I'm really, really surprised that Obmacare passed. I guess you have to chalk another one up to the comeback kid. The funny thing is that it is largely a Republican bill. Most things that are in it have been proposed in the past by some Republican. This was underlined in an article by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and someone else who told of a number of issues which Republican had proposed what item. I have trouble figuring out why Republicans are so enraged about it.
And why are Right To Lifers so enraged by the bill, especially when the President has issued an edict that no Federal money will be used for abortions (I guess they think an executive order is not binding.). It all seems irrational to me. Beside outlawing Federal money for abortions only applies to the poor and probably the lower middle class, The more wealthy can pay for their daughters abortions or even send them to some country where abortion is legal if abortion of any kind was outlawed in this country. Bring back the coat-hanger abortions? But ruling that no Federal money can go to abortion is made several different ways: now by the executive order and also the Hyde amendment. I would feel better about it if so many right to lifers weren't also for the death penalty. If life is sacred, how can you justify the death penalty. Apparently right to life only applies to the unborn.
The bill is 2,404 pages, I believe, including 900 pages of amendments of which 170 of the amendments are by Republicans. Of course it is hard to believe that anyone can keep in their mind all the things in such a bill. I guess we will just have to let things develop and see. But the big thing as I see it is the inclusion of the 32 million new uninsured. If we can't do this, maybe we don't deserve to be a country? Well, I have heard the problem is that people with health insurance say, "What's in it for me?" There are 14 items that will begin this year: http://majorityleader.gov/docUploads/Top14FINAL.pdf
Adding 32 million people to health care presumably will put a strain on our stock of primary care physicians. We are told that the poor now are covered by going to emergency rooms. So the thought occurs to me that if this is true, there will be less need for physicians in emergency rooms so they can have private practices to see new patients at less than one-third the cost of an emergency room visit. Hm, maybe not that many of the poor go to emergency rooms for their primary care. I took my wife once, and her visit lasted seven hours (this in northern Virginia). A lady we know went to an emergency room here in North Carolina because of a bad fall, and it took her six hours. After you do this once, you maybe try to avoid emergency rooms? So maybe there will be a shortage of primary care physicians. One of the things that will begin soon with the passage of Obamacare is support for the training of more primary care physicians. I know not how many.
Well, I think there is some legitimate concern that the budget balancing in the health plan bill will actually be sustained by future congresses. As to financial reform, it is certainly necessary. We cannot allow so many "too big to fail" organizations affect out country. The first big thing was repeal of the glass Steagal Act which Clinton signed; I believe it was his biggest mistake. It may be that the SEC has been lax in its enforcement, but we have had 20 years of deregulation of the financial industry in this country, and there is no regulation of hedge funds. And Bush idid things that have ruined the economy for the rest of my life (unfunded wars accompaying tax cuts, an unfunded prescription drug paln, among others.). Even closing down Lehman Brothers has almost done in the country. I suggest you read a book called The Big Short which has come out recently. I have not read the book, but I've heard the author on many occasions on radio and TV.
Of course we need to overhaul the income tax code, but everything that is in it is in it because some interest group wants it (We are a country of push and shove and anything goes.) so the reform is never done, and I doubt it ever will be, just made more and more complicated with time. I spend a large amount of time for about a month on our income tax.
In this blog, I have noted that you cannot balance the budget by eliminating the discretionary spending (which includes DoD,. by the way) of the Federal government. Total budget for discretionary spending is $1.4 trillion whereas the Federal deficit this fiscal year is currently estimated to be $1.55 trillion. So you could close down the entire Federal government as we think of it and not balance the budget. Actually the deficit would rise a lot because of the 2 million (about) Federal workers put out of work and discontinuation of all their contracts with industry.
So if we are to balance the budget, then we have to address entitlements (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) plus raise taxes. Any kind of even modest Federal budget decreases raises alarm. Obama proposed ending a program for manned missions to the Moon and a number of Republicans objected. Can you think of anything we need LESS than to send men to the Moon? It certainly is not essential. Yet, there are loud squeals.
