It appears that the September debates have a far more stringent entry criteria (thankfully). They need 2% and 130,000 unique donors. That'll cull the herd a lot:

Next Democratic debate: here’s everything you need to know - Vox


And the rest don't reach either. It's possible that it's just 8 up there if Klobuchar can meet the donor requirement. I'm not sure Castro or Yang can get to 2% in the polls. That, thankfully, should mean 1 debate. I'd much rather see 8 than 10 on the stage (even though it's just 2 less people, I think it can flow much better with 8 than 10).

The Yang campaign is angry because the DNC threw out a poll. Apparently NBC ordered polls by different companies and Yang hit the 2% in both polls which allowed him to qualify for the debate (since he would've hit 4 total). But the DNC decided since the polls had the same sponsor that only one poll would count.

If the DNC wants to get past accusations of favoritism it's best not to make arbitrary rules during the middle of the campaign.

Most people wouldn't be able to purchase health care services in a true free market. Having hospitals turn away patients seems like something you'd see in a third world country.

What percent of 75 year olds can afford a health insurance plan? Especially with some pre-existing conditions.

You are now: every other developed nation in existence has universal healthcare. The end.

Here's a Map of the Countries That Provide Universal Health Care (America's Still Not on It) - The Atlantic

The U.S. is the Only Very Highly Developed Country Without Universal HealthCare - Fact or Myth?

So, you are happy with your insurance, as long as you never use it? Got it.The key to healthcare in America: never get sick.

Im thinking much much larger reform. As in insurance as a whole ceasing to exist in the way we know it.
We've all seen, heard and felt the horror stories of $30 aspirin or $24 ibuproferen.
Insurance companies pay this because its negotiated and hospitals employ staffs full of people who bill and tack insurance claims. Doctors have exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. I'm not against doctors making good money. But if we took the layers out and had a system where the transaction was more direct, patient to provider I believe costs would go down and profits would go up.
Insurance companies are turning billions of dollars of profit without really providing any true benefit in the vast vast majority of cases.

To your point about the 75 year old, some percentage of 75 year olds would be able to afford for care if they had kept more of their earned income over their career and not padded insurance companies along the way.We would argue what % that would be but some would. And I think some portion has to be rolled into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/Disability type assistance programs. But the barrier of entry there needs to be kept in check. Too lazy to work isnt a disability.

The map points out one of the truths I was trying to figure out while also creating a major question.

Mexico is apparently neither a developed country nor does it have universal health care. Yet they have it figured out better than us. Specifically mentioning insulin in relation to an earlier point, you can walk into a Mexican pharmacy and buy insulin, from US companies made in US labs with US dollars for a fraction of what it costs in the US.

Why is that?

The same is also true for Canada, who does have universal health care.

I think we are stuck "half pregnant" in the US in regards to our health care system. I think either system (Pure Free Market or Pure Universal) would be better than what we have now. I disagree with you in which of those two would be the better alternative between the two. But I dont disagree that darn near anything would be better than our current system.

I feel like our current system is the classic both mothers get half the baby.

Sorry if I am saying the way things are. Does it make sense? No. But, here is why I said that, my company covers 100% the month to month expense of my health plan. If no one gets sick, it is no money out of my pocket. I am good.

Now the bad part is it is a high deductible plan, if someone does get sick, we get hammered. But, even if we hit our deductible, we still come out ahead than if we were contributing 50% to the cost as many companies do.

I recently had an MRI, I am getting hit with a $1,150 bill out of my pocket. Why am I unhappy? I have a $1,150 bill that was unexpected. So currently, I am unhappy, but most of the time I am fine with it. If I had hit my deductible, I would be more than fine because it would be 100% covered.

You used to be able to get some antibiotics over the counter in Mexico before as well. The problem in that case is antibiotic resistance and using antibiotics for something that cannot be cured by antibiotics (like taking penicillin for a cold).

Mexico isn't considered a developed nation which is why it isn't in those maps/articles.....but it did institute universal healthcare in 2004:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...versal-health/


Yup.

Any health care plan has to deal with the fact that we aren't and shouldn't let people die because they made bad choices in their 30s and 40s. Seniors are going to be covered, and that coverage is going to eat up a lot of resources.

