Step 1: Get any kind of healthcare reform passed. Step 2?
 

I'm sure the lion's share of moderates and progressives here are unsatisfied with the healthcare bill that will likely be passed on the coming days. I would have preferred a push for single-payer and then maybe a few concessions to get the necessary blue-dog votes. Instead we got the public option as a starting point and now... we'll see. C'est la vi.

So let's say the likely happens and this bill is passed. A few relatively minor things begin to change, and people recognize these things despite the sky-is-falling rhetoric from the right. What happens next? Undoubtedly, progressives will continue pushing for additional reform, I know I will. But what's the next baby step toward real reform? Should we push for a real public option or should we push for Meicare for all?

I'm honestly not sure and I'd like to get your input.

I like the concept of being able to "buy into" Medicare, but I don't know the details of the specific plans that have been offered up for it

At some point, I think the next step will be in the direction of a program similar to the FEHB (fed employees can chose from among numerous private providers at varying costs with varying levels of coverage) type program and not a Medicare type.

Where the private insurance companies will still be the providers of service and compete for consumers in a marketplace that is regulated by the government.

Derwood, Representative Weiner from New York laid out the idea of a Medicare buy in here. It's an intriguing idea and Rep. Weiner has been making the rounds building a pretty strong case for it.

DC, so you're saying we're simply headed toward a better regulated free marketplace? Do you think that's the best solution or are you still rooting for something like single-payer or nationalized health?

I'd love UHC/Single Payer, but I don't think it will ever happen here

Maybe not, but I think it makes sense to still fight for it. Remember: Canada didn't get single-payer overnight, it took years and years to get in place. The first step was Saskatchewan subsidizing doctors because of a shortage. The idea spread to Alberta. It took almost 40 years, but things now are a hell of a lot better than they were back in the 1940s for Canadians. If the US takes until 2050 to get healthcare, I'm going to be there to see it.

Well I think so, its been a pretty big part of their platform for years so it only makes sense that they might continue to push it if they have the numbers to. I do however fear them becoming to dogmatic about the whole thing and losing perspective about what the country really wants/needs. For example lets say people are happy with the balance struck by early reforms and instead of leaving it at that, they keep pushing and pushing for more reforms because they feel they have to or need to as its a big part of the platform.

I think ideally a balance between the two sides is what the country really needs right now. Despite how good/bad single payer may be for the country its something we're going to have to ease into with small steps. People just don't like monkeying with a system that works for them and weather its selfish or not, people are going to look out for their own or their families own best interest before others. Its going to be hard to convince somebody with a good health care plan to change anything because they just can't be sure if what they get will leave them worse off.

I think the insurance industry is too deeply entrenched in the system to ever discard it completely...or at least anytime in the foreseeable future.

End the anti-trust exemption the industry currently enjoys, regulate premiums and levels of coverage and encourage greater competition and consumer choice...is a more pragmatic approach to affordable and accessible health care for all.

I've seen my healthcare coverage go downhill in the last 20 years. First it was the $20 office visit payments, then the increasing deductibles, and increasing premiums.

And I have never had to get healthcare insurance as an individual.

I view this as something good for the country. And if it is good for the country, then it is good for me.

Will, I sincerely believe the sentiment of this statement should make everyone here feel very uneasy. I don't mean in a right-wing "sky is falling" way. An uneasiness like you may experience before jumping head-first from a very tall bridge in to an unfamiliar dark and murky stream. However, all you know is that you want relief and the lure of doing something new seems appealing if not exhilarating. What would be your deciding factors for making the 'jump" (or not)?

Sounds like fairly basic problem solving. Why are you there? What are your motivators? What premise drives any consideration of any solution? Have you validated anything? What defines success in your decision? Do you understand all the factors and variables, cause and effect? Are there acceptable and unacceptable outcomes? What are your contingency plans? How much responsibility are you willing to assume for any measure of risk? What is the overreaching affect of minor, moderate, or complete failure? Who are you responsible to or for? Who benefits or suffers from your commitment to "jump in"? Are you informed?

