Boil it down

[Argus]

Now how does this fee charging harm others and reduce services to them?

You've been told probably a hundred times. 1. Competion between public and private systems will cause prices to rise in the public system.

Competition rarely results in price increases. Quite the contrary, in fact.

  2.  Balkanizing the system sacrifices cost savings from ecomomies of scale.

The only economies of scale I can see involve medical and pharamaceutical purchases, and I see no reason why that would be affected. Private clinics - the legal ones - already purchase their goods privately. They already do their own accounting and make their own salary payments.

3.  The requirement for profitablility will take that portion of money out of the system. 

Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system.

There is no logical policy reason that necessary resources cannot be provided publicly and funded through taxes. 

Adding user fees would have the affect of causing people to rethink whether they need to see a doctor quite as often as they do, thus reducing costs.

The only reason for going privately is that people don't want to pay what it takes to care for everyone -- i.e. short-sighted selfishness (the trademark of neoconservatism everywhere).

The only reason for going private is that the public system is not working. The trademark of socialists everywhere is to keep pouring money into failing programs without ever reforming them because they are incapable of ever accepting that their pet ideological theories don't work in the real world.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Competition rarely results in price increases. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Suffice it to say this: You need to revisit the basic theory of supply and demand price curves. Until you get such basics down, there is little hope of you forming a correct opinion about health care.

  2.  Balkanizing the system sacrifices cost savings from ecomomies of scale.

The only economies of scale I can see involve medical and pharamaceutical purchases, ...

Economies of scale apply in all areas to some extent. Better management of the public system could probably find more.

3.  The requirement for profitablility will take that portion of money out of the system. 

Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system.

None of which meets the point in point 3.

There is no logical policy reason that necessary resources cannot be provided publicly and funded through taxes. 

Adding user fees would have the affect of causing people to rethink whether they need to see a doctor quite as often as they do, thus reducing costs.

Again, this is not responsive to the point of my comment.

The only reason for going privately is that people don't want to pay what it takes to care for everyone -- i.e. short-sighted selfishness (the trademark of neoconservatism everywhere).

The only reason for going private is that the public system is not working.

The only reason the public system is not working is that governments won't resource and manage it properly.

[kimmy]

more expensive, not equitable and undermines the public effort

(...)

The supremes didn't find against all of those reasons, they only found against the last one.  (ANOTHER reason this decision is faulty, btw.)

In discussions about same-sex marriage and minority rights and abortion access and so on, supporters of those issues have always talked as if charter rights were sacred, the Supreme Court's interpretations were unassailable, and our lawmakers would simply have to make legislation to be consistent with these rulings.

But now people who had been so enthusiastic about the SC are instant critics. And some people who had talked about the Notwithstanding Clause as if it were the defilement of all that is good and pure are now advocating its use on this ruling. This is not directed at you, Sweal, just a general comment. The message seems to be "We believe in the Charter and the Supreme Court! (...when they're making rulings that support our views.)"

They probably didn't rule on "more expensive" and "not equitable" because they have no legal weight that I'm aware of.

I don't know why "more expensive" should be a concern of public health advocates if private care customers are paying out of their own pockets.

As for "not equitable", what of it? As a society we take pride in caring for our weakest members. And as a society we place a value on providing equality of opportunity for everyone. But providing equal means has never been an objective. Providing care for everyone in our society is consistent with our values. Preventing people from seeking their own options is not consistent with our values.

Well, I don't see any necessary conceptual problems with a regime of free market supply but the 'single payer' on the demand side.  What would you say to that?

Let me know briefly and then I'll respond to the remainder of your (very interesting) comments.

Well, it would be a start, I guess, but fundamentally I still feel it's wrong that our sick guy can spend his $60,000 on an SUV but not a treatment.

-k

[Cartman]

fundamentally I still feel it's wrong that our sick guy can spend his $60,000 on an SUV but not a treatment.

If he really wanted private treatment so badly, why not go to the US? Would they not treat him?

[The Terrible Sweal]

In discussions about same-sex marriage and minority rights and abortion access and so on, supporters of those issues have always talked as if charter rights were sacred, the Supreme Court's interpretations were unassailable, and our lawmakers would simply have to make legislation to be consistent with these rulings.