The thing is they are not fully covered. When people go on medicare they have to buy supplemental insurance and prescription plans.

My Dad is almost 90 and spends a couple hundred a month. He made great financial decisions throughout his life and can afford this. But not everyone has/had his resources and intelligence. This system is bad. And people are suffering and will continue to suffer.

A hard conversation is what level of health care is a basic human right and what level is a luxury.

Like so many things at the fringes its pretty easy.
We should definitely pay to close the wound and stop the bleeding to death. We should not pay for an otherwise healthy woman to have bigger boobs. (I'm specifically excluding cosmetic reconstruction post cancer because....thread derail)

But when we get closer to the middle the lines get blurry. 90 year old has terminal cancer. Life can be extended maybe up to 2 years with aggressive expensive treatment.

Hail Mary cure attempt at otherwise terminal situation.

Then we get into all the grey area of lung cancer from smoking, alcohol induced liver issues, obesity caused litany of issues.

I'm not anchored in concrete against "universal healthcare" but I dont support it either.

Personally its not ebcause I dont think basic medical care isnt a basic human right, its more that I have zero faith any government ran entity can provide optimal care without making a huge(r?) mess of the situation.

And where I think the crux of that argument lands is:
We agree that we shouldn't "let people die" but are their tiers of care/comfort based on their ability to pay? Or does everyone get the same care? And if so then why shopuld anyone be financially responsible at all regarding their health.

FWIW, I come down pretty strongly on the universal healthcare side of things, having a parent in the UK who had cancer 3 times and got exceptional care on the NHS. I don't even want to think about what that would have done to my families finances over here.

But I think this is an absolutely great post. Even in my mum's case, she smoked for 10-15 years and what finally finished her off the third time was lung cancer. She got exceptional care including experimental treatment and palliative care 24/7 right until the end that probably cost the state hundreds of thousands of pounds minimum - is that "fair" to somebody who never smoked and is in perfect health at the same age? Some very tricky questions, and not something I think there's an easy answer to.

Then define the standard of living that you find acceptable. The standard should at least be to the standard of the country. I'd guess that the standard in the rural and midwest areas of the country is far below where it really ought to be.



Second, insurance companies already decide what is acceptable, yet they are able to mute the complaints about it because nobody else care, because nobody has whatever insurance company that is. If it's the govt, everyone has one entity to complain about. See?

But it isn't nearly as simple as person does X and gets Y disease. Everything is about the percentages. Behavior X increases chance of disease Y, but so does genetics, or environmental factors. And some people with a low chance of getting a disease, still get the disease.

Illness isn't fair, and you aren't ever going to create a system where payment for treating illness is fair.

I think we might look back at Yang in a few decades as the one semi-relevant political voice not in complete denial about where we're going climate and jobs-wise.

I hope he hangs around long enough to be a bigger part of this race.

Inslee is probably also going to be looked at as someone who was actually sounding the alarm on climate change while everyone else was treating as a side issue.

This is a good point. Once something exists, there will be pressure to make it available to everyone.

In 2019, the ability to, say, regrow a limb is seen as beyond cutting edge. But, if we can do it in 15 years, then are we going to say that it should be available to everyone, even if it is ferociously expensive?

Today's science fiction is tomorrow's commonplace.

Just to be clear I am not arguing a side, Im hoping to encourage debate and educate myself and challenge my thoughts and grow from this. That is my intent.

So someone is morbidly obese, but perfectly functional (see: Tiger, CU circa December 2018) and wants to have Gastric ByPass or other weightloss surgery. Its expensive, its risky but done. 2 years later said patient didnt change lifestyle and wants again.
Do we pay again? Or do we deny and then when he dies its '.gov healthcare's fault for denying his right to surgery'

I guess the scary part to me becomes pharma lobbyists. If the .gov wont pay enough in their eyes for a script do they set the bar for diagnosis so high doctors cant prescribe except in the extreme cases. In converse do they get the bar set so low where we are needlessly prescribing or over prescribing the populace. (see Ritalin and ADHD diagnoses)

Maybe I am just assuming the worst in people, but I can see a scenario where doctors are prescribing nose job surgeries for breathing reasons as opposed to pure cosmetic reasons because its a way to beat the system. Just as a quick and obvious example.

This is squarely where I land as well. I also have an issue with the last statement, there are many medical expenses that are due to someone being stupid.

