I think the only question I can answer is your last one. I don't think it should, Wayne. That's the negative time I was talking about before—negative linkages.
I would say that if crop insurance were a really good program, then you might allow that to happen. But everybody is an individual on their farm. They know their cost structure and they know their risk as well. There are lots of people who have farms of certain sizes whose risk for production losses for crop insurance are minimal. It's a disaster program they're looking for. Maybe they can self-insure.
I like flexibility; I don't like making it mandatory.
One of the problems with crop insurance, and I'll throw this out for you, is that it hasn't kept track.... Well, first of all, there are two components to crop insurance: price and yield. We know the price side is influenced by international trade. The price we have on the crop insurance is depressed—around 25%, the last time we heard. That price should be higher. On the production side, it has never kept up with the production of the last five years. There's been an explosion of seed technology, of new products, and our yields have gone up exponentially. Mine personally went from 24 bushels of canola average under crop insurance to 34, and this is still with a ten-year average. If we went to five years, I'm pretty sure my crop insurance would be on 45 bushels.
How do we get the crop insurance to really reflect where we are today, whatever that number of years is? How do we do it? If we could, then I'd look at a crop insurance program more in the vein of your question as being maybe possible, but not as it sits now.