But now people who had been so enthusiastic about the SC are instant critics.

I don't know who you mean by 'people'. I agree or disagree with the SCC as it seems right or wrong to me to do from time to time, based on the content of the issues and decisions.

And some people who had talked about the Notwithstanding Clause as if it were the defilement of all that is good and pure are now advocating its use on this ruling.

It would be unnecessary and inappropriate to use the clause in this matter, since this decision did not make a final determination about any Charter rights.

They probably didn't rule on "more expensive" and "not equitable" because they have no legal weight that I'm aware of.

Right. This is a public policy issue which attempting to deal with through the courts will ignore important considerations.

I don't know why "more expensive" should be a concern of public health advocates if private care customers are paying out of their own pockets.

Directly, it will make the public system more expensive. Indirectly, raising the costs for those who pay privately is a negative because it means you won't buy the SUV, or whatever.

As for "not equitable", what of it?

I am arguing that health care is something our society should provide to its members, just like police and courts. If society provides it, it should be provided on an equal footing.

Providing care for everyone in our society is consistent with our values. Preventing people from seeking their own options is not consistent with our values.

People seeking their own care interferes with the ability to provide public care. (Yes, I am aware some judges of the SCC disagree with me.)

Well, it ['single-payer' market] would be a start, I guess.

Would it satisfy your criticisms?

[Guest eureka]

Actually TS, the supreme court disagrees with you and agrees with Kimmy. Read lines 61-65 of the ruling. It clearly states that despite government witness after witness, the government was unable to bring ANY credible evidence other than pure fear-mongering that a parallel private system would in ANY was harm the public system. So your theory is purely ideological and without empirical merit

Your conclusion is nonsensical. The Court had mostly anecdotal evidence and little expert testimont. As I posted in one of the threads - maybe this one - it has been noted by the media that the court did no listen to any significant amount of expert eveidence and, in its decision, makes no reference to what it did hear. It does refer to the anecdotal testimony of the applicants, though.

The decision, in total, is incomprehensible as a legal decision. The evidence provided was scanty and not from the full bench. the political slant is obvious. Also, as I also posted, the majority on the Court was slight and the previous judges at lower level courts all found against the applicants

Hardly a ringing endorsement but a blow to the supposed core value of equality.

[kimmy]

I haven't time right now to respond fully, but a couple of quick points...

I am arguing that health care is something our society should provide to its members, just like police and courts.  If society provides it, it should be provided on an equal footing. 

I am having a hard time finding words to explain my reasoning for this, but I do not feel that police and courts can be likened to healthcare (or anything else in our society.) I feel that healthcare is something that we should strive to provide for all Canadians, like education and housing and income.

Well, it ['single-payer' market] would be a start, I guess.

Would it satisfy your criticisms?

No. It would satisfy one of my criticisms-- that keeping private capital from being invested in healthcare seems contrary to the goal of providing more services. It might be a compromise I'd be willing to accept, depending on the circumstances.

However, I still see it as an interference in peoples' rights that's not sufficiently justified. I should be allowed to sell medical services, subject to proper regulation. However, I should also be able to buy medical services, subject to proper regulation.

-k

[August1991]

Sweal, you are holding tenaciously to this position and I'm trying to under stand why. This may explain it:

I am arguing that health care is something our society should provide to its members, just like police and courts.  If society provides it, it should be provided on an equal footing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fact, most uses of courts are for private arbitration in which the two parties pay for court costs. (To be more exact, most people never go to court but use previous court decisions to resolve disputes. They pay for these private legal opinions.)

Hugo has given numerous examples of private police services. I think Cartman noted elsewhere that city police in East Vancouver do not offer the same level of service as city police North Vancouver. Policing services are typically paid for through property taxes and so people choose the level of policing they prefer when they choose their neighbourhood.

The judicial system and policing services are arguably public goods which, despite what Hugo argues, will likely be underproduced by private markets. Health services are largely private goods that private markets will adequately supply.