Since my profession relies heavily on project and compliance management, I generally think about such considerations according to complexities and orders of magnitude. I can't think of many projects more complex, visible, and potentially volatile than this current "Health Care" legislation. So my "uneasiness" comes from the startling absence of the most rudimentary problem solving considerations. Essentially, the gross absence of basic due diligence.

Because we are attempting to solve "something" in a purely political exercise, we've jumped way past clearly understanding exactly what that "something" is, and are now poised to vote in to LAW a massively complex and highly convoluted "corrective measure".

So what the hell is Step 1?

• Who can define it (in pragmatic detail, not platitudes)?
• What are the presumptions and how are they quantified?
• Where and how have cross-impacts, multiple causation, and mitigation strategies been exhaustively studied, mapped, presented, validated, and proposed with success criteria and KPI (key performance indicator) metrics?
• Is this really all about "Health Care"?
• What is "it" that is being voted in to law today?

I'm very certain our representatives don't understand what they are voting on. But it is clear that "someone" does. The debate always deteriorates back to political gamesmanship rather than the pursuit of altruistic pragmatism.

I live in a state where college basketball a daily hot-button. The NCAA championships are underway and we had 3 teams this year. The rivalries are intense and the trash is talked. The funny thing about the most belligerent voices (for or against) are from those who most likely never attended, had a friend or relative attend, or even stepped foot on campus for "their" team. But they are ready to say anything to anyone, promote lies, push, shove, and fight for "their team". Little has anything to do with the outcome, they most likely have aligned themselves out of tradition and social circles. But they are all experts.

I can't help but see the similarities (the superficiality) in support for sports and political teams. Feeling important by proxy of social movement may provide that exhilaration before the "jump". I've seen very little about identifying and fixing the "problem" from both the media and our leadership. Maybe it's because no one can say in detail which "problems" Step 1 is specifically designed to fix.

Below the text from the "Short Title Table of Contents" from H.R. 3590... originally entitled: "An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes."

which is now referred to as: TITLE I — "QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS" or Subtitle A— "Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans" The bizarre renaming is comical in it's own right, forget any reassurance of competency to the "process". No need to question motivation here.

To the President and Congress:
This is just the Short Title index... Now try getting through the entire document with comprehension and the ability to articulate its full meaning. Now look us all in the eye and tell the nation that you're ready to make an informed, responsible, and conscientious decision. Are you feeling uneasy? If not, you're irresponsible, intellectually stunted, dishonest, and/or simply a political hack.

It looks like most of you here are excited about "jumping in". I hope the water is deep, without debris, and you know how to swim. I hate to consider the alternatives, but I do it anyway.

I'm not sure the country knows what it wants right now. Part of us wants capitalistic anarchism, part of us wants the status quo, part of us wants the public option and part of us wants something more European (me!).

The question of what we need is our point of contention. I feel the case has been made for single-payer being the best option should only the facts be considered, but that's just my opinion. Still, when I authored this threat, my thought was simply: the current healthcare bill probably isn't what supporters of reform wanted, so where are we going to push next?

Sure, I'm not particularly happy with my coverage or health care in this country in general it needs to be fixed in my opinion. However I do know a lot of people that like the coverage they have and don't feel like they want anyone doing anything to change it. They don't want to see it backfire and leave them with worse coverage then they had before (amongst other issues), its a perfectly normal concern when facing change.

Just because something may benefit the country it doesn't mean it always benefits the individual and lets face it at the end of the day most people are going to look out for number 1. It is what it is I guess.


EDIT: Snuck in on me there Will. I agree I don't think the country really knows what it wants either. I think unfortunately the Dems have dropped the ball here, I don't think they offer enough reform for supporters and offer too much to those opposed. In the end it may not please either side and they may find themselves having to start from scratch to push for more reform or be left out in the cold. I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps the next Democrat President pushes for proper single payer or a more European style system especially if this new bill is effective and proves to be popular.

Data, pure and dispassionate data. This is a fall others have made before us and jumping off this particular ledge has without exception been fruitful, certainly more fruitful than the ledge we're falling off now. This isn't about hope or ideology, this is about success rates. Single-payer and even nationalized health systems in industrialized countries are higher in quality and lower in cost than private systems like the one people in the US under 65 have. This has been established countless times across dozens of threads here on TFP.

