your comments: "America deserves a health care system that reflects the ingenuity and compassion of the American people. President Obama has pledged to push for broad health care reform, and I will work with him and my colleagues in the U. S. Senate to enact a plan that increases coverage, improves quality of care, reduces costs, and refocuses our system on preventing illness and promoting wellness."

I would love to hear more specifics and am more than happy to share with you what I wish to see in health care reform.

First and foremost, I believe that without a strong public option there will be no leverage to change how health care is done in this nation, nothing that will pressure the insurance companies to focus more on the collective well being and less on their usurious profits. I would like to see you push for a strong public option. Without it I think any reform is mere window dressing.

Additionally, I hope you are pushing for legislating an end to rescission, to denial based on pre-existing conditions, and to caps that leave people with catastrophic illness bankrupt.

Co-ops are not a sufficient substitute for a public option.

Thank you for your service. Please fight for the People.

--the BB

I replied to my Congressman's letter. - Updated

Here is part of what he said:

Most significantly, I hosted a Health Care Town Hall meeting on Aug. 22nd. A thousand constituents attended the meeting and many more watched online. This forum, along with one-on-one conversations with voters across the district, highlighted that the single most important topic on people’s minds is health care. You can watch the forum online by clicking here.


I believe the time to reform our health insurance system is now.

Today, I’m heading back to Washington to fight even harder for health care reform that:

• Guarantees choice in health insurance – including a robust public option;
• Covers all Americans to control health care costs; and
• Ends immoral practices such as denying patients coverage due to pre-existing conditions or dropping your coverage when you get sick.

[My coverage of the town hall meeting is here.]

I responded to his campaign staff first (a chap I know from church). The critical lines:

Anyway, I want to thank Martin for the stance he takes in the e-mail that just went out. I like what I read.

I would LOVE for him to join those pledging no public option = no vote. Any chance he can go that far?

This is what I wrote to his formal congressional site:

Dear Congressman Heinrich:

I appreciate what I read in the e-mail you sent out today. I am glad you are fighting for us in Washington.

I especially, and vigorously, support you in pushing for a strong public option in health care.

May I ask if you will join the Progressive Caucus in pledging not to vote for a bill that lacks a strong public option?

I realize this is a lot to ask someone from NM01 but it is what I very much want to see.

Again, my thanks for your service.

Y'all cannot imagine how glad I am we elected him to replace Bush-enabling Heather Wilson. Martin is the first Dem to represent NM01. Some of you will remember me touting my "homeboy" back during the election season last year.

Today is the day Jane R is urging us all to write to our elected officials about health care. I hope you have done or will do before the evening is over.

1 down, 2 to go.

UPDATE:
Martin has an August 9 op-ed piece at the Albuquerque Journal.
--the BB

My letter to the President

Here is my letter today.

Dear Mr. President:

You have seen the reprehensible response you get from the GOP when trying for bipartisanship on health care. Now it is time to do the right thing, whether they choose to get on board or not (and they won't).

Please take a strong, consistent, vocal, public stance (this coming Tuesday and going forward) in support of a vigorous public option in health care. It is not just one element in reform; without it most other steps will be baby steps that do not go far enough. There will be no real motivation for insurance companies not to gouge the public while sacrificing its health to their profits.

I cannot state this strongly enough. I am a Democrat who was proud to support your election. If we fail on this I will be a Democrat wondering why he even bothers with such a spineless party. At the moment the only segment of our party I wholeheartedly admire is the Progressive Caucus. Please listen to them.

Thank you.

I sent it through this White House link where comments are invited.

Jane R and others are encouraging us to do something daily for health care and designated this as "Today is write-the-President-about-health-care-reform day." Mimi's post reminded me to do my duty. I love the way we encourage one another to be active, engaged citizens. This is democracy at its finest.

This may be my third or fourth letter to the President since his inauguration. It is more polite than the last one.

So, write already.


--the BB

I signed. I donated.

Remember this?



Well, let's stand up and prove that YES WE CAN!

Are you listening, Mr. President?

Here is where you can join in by signing.



--the BB

Health Care Town Meeting NM01

The inside photos above and immediately below are from What's the Word's flickr pics of today's event. Thanks to the photographer (who may or may not be the Peter who put the link on the live blog).