I am not saying that we should let some one die, but I also am not a fan of paying to save someone that did not follow safety procedures at a job site,
as one example. Do I have an answer for this? No. Have I ever thought, "If I do this, this way, is there a chance I am going to have to go to the doctor?" Yes. Did I change the way I did it after thinking that? Yes.

If healthcare stays with us paying for it, how ever we do, I am ok with people doing risky behavior. I am still going to tell them to think twice, but any damage they do, they are doing to themselves. When you bring the government into it, suddenly my tax dollars are paying to fix him. That is where I have the issue.

So, death panels?

Edit: Without looking at the stats, I'd confidentially bet that developed nations with universal healthcare have healthier populations than the U.S. Probably because people have access to healthcare earlier than they would otherwise.

And of course, our government spends more money per capita NOW on our unhealthy population than any other country does on their healthier populations. You are already financially responsible for the health of people who made bad health choices. You're just not getting any benefit from that spending like you would in another country with a better system.

And I'll guarantee that what you're paying to cover those without healthcare or don't have enough coverage and end up in the ER greatly outweighs what you'd pay for those that would engage in risky behavior because "fuck it, I have free healthcare".

Unhealthy people ultimately cost less tax dollars. They die younger meaning they collect less social security and spend less years on Medicare.

I believe it was Sweden that did a study on this when it came to smokers. Found that they cost significantly less.

Yeah, I never understood the argument. Insurance companies already dictate this. The government dictates this with Medicare. It isn't a new thing.

His ability to tie everything back in to UBI is impressive and hilarious at times, but I agree with some of his points. Climate change? We're already too late, let's focus on helping people move to higher ground.... by giving them $1,000 a month! Prison reform? We need to do a better job helping people who have served their time integrate into society when they struggle to get hired just out of jail... by giving them $1,000 a month! Gender pay inequity? More female entrepreneurship can balance that out, and how can we encourage that? By giving everyone $1,000 a month!

Seriously though, his soundbite on climate change was awesome. And he made the salient point that immigration gets scapegoated, but it's really automation that's taking away many blue collar jobs.

I think the fact that universal healthcare has become a realistic & common topic for national political debate, and even the anecdotal evidence that we can see in this thread with relatively conservative folks beginning to question the insurance & pahrma industries suggests that we'll actually have it implemented in the next 10-20 years but I can't imagine it will be painless.

I like Yang & his policies. I recently read an article that suggested he was "the most dangerous Democratic candidate!"

https://earther.gizmodo.com/andrew-y...m_campaign=top

That seems ummm excessive? That said I am kind of terrified of 'geo-engineering' in principle, but not really in any informed kind of way.

You could also probably craft a decent argument that being "the most dangerous Democrat" isn't necessarily a bad thing in this day & age. "O shit! He might take some significant risks with the environment" seems kind of tone deaf?

ping Beto

Today is your golden ticket.

GTFO, go home and pray with your neighbors in El Paso, retweet ugly shit from Cornyn about guns, and go file to run against him for the US Senate. Dems are READY for this. You can break it to Vanity Fair gently. Do this.

Snopes says true.

He can also beat the shit out of Cornyn with tweets pushing the replacement idea.

At this point Beto is in the Top 8. Staying in gets him more headlines and more money - and IIRC, one of the uses of Presidential campaign money that you can use if you drop out is to use it for another race.

Geez you’re obtuse to just make a point. I am being 100% honest in how I feel about my health plan. I think many others would say the same thing. Overall, I like my plan, I hate it when I am working through the deductible.

For the record, This is no different than my auto mechanic. I love it when I just have to pay for normal maintenance. I hate it when some thing goes wrong with the car and I have to pay to have it fixed.

I’m not following, do I have free healthcare or am I covering the cost of the uninsured?

Your taxes are covering the cost of the uninsured.

Uncompensated Care for the Uninsured in 2013: A Detailed Examination | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

No, I am just generally obtuse. I do like you had to respond twice. You thought of a better response later and had to post again. That feels very me. :D

We currently have medicare for all over 65. That is the oldest and sickest portion of our population. It works and is one of the most popular government programs.

You do not need to imagine how Medicare for All would work, or should work, it is already out there.