Oh that heartless logic! Let's not let problem solving get in the way of solving problems. It's heartless to imagine that we stoop to using problem solving techniques, honest accounting principles, and responsibility to actually solve anything. It's all about the team and how it feels.

Show me the official statement of "the problem" regarding health care. If there is one, then I want to see how they broke each issue down, analyzed, defined solutions with success criteria, and how to execute the specific measures. If I've missed that anywhere, then I'll reverse my opinion.

To acknowledge that there are problems is not dispassionate. I believe there are problems with a variety of factors related to "health care" costs. However, I want them detailed and documented. If government is not up to accountability, how can I be assured of their competency or sincerity.

Who is it that "fell" before us? Most likely more political tools who sold us all another one-size-fits-all, chicken-in-every-pot, pie-in-the-sky solution full of villains, victims and saints. Success rates for what? What are you measuring in these comparisons? The debate is plenty here and everywhere, but aren't you at least curious about what exactly is wrong? What is right about it? Do you believe we shouldn't attempt to fix the bad things first rather than encumber everyone with this giant albatross? There are far more unknowns in this legislation (for me) to accept it as a responsible solution.

If you want to get rid of a fly, dynamite is generally considered overkill... unless you just like blowin' stuff up. Perhaps this is more about blowin' stuff up.

At best I think health insurance companies will be regulated and controlled like utility companies. The most likely scenario is that they begin a long slow death, while more and more people go on public plans, eventually leading to single payer. It would be more efficient just to go to a single payer system, but that is where this will lead. Our health care system will eventually run like the post-office.

So you believe it will run cheaply and quite efficiently?

I'm still confused over why we have to destroy and rebuild a system that only 10% of the population needs, half of which don't care. I thought this was a democracy, doesn't that mean majority?

That aside, I believe reform is needed. Just not in the form of a 2000 page bill being shoved down our throats. How many people do you think have actually read or understand the bill and of them how many are voting on it?

Personally I don't care if it's a creature of the left or the right, it's political bullshit. No one is discussing what the bill actually says, just ranting about the right hating Oblahblah, or the left being so entrenched up his ass they can't see through the shit. This bill will affect every industry, business and individual in the country and these assholes are trying to shove it down our throats without the common courtesy of a clear and concise explanation of what it entails. If it were the all glorious solution they claim it to be, why can't they explain it? Surely if it's as great as they claim everyone would be on board and it would pass with no resistance.

I'm just sayin'. Whenever something has to happen 'right now' or I'm getting the 'hard sell'. My bullshit flag raises immediately and this bill sent it flying high.

I think everyone needs to put down the political blinders, back away slowly and take a deep breath. Forget who proposed what and why, read the document in it's entirety and develop an informed opinion based on what we've read.

As far as socialized medicine goes, like communism, it looks great on paper, but it just doesn't work. To model our system on the failing systems already out there is idiotic. We have a chance to truly reform medical care in a meaningful and significant way. To throw that away based on politics is treasonous. Some think it's just hype that socialized medicine is a failure, but all you have to do is look at the numbers; they're bankrupt or heading that way fast. It's been world headlines since before this debate began. Those who can afford too, come here for treatment instead of using their own systems. Those who can't are stuck in months, sometimes years long waiting lists. How exactly is this better than what we have?

Why do we have to cater to the lowest common denominator? Why can't we strive to achieve what the rest of the world only dreams of?

I say we write some serious tort reform, freeze insurance premiums for 10 years and send everyone in favor of socialized medicine to live in a country with a socialized system for 10 years. When they come back we vote. Really what's 10 years compared to the rest of your life and your children's lives and their children's lives? There is no substitute for real world experience. Further more, if it's good enough for the masses, then it is absolutely good enough for public servants. It should be mandatory for all government employees if it is for us. WTF is up with the double standard?

Actually we are a Republic. It is different from a Democracy.

I believe that this health care "reform" is a reform. it will reform how the government takes control. In the sense that this is a big hijack of our freedoms to choose what the heck we want.

A big power grab is all it is.

as for the comment of the USPS running smoothly, I swear I read some article last year about it running on a deficit.