On Saturday afternoon NMI hosted a live blog of Heinrich’s health care reform town hall meeting at the University of New Mexico’s Continuing Education Building in Albuquerque. Click [here then click in the box indicated] to read a transcript of the conversation.
--New Mexico Independent


I had four small signs with me. The above graphic is one of them. No signs or placards were permitted inside the auditorium but I never made it in. The auditorium seats 600 and they put 300 in an overflow rooms with screens to watch it. Hundreds of us were turned away. I drove home and caught the second half online.


Heinrich was joined by Michael Richards, chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at UNM’s School of Medicine; John R. Vigil, CEO and medical director of Doctor on Call; and Paul J. Gessing, president of the Rio Grande Foundation.
--New Mexico Independent

The two panelists who spoke the most, besides Heinrich, were Dr. Vigil and Mr. Gessing. Since I missed the beginning, it was not until later that I found out who these people are. I easily figured Gessing for a Libertarian by his comments and, sure enough, the Rio Grande Foundation is a libertarian-leaning group.

If you wish to see the detail and read the signs in any of the photos below, you may click on them to enlarge them.


Here is one view of the line just after I arrived. As I comment on these photos I am also scrolling through the live blog to see what others perceived. When Rep. Heinrich entered there were boos but they say those were drowned out. The MC was totally awesome, laying out ground rules at the beginning and being very clear about expected and demanded behavior, frequently breaking in to remind people to let people speak and act civilized.

Near the beginning Heinrich said, "Democracy is messy, but it sure beats the alternative." I heard him say it again in his closing remarks. He and legislators were accused by one speaker near the end of ignoring the Constitution and other laws. While I am sure none are perfect, I find it rather puerile to make such an accusation today after the blatant lawlessness on a grand scale of the previous White House administration/thugs.

It is evident in some signs and some remarks that some folks are really angry. Well, come to think of it, anyone who reads this blog knows that I am often furious, so fair enough. At least we care.



Just in case of emergency, we had the AFD present. The truck had just driven up right next to where I was standing in line. I was thinking, "Hmm, things could get hot." It was a warm sunny day. A good day to have a water bottle and avoid heat stroke.


The telly folks arrived just after the fire truck.

Marjorie Childress commented on NMI's live blog:

18 percent of GDP is spent on Health Care, Heinrich just said.
Some context: Gallup just came out last week with a report that 25.6 percent of New Mexicans have no private insurance.

Someone commented that there were over 100 viewers on the live stream; when I watched it was around 180. Not bad for a local event on a Saturday afternoon.


There was huge applause for the public option as well as boos. Most of the folks I saw in line were in favor of reform now. Some of the PRO signs were a bit snarky but most were simple and rational. ANTI signs were a bit heavier on the outrageous (and sometimes misleading). I saw at least two signs about not paying for abortions with government funds. Well, folks, that is not in any of the versions of bills under consideration, so you win: we won't include that. Now, wasn't that easy?


One commenter on the live blog asked: "Is this just going to be a debate between Heinrich and Gessing?" Based on what I heard online the answer is mostly, Yes. Gessing was a consistent naysayer but aside from his general anti-government stance I did not hear him offer solutions to our dilemma. But don't get me started on free-market fundamentalists.


Childress of NMI records: Dr. Richards: We pay for the care of uninsured in many ways. Long waits, uncompensated physician care--in my emergency department it results in lower wages, longer hours, they're in the lower-quartile of physicians. this health care is mandated now--at the E.R. So we do mandate it--but its incredibly expensive. 3 to 4 times more expensive than care in other nonacute venues


Someone challenged Heinrich about being in the elite of Congress with their health care. He responded (per the blog): "Heinrich: I'll take your bet and raise you one. First, I kept what I had before because [it's] better than what I got as a congressman, and if we get the bill in the house, I'd be happy to sign onto it. I think other folks for whom the answer is different, they ought to be able to pursue that also"

Heinrich: if we can't succeed in pulling all Americans into the pull, we won't succeed. If this doesn't pass, we won't stop. We can't wait another 20 years. We'll get everything we can, but we won't quit just because the President signs a bill.