It does work, and it's crazy popular, but it doesn't bring in nearly enough to cover the expenses of its patients. Then there's the whole people using it for 20 years instead of the 5-10 they thought it would get used. It needs tweaked, but it can be successful if it's done right.

We spend twice of the money other countries do on medical care.
It is to be expected that if we go to single payer, it would fall in line with the rest of the world (or at least fall).

I do not see why everyone is hung up on cost.
What we have now is supper expensive and does not even cover everyone.

The system doesn't help our health care issues, but clearly a main difference between the US and other western cultures (that rarely gets referenced) is our diet. Look at the diets of people in Finald, Japan, France and other European countries. We have so much more fast food than anyone. We have 45 McDonalds locations per million people. We also have tons of Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell and all the pizza places. Our diet is absolutely horrendous and that is a big reason we have issues with health cost. So, no matter what system we move to, 44% are going to eat fast food for lunch and 42% are having it for dinner. Just check out our trend:



The American diet is killing us and I'm not sure the health system we have is going to matter in 15-20 years when 40-50% our country is obese.

That is a major problem,but letting obese people die in the streets is not the solution.

So if you get in a car accident should the hospital determine who's fault it was before treating anyone? Refusing to treat anyone deemed at fault?

No treatment for VD, you should know not to have sex with someone like that?

Get the flu, no treatment, your fault for not staying away from sick people?

It is a slippery slope.

No, I'm not saying we shouldn't treat sick people who are obese - I'm saying this may be an area where we actually need some form of government involvement. Clearly, things aren't going to change if left to our own devices and fast/junk food is reaching the risk factor of cigarettes at this point.

It runs into 1st Amendment issues, but I am in favor of 1st-Amendment-compliant restrictions on advertising & marketing by purveyors of clearly unhealthy food.

I am also in favor of eliminating government subsidies to agricultural products that contribute to the obesity epidemic.

And I favor laws mandating disclosure of nutrition information.

Wrong thread for this, but I'd love to support some sort of government-driven but market-based incentive for healthier choices.

+1. I mean, we're currently giving farmers billions of subsidies to compensate for tarrifs and a (in my opinion, and yes this is the wrong thread) poorly advised trade war, couldn't we be putting that money towards subsidizing fruits and vegetables and getting these products onto the table in underprivileged neighborhoods and schools all across the country?

I don't think that Beto has a real shot, but I agree with his "shake it up" strategy (he's been going on TV with a lot of "Jesus Christ, of course the President is racist" bits).

If, at this point, you aren't in the top tier of candidates, you need to start working on high-risk strategies.

Too many food deserts in the poor areas. Maybe subsidize people in those areas to open healthy food markets with affordable food. It would create jobs and businesses in the areas if most need.

Tge problem is processed foods loaded with sugar (i.e. high fructose corn syrup) as are fast food. Bad diet makes lazy people, which makes obese people. Its an ugly cycle.

Yeah, agree with this. The key obviously is affordable and easy. While you'd love to tell people to cook with lean options and vegetables, that's expensive and takes time. It's human nature to grab and go.

What about programs that eliminates sales tax and offers some kind of rebate or price incentive for actually healthy fast food? And I'm not talking about the kind of salad you get at McDonalds or El Pollo Loco that is loaded with cheese, dressing and croutons and is 1300 calories, but it's not that hard to make a relatively healthy chicken or fish entree. The problem would still be that you'd have to make the 99 cent cheeseburger three times the cost to incentivize people, and nobody is going to vote for that.

For many it's not just grab and go too. Poorer families tend to make less trips to the grocery store and therefore need things that will keep longer. Those processed foods are less likely to go bad and hit the easy and affordable that you mentioned.

It's just one poll, but the latest Quinnipiac poll has it almost a two person race, Biden and Warren.

As I mature as an individual and realize my lot in life with my medical condition and a girl in college and another about to go in and a teacher, man I see my self trending towards liberalism and Warren.

Man what a strange life i lead.

I still prefer a multi-party system. But shoot, the crap this country is in right now, I see myself leaning towards making life easier ofr the youth of America and not for the corporations (bastards).

HAHA. I know a lot on this board are going to laugh at me, but shoot, lets spend our money where it helps the people.

No one should laugh at someone changing their views to better fit their family and where they are in life. It's far more mature than staying the course to the detriment of yourself and those around you.