The government was established to protect our freedoms, if they are not doing that, then they should butt out of it.

How is it a power grab or hijacking your freedoms if you are currently among the nearly 200 million with employer-based insurance? By giving you the freedom NOT to have pre-existing conditions excluding or the freedom NOT to go bankrupt as a result of a medical crisis AND the freedom to have free preventive care?

Exactly how is the government taking control of your choices?

A comprehensive approach was needed. not only to address the 30+ million currently uninsured, but address the deficiencies and the existing restrictions for those with insurance and to address the rising costs.

Whew... if that's all, well then... that's d i f f e r e n t.

comprehensive - Including all or everything; "comprehensive coverage"; Broadly or completely covering; including a large proportion of something
comprehensively - in an all-inclusive manner
comprehensiveness - completeness over a broad scope

So whats your specific complaint?

No complaint... I got your back buddy! You can't argue with cold hard talking points.

Oh, the talking points wont go away.

I expect the "government take-over" and "road to socialism" rhetoric and all the rest to continue. It has a greater political purpose.

Ignorance is bliss, particularly if one is guided by rigid extremists ideologues with an agenda.

You must be very happy.

So are you saying there is no power grab or are you justifying it?

Its not a great bill, but IMO, it is a very good bill and long (nearly 100 years) overdue. I dont expect it to "fix" the health care system overnight, but as taking important steps in the right direction.

And no, I dont see a power grab. I see the majority in Congress using the system as it always has.

That's a very interesting response. So it's not very good, but it's nearly 100 years overdue... in what respect (overdue)?

The fact that we are the only modern industrialised nation that doesn't have some form of national healthcare. The fact that our current system is statistically worse than others of said nations in terms of quality of care, affordability of care and life expectancy.

Nope...its very good for those 30+ million uninsured who will have access to affordable health care and for those 200 million who will have protections against discriminatory practices and financial insecurity....and other benefits to all, including such things as a significant investment in health care technology to help contain future costs.

It is just not great or perfect. Little in life is perfect....and the legislative process is even less so.

And overdue for the same reasons.

Now how is that a power grab or hijacking individual freedoms?

Oh really? Thanks dc_dux for your clarification.

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Thanks REAL dc... just curious. it may not be a hijack but it is a form of power grab... I'd like to discuss this later (respectfully), but must attend to a dirty diaper and other family duties (doody).

I thought this was a discussion board...my bad:shakehead:

I think its fly paper.

Those opposed throwing out everything bogus argument - government take-over, unconstitutional, power grab, hijacking individual freedoms - and hoping something sticks.

:thumbsup:
Expense to quality ratio is the main problem. I doubt anyone not on the healthcare industry's payroll would disagree. The United States does not enjoy as beneficial a ratio of expense to quality as all of our Western industrialized peers. Countries with GDP smaller than California enjoy higher quality care than anywhere in the US, and yet we by far pay the most money on average in the entire world for care.
What accountability do you require? What of Medicare is so hidden?
It might be faster to list countries that have not yet jumped into universal-style healthcare. Just in Europe alone, there's Austria, Andorra, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

What's wrong is much, but mainly it's a for profit system which benefits from covering the healthy and is hindered by covering the unhealthy. The unhealthy, which could be either of us at a moment's notice, are not served by the market option, thus another option is necessary for a free society's stability in part depends on wealth. Our peers don't have this problem.

I welcome you to study up on what single-payer is before we continue.

The level of disinformation that is floating around the US is just... overwhelming.

I am astounded at the extent to which Republican politicians and supporters are willing to go.

I am also astounded that the Democrats can't get sound counter-argument going.

unfortunately it's not so simple. I myself was very much against this bill when I first heard about it because I am in the insurance industry and I also didn't really know what was in it. Having read most of it and seen the data surrounding it I have made a complete 180 to now supporting it.

Most people however don't want to do the work in order to judge the bill on the facts.

Honestly, it's the media that is supposed to give us the facts, not the opinions of people. Why aren't they interviewing the people at the CBO? Why aren't the journalists telling us what is in the bill and how it will effect different people in differing situations?