Your argument for "equal footing health care" really comes down to a moral viewpoint. You seem to think that it is "wrong" if one person can have a heart bypass operation and another person cannot, simply because of their differing bank accounts. IOW, you are troubled by inequality of incomes or of wealth. Such inequality is truly unrelated to health care services. If you insist on "equal footing", why not simply take from the rich, give to the poor, and then let people decide what level of health care they want? That's what we do with food, clothing, shelter, transportation - and even, to a degree, policing and legal services.

I have yet to see any argument here that justifies a State monopoly on health insurance or a State monopoly on the supply of health services.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, you are holding tenaciously to this position and I'm trying to under stand why.  This may explain it:

I am arguing that health care is something our society should provide to its members, just like police and courts.  If society provides it, it should be provided on an equal footing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fact, most uses of courts are for private arbitration in which the two parties pay for court costs.

The public courts do not recoup costs from litigants. Litigants recoup them from eachother.

Hugo has given numerous examples of private police services.

None of which constitute 'police' in the way our society implements the term. Let's stick with the reality we have here and now, perhaps?

I think Cartman noted elsewhere that city police in East Vancouver do not offer the same level of service as city police North Vancouver.  Policing services are typically paid for through property taxes and so people choose the level of policing they prefer when they choose their neighbourhood.

Exactly as a nation state may choose the level of health care it provides to itself.

  Health services are largely private goods that private markets will adequately supply.

Improbable. I contend the opposite. Private health care will produce at an equilibrium point that will leave less wealthy purchasers in need.

Your argument for "equal footing health care" really comes down to a moral viewpoint.

I have said I believe health care is a 'right' that our society should provide. I do believe this on ethical grounds, true, but it's justifiable on economic grounds as well.

  You seem to think that it is "wrong" if one person can have a heart bypass operation and another person cannot, simply because of their differing bank accounts.

I believe our public policy should act as if it's wrong. If a man's life isn't worth the same as another's why should his vote matter? Why should any of his rights?

  IOW, you are troubled by inequality of incomes or of wealth.

Not in the least. Please don't be peurile.

If you insist on "equal footing", why not simply take from the rich, give to the poor, and then let people decide what level of health care they want?

If you are comfortable with an unequal footing, why enforce an employee's contract against an employer? Or a woman's right against a rapist?

I have yet to see any argument here that justifies a State monopoly on health insurance or a State monopoly on the supply of health services.

Well, I'm not arguing for a state monopoly on supply. Only on demand.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I should be allowed to sell medical services, subject to proper regulation. However, I should also be able to buy medical services, subject to proper regulation.

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

[Argus]

Competition rarely results in price increases. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Suffice it to say this: You need to revisit the basic theory of supply and demand price curves. Until you get such basics down, there is little hope of you forming a correct opinion about health care.

Sweal, you've yet to demonstrate you know the first thing about economic theories at any level on any scale. What I said stands, and you will find nothing in any sane economic philosophy to contradict it.

3.  The requirement for profitablility will take that portion of money out of the system. 

Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system.

None of which meets the point in point 3.

Of course it does, and your answer is unresponsive. You have yet to point out any way in which allowing these clinics to charge extra user fees will harm anyone. Until you can do that I see no point in moving on to other ways in which allowing for people to put private money into the system can help.

The only reason for going privately is that people don't want to pay what it takes to care for everyone -- i.e. short-sighted selfishness (the trademark of neoconservatism everywhere).

The only reason for going private is that the public system is not working.

The only reason the public system is not working is that governments won't resource and manage it properly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Managing things properly is not something government is normally considered to be particularly adept at. And the higher level the government, the larger the undertaking, the less capable they seem to be at managing something.

[Argus]

fundamentally I still feel it's wrong that our sick guy can spend his $60,000 on an SUV but not a treatment.

If he really wanted private treatment so badly, why not go to the US? Would they not treat him?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People do this a lot. Do you think it helps our system to have tens of millions of dollars pouring across the border and into their medical systems?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Competition rarely results in price increases. Quite the contrary, in fact....

What I said stands, and you will find nothing in any sane economic philosophy to contradict it.

This is getting just stupid. Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up.

3.  The requirement for profitablility will take that portion of money out of the system. 

Presumably private medical clinics already operate at a profit. Adding fees to allow them to stay open later would not be taking any money out of the system.