The day we stop changing is the day we start dying.

Looks like Yang has qualified for the next debates.

Only 5 candidates are averaging over 3% according to RCP. Can we please move on to the ones that might actually win the nomination?

Yeah no kidding we are quickly getting to a 2 person race.

They should cut it down to 10 and move on slicing 2-4 more for the next debate after this one. We all daily see the danger of allowing a plurality candidate to hijack a nomination.

Don't think I would vote for him but I'm rooting for him to do well and land on some cabinet post. I like his "folksy" (?) style, its somewhat refreshing.

Well Yang has picked up a big name endorsement

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...esident-2019-8

I don't know why I like Yang at the moment. On the plus side he does seem to have the most detailed policies at this point. On the negative his solutions for dealing with problems just seems to be "throw more money at it".

Wow, his stock just went up a couple notches.

At this point, it seems fair to question whether Biden still has the mental faculty for this.


Biden Says He Was Vice President During Parkland Shooting

General election is going to be a battle of who's brain is more mush.

I love this headline.


Iowa State Fair swarmed by 2020 Democrats - USA Today


I'm thinking everyone is running from the over 2000 democrats who are just swarming like bees everywhere and it's just pandemonium. And then I want to know, who counted them all to get exactly 2020?

This and the "poor kids vs white kids" thing are examples of why, regardless of what polls say right now, Trump would probably beat or at leaat have his best chance against Biden. He's right in Trump's wheelhouse of politicians he attacks really well.

Biden is a tool. I'm still not in Warren's camp, I think her generation needs to move on, but she's heading in the right direction. Buttigieg (sp) is never going to carry enough momentum, or carry the black vote. Harris has a lot going for her, I think she can really bring it to trump.

The Hill on Twitter: "JUST IN: John Hickenlooper considering ending presidential bid to run for Senate: report https://t.co/XmnrTGNhJd… "

Hickenlooper is thinking of dropping out to run for Senate in Colorado (where he has a far, far, far better shot).

I liked him in the debates.

538 called this yesterday. He was the first pick in their Dem Droput Draft.

I am glad. Now if Beto would follow suit.

Beto is still polling decently enough. The more national attention he gets will help him immensely when he finally drops and declares for the Texas Senate race.

Beto is up 3% or so. Not worth withdrawing.

He has no shot, but could make a run at Cornyn.

The Loop is officially out:

John Hickenlooper quits the 2020 presidential race | PBS NewsHour

By the issues, Hickenlooper was probably the closest candidate to how I feel about things. He was for some reasonable gun control measures, progressive on social issues, but also pro-business and somewhat nuanced on health care (in favor of expanding medicaid to cover more people, but against single payer). Granted, he wasn't the most charismatic candidate - but it is still a shame he couldn't garner more support.

The silent majority of us who are progressive on social issues but pro-business seem destined to be left in the cold by both parties.

Have you not noticed who the front runner in the Democratic primary polls is?

I'm not really sure how "pro-business" Biden is. He's just not as anti-business as Sanders or Warren. Hillary was much more pro-business (IMO). I was also sold that the democratic party would support a more moderate candidate like Hillary and all the democrats didn't show up because she wasn't far left enough.

The hope with Biden is enough aggravated Republicans switch over if he can survive the primary. Still, I'm not sure I would put him above 50% to win the primary as a lot of left-leaning democrats (where the money is) are pretty adamant against him. But Hickenlooper was a very different candidate than Biden. Biden still wants to do something similar to the Green New deal, forgive student loan debt, tax the rich and give free college. He just is a little more nuanced with his rhetoric and tries to come off as more of a "middle class guy" than someone like Sanders.

Define "pro-business". Because I think this country has bent over for a long time for business. At what point do we get a President who is "pro-citizen"?

Not increasing taxes and regulations on small to moderate businesses. Trying to drive job growth by getting out of the way of businesses, instead of nickel and diming them to death to pay for other programs/health care changes. Now, this isn't being in favor of full corporate welfare - I do think some of that has gone a little overboard. But, if the option is to give welfare to businesses or individuals, my preference would be businesses as there is a better chance of that impacting more down the road. Still, I would almost classify it more pro-market than pro-business.