Q: What about tort reform? Doctors have to raise their prices because of the insurance. Heinrich: The nonpartisan CBO under Bush said they thought it was about one percent. Texas has probably been as aggressive as anyone on that issue, and they still have out of control costs.

I think Heinrich is pointing out, in a genteel manner, that the fuss over tort reform is not an answer to health care costs. Tort reform is a big conservative thing and one that Dubya was very fond of. While we all know horror stories about outrageous legal action, most measures for "tort reform" take away one of the few tools that people have to defend themselves against damage, especially damage they suffer from the careless or outright evil actions of corporations. Thus tort reform becomes a method the powerful can use to insulate themselves from retribution for their wrongdoing, sold to the populace as something noble.

As I scroll through the live blog I learn the Gessing's group is one of those organizing teabaggers. As irritating as I found Gessing, it was clever of Heinrich to include him so no one can cry that they were excluded.



Gessing trots out the tired old canard about a massive federal system of health care being unconstitutional. I had my answer for that ready in one of my signs, shown immediately below.


If health care is not part of the general welfare, then WTF is?


Heinrich: there's nothing in the bill that I'm aware of thats unconstitutional. And there are plenty of attorney's to keep us honest. America is one of the best at innovation, and we need to foster that environment, we need the kind of R&D that drives advances. This is why you see this pragmatic careful approach to reform


This poll was included in the live blog. I am in the second category. I pay 100 percent of my premiums. That is just over $9600 a year (including dental and life insurance). For one person. Then I have my copays. Anyone wonder why I favor health care reform?


Just in case you came to this late, the event took place in New Mexico. Love the tat.


On why such a rush?
Heinrich: We started that discussion in 1992, thats hardly a rush. (Massive outcry from audience--boos and yeas)


On "death panel" (Gawd, what crock-of-shit framing!)

From FactCheck.org's discussion of the death panel issue:
The fact remains that the bill wouldn’t require patients to receive counseling sessions, nor would it require a doctor to offer one. Rather, it modifies Section 1861(s)2 of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for. So if a patient receives a counseling session from a doctor or health care practitioner, he or she doesn’t have to pay for it – Medicare will. As we pointed out in our earlier story, Medicare will also pay for prosthetic limbs, but that doesn’t mean that every recipient gets those, too.

--Gwyneth Doland (NMI)


Heinrich: but we do need to get it right, which is why we said we need to take a month to talk to our constituent. On the death panel, this is the most disappointing tactic, at least if we read the bill we can look at where we agree and disagree. there is nothing in there that takes choice away. my dad is on medicare, if i subjected him to a death panel, i wouldn't be able to visit. I do think its important if someone wants to consult with their doctor in advance planning they should be able to (that last bit was a paraphrase--there's a woman constantly yelling in my ear. )


Heinrich: if we want to talk about rationing, lets talk about the rationing thats happening today. Health insurance companies push costs downstream, in a market where everything turns over every few years, there isn't enough stability in the system. We need a system where a health care pro is making the decision, not the government or a health care insurance company.

One of the most vocal hecklers just got his name called.

Q: I liked you on CIty Council, glad you went to WAshington, but you seem to have forgotten the mandate of the people, we sent you to DC to take care of business, not to socialize the medical system. We have spent over 80 billion dollars to bail out the auto companies, they still had to declare bankruptcies, (audience says ASK YOUR QUESTION! he says SHOW ME COURTESY). THis country is in econ. chaos, if you can't run the economy (in a nutshell) you expect us to give you our money to run socialized medicine?

Heinrich: I'll keep it short since that was for your benefit rather than mine. If I wanted to socialize medicine, we'd do single payer. We'd eliminate insurance companies, and that woudl be that. I dont' think it would pass, I don't even think its a good idea. But at least we can have an honest conversation and let people have the options. Medicare is a subsidized system, but if you look at the public option its a system that people pay into.

Augusta Meyer is the name of the woman who moderated this and she was awesome!


Well, there you have it folks: democracy in action here in Albuquerque.


Comments have been made over the course of the town hall meetings across the country that some protesters are merely voicing an anti-Obama stance. I would hazard a guess that this is true for the chap pictured here. His poster says nothing about health care, really, just expresses a muddled dislike. (OK, probably hatred.) It strikes me, though I cannot read his mind, that there is an element of lumping the non-pink people together, i.e., racism. He juxtaposes a "biracial" president with some other group he possibly despises (Muslims, who are not a racial grouping at all but are predominantly non-European). Then it gets jumbled with a political system presumably intended to fire up our remembered history of red-baiting. Sigh.


Now this is snarky, but I like it.


Ahem. May we discuss the trillions involved in Bush's optional invasion and occupation of Iraq that has shattered a nation and fucked our economy in order to enrich his cronies? Because if you are not going to go there then you really need to STFU on taking actions to salvage the American economy and the well-being of the American people. Just saying.


This woman was a few folks ahead of me in line. I slipped around to get this photo when it was obvious we were far from getting in to the event.


People just hanging in front after the doors were closed.

OK, peeps, there's my report. Keep on fighting for the general welfare!

--the BB

Your FISA updates

The line held this week, but there's more to be done.

You can check out mcjoan's posts at Daily Kos:

FISA Fight: Where we stand - Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM PST
[This one has phone and fax numbers.]

FISA Fight: Feingold on the agreement - Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM PST

FISA Fight: A time to lead - Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:31:43 PM PST
[Statements from Obama and Clinton plus the following words of Harry Reid:]

"All last year, I had four Democratic senators running for president. I wish they could all have been elected president, but only one can be. And so two of them are out of that race now. I still have two Democratic senators. As you know, next Tuesday is Super Tuesday, and they're both very busy, as is Senator McCain. So I probably can't get them back here until Monday, but I need them back."

Then there is this:
FISA Update
By: emptywheel Friday February 1, 2008 7:19 am

Apparently, Reid has brokered a Unanimous Consent agreement that everyone, from Feingold and Dodd to Jeff "Mutual Defense" Sessions, have bought off on.

And this:
Dems Capitulate on FISA
By: Jane Hamsher Friday February 1, 2008 2:13 pm

Harry Reid once again used Senate procedure to tank retroactive immunity and other changes Democrats wanted to the FISA bill. George Bush gets everything he ever hoped for.

A special comment by Keith Olbermann:



You may read the transcript of Keith Olbermann's special comment here.

FISA: GOP Blinks (Somewhat)…Let’s Get To Work
By: Christy Hardin Smith Friday February 1, 2008 5:15 am

I'm sure Dick Cheney's admission that telecoms handed over private communications records without a warrant to the Bush Administration had nothing at all to do with this. (H/T to C&L.):
...But the moment he says anything else, any doubt that the telecoms knowingly broke the law, is out the window, and with it, any chance that even the Republicans who are fighting this like they were trying to fend off terrorists using nothing but broken beer bottles and swear words couldn’t consent to retroactively immunize corporate criminals.

Which is why the Vice President probably shouldn’t have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday.

Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney’s mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, “retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States.”

Oops. Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course. But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there.

Good one, Dick. In my business, we like to call this an "admission against interest."

Glenn Greenwald is pessimistic about the deals that mcjoan finds positive:

The whole agreement seems designed to ensure that the GOP gets everything they want -- that they are able to defeat all of the pending amendments which Dick Cheney dislikes, and to do so without having to engage in a real filibuster. In what conceivable way is this an instance of "Dems not caving" or "holding tough?" This is how CQ described the agreement:

Republicans pressed for the threshold to head off any amendments that would significantly change the bill, which was negotiated with the White House.

I commend Greenwald's post, including the updates.

A lot to sort out. I am sure Cheney-Bush want us confused, throwing our hands up because it's not simple. I admit I get a headache trying to know exactly what I want our Senators to do. Besides kneecapping Bush and ripping out the Cheneybot's pacemaker with their bare hands (for starters).

Well, I guess my testosterone is ramping up for the Superbowl. I daresay I would like to see some giants among the patriots of this land accomplish something memorable.

WE CAN SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO ALL OUR SENATORS THAT WE DO NOT WANT THE RULE OF LAW COMPROMISED BY ALLOWING TELCOM IMMUNITY.
--the BB