None of which meets the point in point 3.

Of course it does, and your answer is unresponsive.

No, YOUR answer was unresponsive. I am talking about the cost of market capital, the requirement for profit, and your comment does not speak to that matter at all.

You have yet to point out any way in which allowing these clinics to charge extra user fees will harm anyone.

I have pointed out at length. You fail to understand it, maybe.

[kimmy]

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

In proper cases. I think we're going to disagree what constitutes a proper case, though.

This is getting just stupid.  Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up. 

Sweal, you've been asked to explain what you mean by this once already. The obvious way of looking at it is that healthcare providers are the supply and the people waiting for treatment are the demand. The obvious way of looking at it would be that allowing more healthcare providers to operate in Canada would increase the capacity of the system, (ie the supply.) As with your earlier "monopoly of demand" remark, its clear that your way of looking at is different from other peoples' outlook-- so please explain your position. Continuing to make cryptic marks is not helping the discussion.

-k

[August1991]

I think Cartman noted elsewhere that city police in East Vancouver do not offer the same level of service as city police North Vancouver.  Policing services are typically paid for through property taxes and so people choose the level of policing they prefer when they choose their neighbourhood.

Exactly as a nation state may choose the level of health care it provides to itself.

Sorry, the level of security is the same for everyone in a community - that's why security is a public good. The level of health care is obviously not the same for everyone in a community or in a country. Many Canadians have not been to a hospital in decades, and some haven't seen a doctor in years. Other Canadians live in hospitals and some see a doctor weekly. Different individuals can consume different quantities of health services. Health service is a private good.

Tomatoes are available for all Canadians but not all Canadians consume tomatoes.

When a security guard checks bags at an airport, all boarding passengers consume the same level of security.

This is getting just stupid. Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up.

In the short run, you are right. In the long run, you are missing the point.

On a hot day, I would not be surprised to see Coke sellers near a golf course raising prices. If it were a heat wave, I would not be surprised to see more Coke sellers near a golf course.

IT people made good salaries a few years ago - more purchasers competing for the same supply - until new IT people entered the market.

Well, I'm not arguing for a state monopoly on supply. Only on demand.

Kimmy noted this too. Let me think of this.

[August1991]

Part II: Other points

The public courts do not recoup costs from litigants. Litigants recoup them from eachother.

I guess you've never used the civil court system. I suspect that fines more than pay for our criminal court system.

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

How about this - since everyone else is lying, I have to lie too. But we would all prefer someone forcing us to tell the truth.

Hugo has given numerous examples of private police services.

None of which constitute 'police' in the way our society implements the term. Let's stick with the reality we have here and now, perhaps?

Montreal's metro has a separate police force, most airports have a separate police force. What do you mean by 'police'?

You seem to think that it is "wrong" if one person can have a heart bypass operation and another person cannot, simply because of their differing bank accounts.

I believe our public policy should act as if it's wrong. If a man's life isn't worth the same as another's why should his vote matter? Why should any of his rights?

Our society does not treat one man's life as the same as another man's life (and what does voting have to do with this?) Our governments don't treat them the same, and neither do we as individuals. Even our current health system doesn't attempt to do this. Sweal, you have made a religion of equality. [i often think that equality is the error of American leftists. European leftists think in terms of class conflict.]

If you are comfortable with an unequal footing, why enforce an employee's contract against an employer? Or a woman's right against a rapist?

Different crimes lead to different penalties. Different breaches of contract lead to different penalties.

[August1991]

Sweal, when you say that the State should have a "monopoly of demand" for health care, I think you are thinking of a public good like city-wide fireworks shows.

In your scheme, many firms produce fireworks but the State alone is the sole purchaser of fireworks. The State does this on behalf of all citizens to use the fireworks for public shows. You seem to think that the ongoing debate concerns how many fireworks shows we should have: some want weekly shows and others want monthly shows.

The comparison only makes sense if the fireworks shows take place in people's backyards. Our problem is that everyone is going to the government fireworks warehouse to get fireworks for their backyard.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

In proper cases. I think we're going to disagree what constitutes a proper case, though.

Yes. But I wanted to establish the scope of what we are disagreeing about.

So, next step: would you agree that life-or-death needs of citizens fall within the type of public interests in which in might be legitmate for the state to infringe private interests? (I'm not trying to trick you (as if I could) . I'm just defining the issues between us.

This is getting just stupid.  Argus, it is a basic element of econimics that when more purchasers compete for the same supply, price goes up. 

Sweal, you've been asked to explain what you mean by this once already.

Did I mention this is a basic element of economics? I'm a bit surprised that I should hae to explain this at this point, but okay here we go: when demand goes up (buyers seek more) prices go up. When demand goes down (buyers seek less) prices go down.

Now, the neocons say, 'Yes, but these higher prices will induce greater supply, raising the overall quantity of the commodity'.

With me so far? Good ... In reply to that neo-con counterpoint, I make these points:

-the ability to increase supply in response to demand is limited, especially in the short and medium (i.e. relevant to sick-persons') timeframe.

-the same stimulatory increase in demand could be obtained more efficently through government leading the demand rather than individuals.

-allowing the individual market to adjust the equilibrium price will mean wealth based inequities in healthcare, which I argue we should not permit (on economic and ethical grounds).

  The obvious way of looking at it is that healthcare providers are the supply and the people waiting for treatment are the demand. The obvious way of looking at it would be that allowing more healthcare providers to operate in Canada would increase the capacity of the system, (ie the supply.) 

You first sentence is almost right, the second is misguided.

First: demand is not the patient, it is the money. A patient with no ability to pay creates no demand.

Second: we are not talking about controlling suppliers, we're discussing control of demand. (Remember we just discussed private provision of services paid by the 'single (state) payer', right?)

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, when you say that the State should have a "monopoly of demand" for health care, I think you are thinking of a public good like city-wide fireworks shows.

Your penchant for ludirously strained and nebulously constucted analogies continues uninterupted by my pleas that you discuss the topic at hand.

Health care is a public good, as I showed some days back. It is not analogous to firework displays. Maybe it is analogous to a city water treatment and sewage system, but again, the topic here is health care.

[August1991]

Health care is a public good, as I showed some days back. It is not analogous to firework displays. Maybe it is analogous to a city water treatment and sewage system, but again, the topic here is health care.

You showed nothing of the thing. At most, you made the note that inoculations against infectious diseases have positive externalities.

The congestion in our hospitals, the very reason of the Supreme Court decision, is sufficient evidence that health care is a private good, not a public good.

BTW, I chose fireworks displays because fireworks are a public good. I was trying to wrap my mind around your idea that there would be a State "monopoly of demand" (a monopsony). When a city puts on a fireworks show, it can't exclude anyone from watching and it doesn't cost more to entertain another pair of eyes.

[incidentally, sewage treatment is a private good.]

----

Sweal, your argument in favour of State health care seems to be based on a moral principle that life should be guaranteed for all. You don't need to assume health care is a public good to make that argument.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Health care is a public good, as I showed some days back. It is not analogous to firework displays. Maybe it is analogous to a city water treatment and sewage system, but again, the topic here is health care.

You showed nothing of the thing. At most, you made the note that inoculations against infectious diseases have positive externalities.

You should reread that thread, it seems.

The congestion in our hospitals ... is sufficient evidence that health care is a private good, not a public good.

Nonsense. It shows that it is underresourced, that's all.

When a city puts on a fireworks show, it can't exclude anyone from watching and it doesn't cost more to entertain another pair of eyes.

You are working under an incorrect understanding of what constitutes a public good. Free ridership (viz your example), is not the same thing.

Sweal, your argument in favour of State health care seems to be based on a moral principle that life should be guaranteed for all. 

I wish you wouldn't put me to the bother of answering reductionist bumf. I've expressed both ethical and economic reasons.