We've been pro-business for almost 40 fucking years, and that has gotten the lower and middle class absolutely nowhere.

Trump just handed out the biggest tax cut of all time that was supposed to be reinvested, and many companies just ended up investing back in their stock or paying down debt.

All of this shit that is supposed to be pro-business that will then be pro-worker, is just money hoarding. We've had enough.

Whaaaa?

Biden is basically a slightly more conservative Hillary Clinton and running as Obama 2.0.

Indeed. It appears to me that investing in our people (including increased welfare benefits) gets better results than handouts for companies.

Interesting theory/postulation. I would be interested in reading any analysis where this has shown to be true.

Oh, let me say I'm sure it won't change any minds because there'll be the "not equivalent because of X, Y, Z" and all the whatabouts, but would still be interesting to read the argument for this ...

Isn't this what we have? Businesses don't pay taxes and are above the law. How much more can you give them?

And why should my tax dollars continue to go toward funding Amazon's business?

Most of Europe.

Heck, Canada. You don't even have to go that far.

Poor people get money and spend it on goods and services which directly stimulate jobs/businesses.

Businesses get tax cuts, buy back their own stocks and pay out bonuses. This impacts virtually nothing other than padding the accounts of stockholders.

I am all for corporate welfare for a select group such as incubation companies/technologies, helping companies in our trade war, smaller businesses etc. but you are right, don't see why Amazon needs any tax breaks or subsidies.

Yeah, I would say it is what we have. It's also why we have less than 4% unemployment and very strong GDP growth over the past 6-7 years. That doesn't mean everyone is doing great, but it does mean we have a strong economy.

Over 50% of Americans are "stockholders" in some fashion. So, the market increasing helps their bottom line. Also, increase money to businesses means more job creation, more spending on R&D and eventually more competition in the marketplace. Both of your examples above help the economy.

I guess it depends on how one defines "better results".

Little late, but while I love Joe, there's a reason I'm done with that generation. No Trump, no Biden, no Warren. No Sanders. Electing a septuagenarian (or older!) to the highest office in the land is just begging for either a 25th Amendment crisis or a senile President if nobody wants to be the one who pushes that button.

Gimme somebody in their 40s-50s (preferably 40s; they're more likely to understand the issues facing people who are going to, in theory, still be alive 20 years from now).

Higher median income, better quality of life, better education, longer life expectancy, lower poverty rates, etc.

We do beat them all in shootings and incarcerations though. So that's something.

You ageist bastard.... then again I tend to think the same way.

Its admirable how European countries tend to do better in those listed. There's something also about how vast majority of people wanting to immigrate would pick the US over any other country; and I don't see a rush of Americans wanting to immigrate elsewhere. So somethings are likely missing from your list.

On a related note, thought this was interesting to help explain US vs Europe take on redistribution (e.g. welfare).

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...ea_alesina.pdf

I think I agree. I'm okay with them in cabinet posts but you have to believe some mental faculties are degrading.

Net immigration rate is higher in most of those European countries.

We also don't know the emigration rate of US citizens because the government keeps that secret. But it is harder to emigrate from the United States because of our restrictive tax system that will continue to tax you out of the country unless you renounce citizenship. Other countries provide their citizens with more freedom in that regard.

Let me re-emphasize - by far.

158 million migrants want to move to the US, world’s top pick

Majority? Polling doesn't at all agree with that. That's basically the NYTimes op-ed page, and there isn't a lot of support for that. There's a faction of that in the Dem party, but certainly not a majority. There's some of that in the Never Trumpers, but there are about seven of them. There's almost none of that left in the socially conservative, handouts for me version of the Trump GOP.

Don't take this as a critique of the idea, but in terms of popularity, I don't see any evidence for your claim.

By silent majority I meant that most of the people that feel that way (social liberal, fiscal conservative) tend to not be very active in political discussions. They aren't rabid enough on the left or right side of the scale to spend all day arguing on twitter, donating to parties or watching 24/7 cable news. For that reason, they tend to be under represented in either political party.

I probably should have said "a majority who is silent" instead of a silent majority. I honestly have no idea how many people feel that way, they just struggle to find a home in either party (one reason why I've voted for 3 democrats and 3 republicans in my 6 presidential elections).

We're a giant country. Look at per capita rates.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency