Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”Scott”]From: [url=http://www.centralamericadata.com/en/article/main/Nicaragua_Brilliant_and_Enormous_Bid_by_China?]Nicaragua: Brilliant and Enormous Bid by China[/url]
“The delivery of a 100 year concession award for an Inter-oceanic Canal to a company without the capital or experience to carry out a project of this magnitude could be the result of a brilliant long-term operation by the Chinese government.”
See more at: [ http://www.centralamericadata.com/en/article/main/Nicaragua_Brilliant_and_Enormous_Bid_by_China? ]
[/quote]It (the canal “deal”) has nothing to do with investment and everything to do with influence and control.
IF the canal is ever built (I see that as highly unlikely) you can bet the Chinese will want to import their own labor and management during a process that will take a decade. No real job gain for the folks in Nicaragua there.
This whole deal is about building (in fact confirming) China’s growing influence and impact on the world stage. They have a real desire and need to divest themselves of all those US dollars (before them become worthless) they have accumulated so you will see them going on a buying spree of REAL assests and businesses.
Unlike the Japanese that spent it on overvalued real estate and other investments (golf courses and such) the Chinese will use the money wisely and not only use it for asset purchases but to increase their influence and CONTROL over other countries that have markets they need to sell to, and the natural resources they need to fuel their industrial machine back home!
It’s a long well thought out process. The world plays checkers while the Chinese play Chess.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
As to cost. Even the quotes (Cigna) you provided were better than the fee CAJA will be hitting you with if they charge you 13% on a good pension.
[/quote]
At $585.75/month, which is what a Cigna plan would cost with a $0 deductible, you would only come out ahead on cost if your pension on which CAJA is calculated was over $4,505/month or $54,000/year. How many people do you know that have that kind of pension? You may call that a good pension, but I call it a fantastic pension.I also need to remind you that the Cigna figures I quoted above were for a 65 year old man. Cigna adjusts the premiums as you get older so that by the time you’re 70, the premium would be $613.77/month if you took the $1000 deductible option and $1,132.46/month(!) for the $0 deductible option. For that person to come out ahead on cost his or her pension would have to be $8,711/month or $104,532/year.
[quote=”imxploring”]
The quotes, if providing insurance coverage for care dprovided in the private medical system in CR, provide much better bang for the buck.[/quote]I will readily concede that paying for private care in CR may result in better quality but if you can’t afford it, it doesn’t make a lick of difference how good the care is. You’ll never get to experience any of it.
Maybe I’m just not as demanding as the average person but for me as long as the care I got was adequate that’s fine, I don’t need Rolls Royce care as long as Chevy care did the trick.[/quote]
Unfortunately I know quite a few people with rather great pensions (in your opinion) that are in no rush to give up 13% (if that is in fact the number CR is now requiring for CAJA and residency) of their gross income for a plan they will most likely not use. Myself included. CAJA cannot even be compared to private care in CR nor is it anywhere near the care one can get in the US for the treatment of serious illness.
Comparing the permiums for insurance issued by a US based company against an arbitrarily imposed percentage of income for a public health service does both an injustice! It’s like comparing pineapples and bananas! LOL
For someone meeting the minimum income requirements for residency and paying $130/month perhaps it’s a good deal for basic medical care. However, even someone in that situation most likely would avail themselves of better care in the private sector in CR or return home to the US if confronted with a serious health issue requiring timely and comprehensive treatment. So CAJA is off the hook for the serious care for most expats forced into the system in my opinion.
After all the information you have obtained about CAJA can you honestly tell us that if you found out you had a life threatening brain tumor five years after you’d relocated to CR, obtained your residency, and were using CAJA for your medical care that you wouldn’t return to the US for treatment?
If we are going to compare private health insurance premiums to the CAJA system then why should participation in CAJA be based on income rather than a fix premium? And once again, private health insurance would provide MUCH better availability of care than CAJA ever could.
Perhaps if the premium for CAJA was a fix amount or, as a requirement of residency, participation in a private health plan was acceptable it would be a good deal. As it is now, it’s not.
So CR is really ignoring the fact that they may very well be shutting themselves out of attracting the higher income retiree that they should be courting! Investment and jobs going elsewhere. Not good business nor the message they should be sending as the world sees an aging population seeking a warm place to retire!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”costaricafinca”]
Please do not try to tell us, who actually use this service that everything is perfect. It isn’t. Just read the local online papers and see how many ‘tests’ are still waiting to be processed a few years after the fact
[/quote]That’s funny, I don’t recall saying “everything is perfect”. Please refresh my memory about when I said that.
What I actually said was that most accounts I’ve read from US expats who live in CR indicate they are reasonably happy with the care, which your comment seems to reinforce. If the worst thing that can be said about a healthcare system is that you may have to wait for non-critical care, well that’s not a very severe criticism.
If there are 2 systems and in one everyone gets cared for but some care is delayed, and in the other there are fewer delays but some get left with no care, then I think the first one makes more sense. It’s the one I think is fairer anyway. Others are free to disagree.[/quote]
I’ll stick with my statement that MOST expats if confronted with a life threatening illness will return to the US for care. That’s not a slap at the healthcare system in CR. As I said they are very good at providing basic medical care and maintenance treatment. However, their system for providing care for serious conditions is neither timely or robust enough to risk one’s life on.
I base that statememt on my own experience with 4 expats over the last 8 years that have been in that situation. That includes one that required treatment for an alcohol addiction. All were quite happy with the medical care in CR. But when it came to care for conditions that were serious enough that it became live or die…. they went back to the US for care.
It might be an interesting poll… how many expats that are using CAJA for their medical care in CR would risk their lives with CAJA if confronted with a life threatening illness rather than return to the US for care? I’m guessing very few. Once again not a dig on CAJA, they do the best they can and are good for the basics which thankfully is what most of us need.
As to cost. Even the quotes (Cigna) you provided were better than the fee CAJA will be hitting you with if they charge you 13% on a good pension. Keep in mind CAJA provides public health services and is not an insurance based plan. And as I have said, a BASIC plan in my opinion. So you have to be affiliated (member) of the system. The quotes, if providing insurance coverage for care provided in the private medical system in CR, provide much better bang for the buck.
We would have to ask Scott for help from one of his contacts that might offer some clue as to the availabilty and cost of CR based healthcare insurance which I’m guessing would be less expensive.
As others have said from their own experiences, CAJA is not the answer to your problems, nor is a wonderful deal if you are being forced to pay $500/month as a requirement of your residency.
[quote=”costaricafinca”][quote=”sweikert925″] The care by all accounts is excellent and it covers everything. The availability of joining the Costa Rican healthcare system is one of the major reasons I have decided to move to CR. My only fear is that they will remove the ability for expats to join it entirely in the coming years.
[/quote]There are [b]many[/b][i][/i] who will dispute this statement. In an emergency, the CAJA will step in, but if you are not shedding blood on the floor, you may have to wait a few years to see a specialist. I have utilized the emergency services and it was good…but the follow up care, was a whole different matter. A Costa Rican friend last week was told that he had to wait approx 5 years for a hernia operation!!!
[b]And they do not ‘cover everything'[/b] Many medications must be purchased ‘over the counter’ at a local pharmacy or you may given a generic version. You will still need to pay for eyeglasses and dental work.
Please do not try to tell us, who actually use this service that everything is perfect. It isn’t. Just read the local online papers and see how many ‘tests’ are still waiting to be processed a few years after the fact
Most of the ex-pats choose to use private facilities to be assured of a quick diagnosis and treatment. So if you think that CAJA will be your answer, think again.[/quote]yFor someone with a nice pension I’m thinking that private insurance in CR would be a better deal financially and care wise. The whole idea of the government in CR forcing folks into CAJA as a requirement of residency has more to do with money than providing care. As I stated before they are well aware that should an expat require serious care they will return to the US or go private in one of the many excellent hospitals in CR thus taking CAJA off the hook for the big care costs!
The question then becomes why would someone with a $4k -$5k per month pension bother with applying for residency?
Once again…. CR shooting themselves in the foot! And for those that feel it’s a reasonable price consider this…. if CAJA is based on your GROSS pension and they require 13%………… you then have Uncle Sam picking your pocket next based on gross…. then the 13% sales tax in CR on what you spend…. so before you get a chance to spend a dime of your hard earned pension on living… you’ve lost about 35% of your gross income. So don’t be so quick to give up that CAJA deduction which might not provide the service or peace of mind you think it does!
If CAJA was a reasonable flat fee based insurance plan offered to expats it would be much more attractive since I would consider it only a basic care plan. I’m certainly not looking to give up 13% of my income for it! The ROI is a loser not many will ever benefit from.
[quote=”sweikert925″]It seems to me that even at 13% of your retirement check, the ability to join CAJA is a fantastic bargain. The care by all accounts is excellent and it covers everything. The availability of joining the Costa Rican healthcare system is one of the major reasons I have decided to move to CR. My only fear is that they will remove the ability for expats to join it entirely in the coming years.
For those who paid into Medicare for 40 or 50 years and then leave the US just as you reach the age when you can start benefiting from it is certainly a bit galling, but remember that Medicare doesn’t cover all your costs – which is why the healthcare insurance company I work for makes a tidy profit selling Medicare Advantage policies to the over 65 market.
It needs to be pointed out that for Costa Ricans the cost of participating in CAJA is nearly 36% – 9% deducted from their paychecks and another 27% paid by their employers. I wonder what they would feel about gringos griping about paying only about 1/3 of that on their much larger incomes and still have full benefits almost as soon as they take up residence in CR.
Imagine what Americans would say if the US government offered Costa Rican retirees taking up residence in the US full benefits from Medicare for less than what they were required to pay into it their whole lives.[/quote]
Good points but there are a few issues you need to consider. First off many retirees with sizable retirement income will be forced into a public healthcare program in CR that will cost more and provide less than if they took that same monthly charge and purchased private coverage or went on a pay as you go basis for medical care. The argument that insurance is for the “just in case” major expense of catastrophic illness really doesn’t fit here since, as good as the medical in CR CAN be… it’s not always nor is it anywhere near that provided in the US. Most US expats when confronted with a serious condition such as cancer will return to the US for care.
If you recall recent history we’ve had some of the wealthiest and important people in the world (none US citizens) come to the US for treatment of serious conditions.
So what CR has in effect is a “stop loss” when it comes to the medical care provided to expats forced into CAJA. Sure they’ll be providing basic medical care and maintenance, they’re quite good at that and the cost is minimal as anyone that has needed such care and paid cash can confirm. However, when more serious treatment is required where the availabilty and cost become a concern, expats will return to the US thus relieving CR of the obligation or cost of such care. Not a bad deal for CR…. not so much for those forced into CAJA and made to pay more in a short period than many Ticos have in a lifetime.
The cost and level of care for a retiree getting a sizable pension is therefore not very reasonable when being FORCED into a plan as a requirement of obtaining residency in CR. The issue of also being forced into a plan in the US should one not meet the exemptions for remaining outside the US make it a double edged sword.
I’m still awaiting a clear confirmed answer on how the other two methods of obtaining residency are billed for their participation in CAJA.
[quote=”costaricafinca”]CAJA will use this percentage of your declared pension that [u]you will have to provide[/u] when your application is made, to come up with your monthly fee for service.
If you were applying for [i]Rentista[/i] who is required to deposit funds, $60K and then $2500 is transferred into your ‘living expense account’ each month, then the ‘percentage’ would be of the $2500.
ARCR is still trying to get new group rates, but I wouldn’t hold your breath…[/quote]Can anyone confirm this recently having been through this process? And if so has CAJA been assessing a 13% monthly fee on the required $2500 transfer to join the plan as is now required for residency?
The question still remains as to how CAJA is addressing the “investor” residency status and what monthly fee they charge there.
Perhaps Scott can have one of his contacts write an article clarifying the issue since many folks with sizable retirement income may balk at being required to join a medical plan they have no intention of using and paying $400/month as part of a residency application.
[quote=”anneliseped”][quote=”costaricafinca”]It seems to be correct, 12-13% of your declared pension. And yes, it is expensive.
HOWEVER, if you consider the Costarican worker who has paid the required percentage amount for his/her whole working life…you will only be paying during your retirement years,an amount calculated from your pension, which I assume is less than your earnings during your working years, it seems rather unfair to try to ‘get around’ paying the appropriate amount.[/quote]Big difference is that an expat with a $3k/month pension from the US that’s required to now pay $390/month into CAJA ALSO paid into Medicare his or her working life back in the US. Chances are that a retired expat in this situation will pay more in a few short years than an average Tico has paid during their working years. Also consider that in retirement chances are that NO Child coverage is offered. Not really a fair or reasonable system.
It seems that such a system based on a percentage of retirement income will discourage more affluent retirees from relocating to CR. That opens a whole other issue of job creation and money coming into CR.
An interesting question…. how does CAJA price it’s services to those expats that obtain residency through the other two methods of obtaining it?
Once again CR very well might be shooting itself in the foot on it’s desire to attract retirees and wealth to it’s shores!
[quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”davidd”]Kwhite
well- according to Sweikert everything is hunky dory
and crime is down in Chicago
so we have nothing to worry.:D:D:D
quote]It is all hunky dory isn’t it? That’s what we have been told by the boys and girls in DC, they would not mislead us would they? Crime is certainly improving in Chicago, historically the first 4 months of the year marked 100 murders, this year they only hit 90 during the first 4 months. a .08% improvment!! Hell, I might even move there now….[/quote]
Thank colder weather and the price of bullets…. local Walmarts are even limiting your ammo purchases to three boxes a day in New York. But you can still buy cigarettes on every corner and at your local Walmart!
[quote=”watchdog”]The real interest in Costa Rica by the Chinese is increasing their market quotas by “back-dooring” their manufactured goods into the U.S. Market using the TLC (Free Trade Agreement) between the U.S. and Costa Rica and shark fins. The rest is just “window dressing”. It is not realistic to think that a market of 4 million people would be of any interest to the Chinese.[/quote]
EVERY market has value to the Chinese! Remember a nickel doesn’t seem like much but 20 of them add up to a dollar.
The other issue is natural resources! One of the announced deal was teak going to China…. which will be manufactured into cheap outdoor furniture and sold worldwide. Costa Rica also has untapped other resources (like oil) that will become more important to the Chinese over time. Food product will become an issue as the Chinese try to feed their population. Another announced deal was milk going to China….
These are longterm thinkers you’re dealing with…. unlike most of the politicians in the US.
[quote=”johnnyh”][quote=”davidd”]
I thought this was nicehttp://www.amcostarica.com/morenews2.htm
I could not help but think how similar Obamas visit was to the Chinese president.
[/quoteThey must be fuming at the American embassy and the US state department. While the United States makes enemies throughout the world, the Chinese make friends. What a concept! Trade, and not war will benefit both the Costa Ricans and the Chinese.[/quote]
The Chinese are not looking for conquests… they’re looking for consumers! All part of a longterm plan that makes much more sense economically than war. Just look in your local stores here in Costa Rica. Cheap Chinese products are flooding in and displacing local products. You can even see it in the grocery stores with some food products.
The Chinese have two goals. Creating markets for their products to keep their economic engine running back at home to keep their people working and the the money flowing in.
The second goal is natural resources. They need them keep production going. So making “friends” that have them and opening trade routes is VERY important.
Who needs war when you can take down your enemy with “commerce”.
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]According to the 2010 Census, the number of people receiving benefits in Illinois under TANF has [b]DECREASED from 234,000 in 2000 to 54,000 in 2009[/b]. Nationwide the number has dropped from 5.9 million in 2000 to 4.2 million in 2009. In 1997, the year welfare reform was implemented the number on welfare was over 12 million.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0566.pdf
This is where you get all huffy about my daring to cite an internet source right?[/quote]
The chart also shows: Illinois’ TANF expenditures:
2000 $879 mil, 2005 $998mil and 2009 $1,091 mil.Year 2000 234,000 recipients costing Illinois $879 mil
Year 2009 54,000 recipients costing State $1,091 mil. Something very wrong with the info here (even if it is coming from a “reliable” source).[/quote]From the link I provided….shifting cost to the states.
“In 2001, Illinois spent $602 million in federal TANF funds, and $445 in “maintenance of effort” spending, which is the money the state has to spend to get the federal money, ensuring that the state has some skin in the game. In 2011 dollars, that’s equivalent to $765 million and $565 million. In 2011, the state spent $613 million in TANF dollars and $706 million in MOE dollars: a 20 percent increase in state spending and a 20 percent decrease in federal spending, leading to a very small decline in overall spending—in keeping with the general trend of less federal money being available to states across the board.”
“The nature of welfare spending has changed as well. Here’s how welfare dollars are spent in Illinois, in non-inflation-adjusted dollars:”
(There is a great chart on the link showing how expenditures have shifted to other welfare programs with very suspect sounding titles.)
“Basic assistance has gone from the largest expense to one of the smaller expenses; the largest expense among those categories is child care (46 percent in 2011). Second is “authorized under prior law and other nonassistance”; Megan Cotrell explains what that means. Illinois spends the lowest percentage of its welfare money on basic assistance of any state in the country, tied with Arksansas and North Carolina. Illinois also has one of the lowest percentages of poor families receiving TANF in the country:”
So shifting expenditures from one program/title to another doesn’t change the overall picture.
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]According to the 2010 Census, the number of people receiving benefits in Illinois under TANF has [b]DECREASED from 234,000 in 2000 to 54,000 in 2009[/b]. Nationwide the number has dropped from 5.9 million in 2000 to 4.2 million in 2009. In 1997, the year welfare reform was implemented the number on welfare was over 12 million.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0566.pdf
This is where you get all huffy about my daring to cite an internet source right?[/quote]
The chart also shows: Illinois’ TANF expenditures:
2000 $879 mil, 2005 $998mil and 2009 $1,091 mil.Year 2000 234,000 recipients costing Illinois $879 mil
Year 2009 54,000 recipients costing State $1,091 mil. Something very wrong with the info here (even if it is coming from a “reliable” source).[/quote]Don’t try to apply logic…. it’s posted on the internet therefore it must be accepted without question or the application of logic or common sense!!! LOL
[quote=”sweikert925″]”But far from creating a “cuture of dependency,” welfare spending has declined since reforms were passed in 1996, across three presidencies and two parties, as poverty takes up a smaller part of the national political debate.”
From the same link you provided. (Thanks for helping me make my point!) Let me guess, you didn’t even read the whole thing before posting it did you?
[quote=”imxploring”]
Let’s see how the food stamp program and section 8 programs add to that. Or perhaps the AFDC (Aid to families with dependant Children) program…
[/quote]There is no more AFDC. It was abolished in 1997 as part of welfare reform. TANF is the replacement for it. You don’t know much about this subject do you?[/quote]
So you simply ignore the fact that TANF which I’m well aware is the replacement for AFDC is now slowly seeing much the same fate? They’ve just changed the “program” by which they are handing out money. It’s harder to hit a moving/morphing target (welfare). How about the dozen or so other programs that dole out assistance?
You refuse to acknowledge that welfare spending (in all it’s forms and whatever acronyms are currently used) is increasing? Do you really believe that there are only 54,000 people on welfare in the state of Illinois because that’s how many people are collecting TANF?
How is it then possible that welfare spending is now at an all-time high?
I noticed you left the first sentence out of the paragraph you quoted from the link I provided…. here’s the full paragraph….
“Ultimately it’s not that much of the federal budget, though it’s increased here as a part of the state budget. But far from creating a “cuture of dependency,” welfare spending has declined since reforms were passed in 1996, across three presidencies and two parties, as poverty takes up a smaller part of the national political debate.”
Funny that you left out the first sentence. An INCREASE???? And COMPLETELY ignored the prior paragraph where they mention that food stamp recipients have increased by one million in the last decade. Are we to believe none of them were in Illinois?
Wake up!
Or if not I’ll have to agree with ddavid…. things sound wonderful in Chicago… you’d be a fool to leave!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
Welfare spending (a truly detrimental form of socialism spending) continues to expand.
[/quote]According to the 2010 Census, the number of people receiving benefits in Illinois under TANF has [b]DECREASED from 234,000 in 2000 to 54,000 in 2009[/b]. Nationwide the number has dropped from 5.9 million in 2000 to 4.2 million in 2009. In 1997, the year welfare reform was implemented the number on welfare was over 12 million.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0566.pdf
This is where you get all huffy about my daring to cite an internet source right?[/quote]
How about this source showing some additional components of the TOTAL welfare assistance the folks in Illinios are getting…. NOT just the basic assistance (TANF) program numbers you’re pointing to to make your point.
Let’s see how the food stamp program and section 8 programs add to that. Or perhaps the AFDC (Aid to families with dependant Children) program… or a dozen other welfare programs you didn’t include.
This source seems to tell another story and is a little more current than the info you posted.
So which is it? Is welfare spending up or down as you seem to postulate?
We can play the links game all day!
You might enjoy this link as well…. someone else with questions about how “Other People’s” money is being doled out!
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2012/07/where-does-illinois-welfare-money-go/
Enjoy!!!
[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”imxploring”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]
Nice sound byte … but there are enough exceptions written in to Illinois’ law (and very intentionally written in) that can be manipulated to enable lifetime “membership” in your State’s welfare program. http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=38464%5B/quote%5DHere are those exceptions:
[i]Exceptions to the 60-month limit
A family might be able to receive more than the 60 months of TANF benefits if the parent:Has a pending SSI application and is determined disabled by IDHS; or is determined unable to work at least 30 hours per week due to a medical condition; or
Is in an intensive program that prevents working at least 30 hours per week (includes DCFS, domestic violence, homeless services, mental health, substance abuse, and vocational rehabilitation programs); or
Is in an approved education or training program that will be finished within 6 months after the end of the 60 months; or
Is approved to care for a related child under 18 or spouse due to their medical condition; or
Has a disabled child under 21 who is approved for a Home and Community-based Care waiver.[/i]
Aside from the one that refers to a permanent disability, the others would be temporary in nature too. And the disability has to be of a nature that prevents someone from working – so just being in a wheelchair for example wouldn’t qualify.
Now I don’t know how many people are able to get past the 60 month limit based on these [b]AND NEITHER DO YOU.[/b][/quote]
Seems to be MORE than enough ways to make it possible to enjoy a lifetime on Welfare….so much for a real hard limit.
No wonder they all breed every other year and always have a child diagnosed with some type of alphabet disorder…. that is if they are using the same label to keep the money coming in from the state.
[/quote]
sweikert925 (conveniently?) omitted the domestic violence exclusion. The exclusion combined with a claim of PTSD is
guaranteed success in winning Illinois’ Welfare lottery.“The Domestic Violence Exclusion went into effect in Illinois on July I, 2002. It provides needed relief to domestic violence victims and their families as they struggle to break out of the cycle of violence. A client who qualifies for a Domestic Violence Exclusion is not required to participate in work and training activities and the TANF 60- month counter stops.
To qualify:
The client must experience difficulty participating in work and training activities for at least 30 hours a week due to domestic violence, or participation in work or training activities is unsafe.
The client must request to be excused from work and training activities because of a domestic violence problem (a written request is not required). The client must give proof* of being a current or past victim of domestic violence. The client’s request must be approved by a team of staff and consultants (i.e., the multidisciplinary staffing that always includes the caseworker and a domestic violence expert). A person does not have to be receiving services from a domestic violence service provider to qualify for the Domestic Violence Exclusion. *Proof may include a written statement from another person (e.g., relative, friend) who has knowledge of the circumstances that support the claim; a police, government agency, or court record; a statement or documentation from a domestic or sexual violence program or rape crisis organization; documentation from a professional (e.g., doctor, lawyer, clergy); or any other credible evidence, including physical evidence, that supports the claim. If approved, the initial waiver lasts only two months. The client’s Responsibility and Services Plan, or RSP, is amended to reflect what the client is doing to deal with the domestic violence (e.g., counseling, legal action, medical services). After two months, the waiver may be continued for as long as necessary, but the client is obligated to undergo a reassessment of her situation once a month.”
[/quote]All part of the “I’m a victim now support me” mentality of society in the US.
Pick your poison…. everyone has a story…. but it all ends with a demand that someone else pays!