[August1991]

Sweal, for heaven's sakes. You and I cannot see the same doctor at the same time. That is the definition of rivalry. The doctor can refuse to see you or me. That is the definition of excludability. Those two characteristics define a private good.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, for heaven's sakes.  You and I cannot see the same doctor at the same time.  That is the definition of rivalry.  The doctor can refuse to see you or me.  That is the definition of excludability.  Those two characteristics define a private good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, let us indeed figure out what we are each actually talking about. I say a public good is one which the market alone does not provide at welfare maximizing levels. Ergo there is a welfare gain if the state provides it.

[Cartman]

My understanding is that the Canadian health care system has been quite efficient particularly compared to the United States. Recently, however, we hear that costs are soaring. Assuming this is the case, does anyone know how Canada compares in terms of this rate of increase? This information may not be available as valid, comparable statistics on anything are hard to find. I suspect that regardless of how the system is funded, medical costs are increasing due to our aging population (which consumes more medical resources than other age groups) and the costs for new medical equipment.

[kimmy]

Hmmm. Okay, just preliminarily, would you deny that in proper cases, the state may legitimately infringe private interests for the sake of the public interest?

In proper cases. I think we're going to disagree what constitutes a proper case, though.

Yes. But I wanted to establish the scope of what we are disagreeing about.

So, next step: would you agree that life-or-death needs of citizens fall within the type of public interests in which in might be legitmate for the state to infringe private interests? (I'm not trying to trick you (as if I could) . I'm just defining the issues between us.

Yes, I would agree to that.

Trying to trick me? No. However, I'm starting to wonder if I accidently wandered into an episode of Peter Falk's Columbo. ("Just one more thing, ma'am.")

  The obvious way of looking at it is that healthcare providers are the supply and the people waiting for treatment are the demand. The obvious way of looking at it would be that allowing more healthcare providers to operate in Canada would increase the capacity of the system, (ie the supply.) 

You first sentence is almost right, the second is misguided.

First: demand is not the patient, it is the money. A patient with no ability to pay creates no demand.

Second: we are not talking about controlling suppliers, we're discussing control of demand. (Remember we just discussed private provision of services paid by the 'single (state) payer', right?)

Perhaps, but in either of the scenarios we're discussing, patients have the ability to pay. In your single-payer system, every single person on the waiting-list has the exact same ability to pay for medical services. There *is* demand. While you've used the phrase "monopoly on demand", it looks to me like a more accurate description is that a single-payer system would provide price-control.

One thing that occurs to me about limiting the participation of private providers is that it provides a means of controlling health expenses-- limit the capacity of the system, and you limit the amount of procedures you have to pay for each year.

-kimmy

{"uh, just one more thing, ma'am," the rumpled detective began. "Do you like pistacchios?"

"What?" asked Miss Kimmy, caught off-guard by the odd question. Who is this guy, she wondered, and why is he wearing a trench-coat in the middle of summer?

"Pistacchios," Det. Sweal explained. "They're these little nuts. They dye the shells pink. I can't stand 'em, but Mrs Sweal, she loves 'em. Goes through 'em by the bagful. Just last week I had to run down to the corner store in the middle of the night to get Mrs Sweal a bag of pistacchios. She--"

"I know what pistacchios are," Miss Kimmy hissed, icy facade begining to break as she slowly but surely lost patience with the wall-eyed detective. "What on earth do the have to do with anything?"

"Well, it's just that the ashtray of Mrs Hoople's car was full of these little pink pistacchio shells on the day she got killed," Det. Sweal said, "and what's funny about that is that Mrs Hoople was allergic to nuts, so she didn't put them there. So somebody else was in Mrs Hoople's car. Ain't that a funny thing?"

Miss Kimmy's face blanched momentarily. "But..." she paused, quickly composing herself. "Maybe one of her friends from the bridge-club had pistacchios in the car. Why, they might have been in that ashtray for weeks."

"Yeah, that could be it," Det. Sweal said, pausing to write in his notebook. "Thanks for pointing that out. You could be right about that. Anyway, I was just asking because I noticed that you had pink dye on your fingers when I talked to you that day, so I thought maybe you might know something about that. Anyway, you think about that, and call me if you get any ideas. I gotta run, the department keeps me real busy. But I'll get back to you if I've got more questions. I bet we'll see each other again real soon."

"No doubt," muttered Miss Kimmy, glaring daggers after Det. Sweal as he departed.}