It will probably make the insurance companies jobs easier now, since they can't try and find loopholes to deny payment. It will be interesting how that industry changes now. I'm still not sure what it will look like in 10 years.

And sometimes it is cheaper to treat someone like me for $2000 when I was poor, and then I was able to get a job and have been able to pay it back and a lot more in taxes over the past 6 years. So, they have done step 1 and passed it, but now step 2 is to get people to think that a basic level of health care is a right like in the vast majority of developed countries.

But, the Democrats and the White House really didn't do enough planning and screwed up how they handled it and communicated this to the public. I hope they learned a lot from this.

I don't think the democrats screwed up how they communicated it, they just always give people more credit than they deserve. They seem to underestimate the propoganda machine that is the republican party and faux news. When people hear something over and over and over again they tend to believe it.

This assumes the Democrats, on the whole, wanted reform passed. Don't forget, there are just as many Democrats on the healthcare industry's payroll as Republicans.

Anyway, now that the bill has passed the House and is headed to the Senate, it seems this threat is one step closer to being relevant. This will be a victory for Dems, but they may choose to rest on their laurels instead of tempting fate with a second major push. It's hard to say.

i have to say that i have found these threads too depressing to post in because of the litany of cookie-cutter memes that are everywhere in both from the right. my basic response is similar to charlatans, to marvel at the lengths to which the right is willing to go in mobilizing its demographic on the basis of fear and disinformation and projection.

so we have an economic transition engendered enabled and concealed by 30 years of neoliberalism the realities behind which are now coming home to roost not because they haven't been present but because monetarist bubble-manufacturing is not able to create the illusion of happy valley endless expansion...in this context there is a perfectly reasonable move, to extend health care access to the 30 plus million uninsured. this is an ethical problem that's being addressed AND a political problems and i cannot for the life of me figure out how the communications apparatus of the administration managed to find a way to not frame this debate so that the right noise machine could be made to say "we think the uninsured are extraneous people who should die"---because that is in effect the argument they're making---but instead you get all this chicken little horseshit about "the amurican way" blah blah blah.

it'd be funny if i didn't live here.
this is what collapse of empire looks like, sports fans. a running away from reality.

i'm glad the bill passed but i don't like the bill particularly. it should have gone further. there are alot of reasons why it is as it is. some folk have wondered what the administration was thinking in terms of issue framing from the start. i did. but it's good it passed---better than nothing and certainly an improvement over the social barbarism that's obtained so far, which conservatives are trying to defend as "the amurican way"..

but this "debate" insofar as the right is concerned in particular is about as depressing a thing as i can remember.

AHEM ------ And part of us wants to get the hell back to real and honest work pushing our species further toward greatness. To a point when maybe people don't have to die in sooo many different ways, so often, and in such cruel fashion.

Part of us wants all the rest of the retards that don't have ANY DAMN DESIRE TO DO ANYTHING BUT SHIT ON what we've worked so hard to build, to take a step back, and assume their positions as powerless spectators in a world they neither care for, nor understand.


For example - In any given situation, it should always be preferable to be exposed to no media, than media (designed as entertainment) of a derogatory, profane, sexual, or otherwise perverted tone. The reasons for this should be evident - A, The real thing is always better, B, Who cares what anyone else is doing, and C, There's soo much more important shit out there than the shit so many people are so obsessed with.

Big problem.

That is fantastically well said. I agree 100%.

I'm not sure what people you're referring to in this section or who "we" are or what we've built that's important to not shit on, so it's pretty tough for me to really respond meaningfully to this statement.

This part I can hardly believe came from the same person who wrote the first paragraph. The answer to bad speech is never less speech, but always more speech. I'm paraphrasing I believe a Supreme Court justice when I say that, but I believe it wholeheartedly. I'm inclined to agree with you that news ought to focus much more on relaying accurate information to people than it should be about which celebrity is fucking around with which sport personality's third child's nanny, but that doesn't mean that those should be banned. If you don't like it, turn it off. No one's forcing you to watch it. If enough people turn it off, they'll change what they show until people turn it back on again. That's the beauty of the system.

So you want step 2 to be ending war? I hadn't considered that... :expressionless:
I don't want people powerless at all, I want them to be intellectually honest and be willing to learn. I want people to be okay with researching and assembling facts before coming to conclusions. I want people to admit when they're wrong and for it not to be like a mortal wound, but a growing experience. I don't want just two sides, I want independent thinkers.

Also, I want a pony that shits frozen yogurt. :thumbsup:

@WillTravel - OH YES YOU DO! Powerless doesn't mean they have no power. Powerless means they have not yet learned how to be powerful. In this case, you definitely do not want someone who knows nothing of power to be powerful, as is the desire of many individuals these days. To be powerless, in this case, means simply to not know you have power, and not to be restricted in ones power by any external means.


"we" used to be an awkward way for me to address humanity as an entity that does. I didn't appreciate it until I learned what skills I had to offer others that would be suitable to charge a fee for, as a way to perform these necessary procedures for reasons both individual, and universal. Individual by way of sustaining the life I lead, and universal by helping to keep the equipment other people use in working order, so that the parts of society that I am responsible for may run smoothly and efficiently, as per my requirements, and to the customers' specification. It is a reciprocal relationship between one individual, and all other individuals. "I give you my symbolic blood and sweat(money), for your blood and sweat(work)"

What we've built is a massive network of individuals not at all unlike myself.
It is characterized by unimaginable constructs in every known field of study.

Shit on is to imply that some individual is disrupting this network in any way that is not entirely accidental, and in some cases, even accidental.

It is important not to shit on this network, because this network allows for each successive generation to have an even more amazing experience than the previous generation. This is only a reasonable goal to myself because I like things that are productive of pleasure, or preventive of pain. The happiness, and success of my family, friends, and myself produces pleasure, and knowing that the world around us is in order prevents the pain of envisioning the horrors that are all but improbable.


In the event that the numbers of individuals who routinely shit on the network exceeds the networks ability to purge itself of shit, then the network will hereby be referred to as a SHITTY NETWORK, productive only of SHIT.


Feigned Interest: That thing you do when your kid presents to you a picture of something you don't quite understand, but yet you know that if you were to do anything but Feign Interest in the picture, that your kid would most certainly lose his sense of accomplishment.



I don't watch TV. I don't remember a time when TV had anything on that was all that interesting to me. With that last paragraph, I was trying to pull together a concept I'm working on. I've realized that I am missing a very important word, and definition for that word. It is in reference to the phenomenon of popularity of media that features a narrator who constantly uses the same "Feigned Interest" approach to the subject every single time, and which does not present a truly technical presentation.


Or, in other words, all that TV is good for that I've seen, is information that's useful for starting up conversations with random people. Everything is pretty much classified as pure entertainment, and of little intellectual value -- this is to include a very large portion of the content distributed on the major documentary stations, which annoyingly utilize the same "Feigned Interest" approach to their subjects.


Yet, as a cable guy, I got to see how badly people wanted this service. How much they NEEDED cable. Not even the internet in most cases, just the TV service. I still don't understand it. My family grew up around TVs, but I never had an interest in 'em. Still, to this day, they complain in exactly the same way as they did back when I was a kid..


"Never anything on TV.."

Yeah, really? WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WATCH IT ALL DAY THEN? WHY DO YOU PAY FOR THAT SHIT FOR DECADES?

I just don't get it. Maybe it would have been better left unsaid, or a better example may have been preferable, but in any case.. I think it was a suitable statement to put my point of view into context. I assert that there is a link between what I've described in relation to televised broadcasts, and the motivation for an individual to shit on what we've built. I can also draw further links between broadcast audio, commercially produced "movies", pornography, and other forms of distributed media associated with the most dominant "players" in the industry, to ones deepest motivations for shitting on such a wonderful idea.

I concede to your superior knowledge and acumen. I did indeed 'study up' on what single payer is, if this sight is correct in your reference.

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program

It is very near exactly what I would like to see happen.

Thank you.

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

Oh yeah,

Step 2: Wipe, flush and start over.

FYI, I just received this in an email from Ceridian Corporation. They are the main flexible spending account administrator to all of my major accounts.

https://getwhatyouwant.ceridian.com/mk/get/HCALERT1