The latest thing is about companies, that provided health care for prescription drugs, will have this benefit taxed. What is interesting about this is that the tax will be on a Federal SUBSIDY (!) given to such companies to continue drug coverage to their employees and retirees. In other words, it is a decrease in a Federal SUBSIDY. The Wall Street Journal loves to tell which company is taking what kind of hit. ATT, for example, is taking a billion dollar write down, and they have a hard time decreasing their prescription drug coverage because of all sorts of union agreements. Disclosure: We own some ATT stock. I still have trouble getting excited about this small decrease in a subsidy.
Personally, I feel companies shouldn't be providing heath care to employees anyway. It started as an accident in WW-II when salaries were frozen and Henry J. Kaiser decided to offer health care as an inducement to get more of the limited pool of workers. Among other things, it put a terrible onus on workers who will lose their health care if they quit, but companies are free to fire them any time they feel like it, costing them their health care. Labor is the main elastic component of business. I think that, at the very least, the health care insurance should be owned by the employee and a company could make donations towards it if they like. At least the employee can take the health care with them if they quit or are fired.
It would be even better to have a government operated health insurance system such a Medicare now (Ah, the Public Option which is not in the bill?). There is no restriction in Medicare as to which physician you go to. The doctor bills Medicare which pays some part of the bill (usually), and our backup plan pays the rest. If Medicare refuses payment, then our backup plan can too. Not every physician will accept Medicare, but there are a large pool that do. And Medicare doesn't pay everything. For example, they won't pay for anything they judge to be cosmetic surgery. And there are some tests they will only pay for once a year (I think some tests have even a longer time frame.). But overall, I think it works well for the patient.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
BAKKEN FORMATION OIL
There are e-mails circulating writing about vast oil resources in the Bakken Formation in the Williston Basin that includes parts of North Dakota and Montana. There are implications that this resource has been kept secret and some say that environmentalists have stalled development of Bakken formation oil. Well, I am sure there are conspiracies around, but oil in the Bakken Formation is not one of them. There certainly is and will be oil production from the Bakken Formation, but it will not eliminate our increasing need for imported oil.
Bakken Formation oil has hardly been a secret. Interest in it started as long as 35 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation The article mentions Leigh Price, who I knew when I worked in Denver in the 1970s. The Bakken Shale (as it was known then) has always been his hobby horse. Too bad he did not live long enough to see all the hysteria on it today.
Although environmentalists (who are often blamed) might like to stop the drilling, they are notably unsuccessful. North Dakota, for example, has offered a tax break to anyone who will drill. Prior to the recession, there were hundreds of drill rigs operating on the Bakken, but I believe interest has dropped because of the economic conditions.
The e-mails have been carelessly put together. You don't drill 1,000 ft but more than 10,000 ft, Then you have to turn the drilling to horizontal and drill along a thin dolomitic unit between two shale units. Then you have to "frac" (fracture) the rock by some process such as putting water down the hole under very high-pressure pulses (hydrofracking). While all this is technologically possible, it is difficult and expensive. To the best of my knowledge, none of the major oil companies have been involved in this endeavor. They are more interested in deepwater drilling. The smaller Marathon Oil company has been involved, however, but a major - Conoco Phillips - entered the fray in 2010.
At the present time, the best producing field in the Bakken is in Montana (Elm Coulee Oil Field) which is actually producing (53,000 bbl/day in 2007).
But don't get too excited about the potential of Bakken oil because production from America's largest oil field - Prudhoe Bay - on the north slope of Alaska is declining rapidly so the first thing new oil production must do in the U.S. is to replace the declining production from Alaska. And the problem is worse than that because soon the production from Prudhoe Bay will decline to the point where the oil must be degraded (watered) to form sufficient volume to keep the Alaskan pipeline open. Fortunately, exploration is going on full tilt in the adjacent (to the West) National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) that might help in Alaskan north slope production. If we could bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)* to the East of Prudhoe Bay, it would also help extend the life of north slope oil. But natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay deposits (formerly used to help drive out the oil) is now available for use and plans are afoot for a gas pipeline coming down through Alaska and Canada to the lower 48 states.
Incidentally, when I was a young geological engineering student back in the early 1950s, I saw a drill core from a producing limestone in the Williston basin and was amazed that it just looked like a solid rock. The word reservoir conjures up a vision of a cavern or something, but that is not the case. The reservoir is solid rock. Oil production from the Williston Basin has gone on for more than 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Basin
*Actually there is a moderate-sized oil field adjacent to ANWR in Prudhoe Bay called the Sourdough Field. Two holes have been drilled with oil showings in sight of ANWR. Some of the oil drawn from this field would come from under ANWR. Development of this field has been held up, however, because of a dispute between Sarah Palin (when she was governor of Alaska) and George W. Bush (when he was President of the U.S.) over how the production profits would be divided between the state of Alaska and the U.S. government. Now with a new governor of Alaska and a new president of the U.S., perhaps the dispute can be solved.
Bakken Formation oil has hardly been a secret. Interest in it started as long as 35 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation The article mentions Leigh Price, who I knew when I worked in Denver in the 1970s. The Bakken Shale (as it was known then) has always been his hobby horse. Too bad he did not live long enough to see all the hysteria on it today.
Although environmentalists (who are often blamed) might like to stop the drilling, they are notably unsuccessful. North Dakota, for example, has offered a tax break to anyone who will drill. Prior to the recession, there were hundreds of drill rigs operating on the Bakken, but I believe interest has dropped because of the economic conditions.
The e-mails have been carelessly put together. You don't drill 1,000 ft but more than 10,000 ft, Then you have to turn the drilling to horizontal and drill along a thin dolomitic unit between two shale units. Then you have to "frac" (fracture) the rock by some process such as putting water down the hole under very high-pressure pulses (hydrofracking). While all this is technologically possible, it is difficult and expensive. To the best of my knowledge, none of the major oil companies have been involved in this endeavor. They are more interested in deepwater drilling. The smaller Marathon Oil company has been involved, however, but a major - Conoco Phillips - entered the fray in 2010.
At the present time, the best producing field in the Bakken is in Montana (Elm Coulee Oil Field) which is actually producing (53,000 bbl/day in 2007).
But don't get too excited about the potential of Bakken oil because production from America's largest oil field - Prudhoe Bay - on the north slope of Alaska is declining rapidly so the first thing new oil production must do in the U.S. is to replace the declining production from Alaska. And the problem is worse than that because soon the production from Prudhoe Bay will decline to the point where the oil must be degraded (watered) to form sufficient volume to keep the Alaskan pipeline open. Fortunately, exploration is going on full tilt in the adjacent (to the West) National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) that might help in Alaskan north slope production. If we could bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)* to the East of Prudhoe Bay, it would also help extend the life of north slope oil. But natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay deposits (formerly used to help drive out the oil) is now available for use and plans are afoot for a gas pipeline coming down through Alaska and Canada to the lower 48 states.
Incidentally, when I was a young geological engineering student back in the early 1950s, I saw a drill core from a producing limestone in the Williston basin and was amazed that it just looked like a solid rock. The word reservoir conjures up a vision of a cavern or something, but that is not the case. The reservoir is solid rock. Oil production from the Williston Basin has gone on for more than 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Basin
*Actually there is a moderate-sized oil field adjacent to ANWR in Prudhoe Bay called the Sourdough Field. Two holes have been drilled with oil showings in sight of ANWR. Some of the oil drawn from this field would come from under ANWR. Development of this field has been held up, however, because of a dispute between Sarah Palin (when she was governor of Alaska) and George W. Bush (when he was President of the U.S.) over how the production profits would be divided between the state of Alaska and the U.S. government. Now with a new governor of Alaska and a new president of the U.S., perhaps the dispute can be solved.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
THE ECONOMY: PART 2
Modified from the Motley Fool, Industry Discussions/Real Estate Inv. Trusts: REITs Board. Post # 61219 (February 6th, 2010):
John Maynard Keynes gets a bad rap. People accuse him of government deficit spending. It may be true practically that a government will not pay back the debt run up he recommended for bad times, but that is not what Keynes wanted. Keynes said that over a business cycle the budgets should be in balance. It isn't Keynes fault that governments can't discipline themselves. Incidentally, Keynes was a bond trader and did very well.
Our government has run up deficits pretty regularly. Eisenhower had a positive cash flow in 3 of his 8 years. Surprisingly, Johnson had positive cash flow in one year. Clinton had positive cash flow in 4 years out of his eight (one without the Social Security surplus). That is it. Carter came close but no cigar. If Ford had won reelection, he might have because he was a budget balancer, but he lost the election. Perhaps Nixon was trying, but he got upended by Watergate (Though I think that Nixon’s impoundment of funds was more responsible for his resignation.). Reagan and Bush-43 never tried. Bush-41 should get a lot of credit for raising taxes as should Clinton, but it was too late to balance the budget for Bush-41. Contrary to the belief by many, there is little evidence that raising taxes ruins the economy or that lowering taxes helps the economy.* In fact, if Bush-41 and Clinton had not raised taxes, there would probably have been no positive cash flow in the 1990s. Combined they also decreased Federal employment by more than a million.
So with continuous huge deficits in the 1980s and the first decade of this century and some in between, why aren't we having raging inflation right now? Why hasn't it been going on for years? What is it Greenspan liked to say, "That’s a conundrum."
* The reason that lowering personal income taxes have minimal positive benefits to the economy is that the poor do not pay income taxes, the middle class tends to pay off debts with the new money, and the wealthy buy Treasury bonds, chalets in Switzerland, Bombardier personal jets from Canada, and islands in the Bahamas. Though some of these benefit the global economy, they do not aid the American economy. Alan Greenspan, when he was chairman of the Federal Reserve expressed the worry of the wealthy buying too many Treasury bonds with their tax savings. As I said in the post below, there probably is a optimum tax level to maximize Federal revenues, but I do not know what that level is.
John Maynard Keynes gets a bad rap. People accuse him of government deficit spending. It may be true practically that a government will not pay back the debt run up he recommended for bad times, but that is not what Keynes wanted. Keynes said that over a business cycle the budgets should be in balance. It isn't Keynes fault that governments can't discipline themselves. Incidentally, Keynes was a bond trader and did very well.
Our government has run up deficits pretty regularly. Eisenhower had a positive cash flow in 3 of his 8 years. Surprisingly, Johnson had positive cash flow in one year. Clinton had positive cash flow in 4 years out of his eight (one without the Social Security surplus). That is it. Carter came close but no cigar. If Ford had won reelection, he might have because he was a budget balancer, but he lost the election. Perhaps Nixon was trying, but he got upended by Watergate (Though I think that Nixon’s impoundment of funds was more responsible for his resignation.). Reagan and Bush-43 never tried. Bush-41 should get a lot of credit for raising taxes as should Clinton, but it was too late to balance the budget for Bush-41. Contrary to the belief by many, there is little evidence that raising taxes ruins the economy or that lowering taxes helps the economy.* In fact, if Bush-41 and Clinton had not raised taxes, there would probably have been no positive cash flow in the 1990s. Combined they also decreased Federal employment by more than a million.
So with continuous huge deficits in the 1980s and the first decade of this century and some in between, why aren't we having raging inflation right now? Why hasn't it been going on for years? What is it Greenspan liked to say, "That’s a conundrum."
* The reason that lowering personal income taxes have minimal positive benefits to the economy is that the poor do not pay income taxes, the middle class tends to pay off debts with the new money, and the wealthy buy Treasury bonds, chalets in Switzerland, Bombardier personal jets from Canada, and islands in the Bahamas. Though some of these benefit the global economy, they do not aid the American economy. Alan Greenspan, when he was chairman of the Federal Reserve expressed the worry of the wealthy buying too many Treasury bonds with their tax savings. As I said in the post below, there probably is a optimum tax level to maximize Federal revenues, but I do not know what that level is.
THE ECONOMY: PART 1
Modified from the Motley Fool, Industry Discussions/Real Estate Inv. Trusts: REITs Board. Post # 61218 (February 6th, 2010):
The problem we face currently is deflation in spite of the huge Federal deficits. To get inflation, employment will have to increase, manufacturing will have to increase, and both loan demand and loaning will have to increase. Certainly none of this is in sight yet. The latest figures on employment in January were a loss although somehow the percentage of unemployment dropped.
There is all sorts of talk about the Federal deficits, but no talk about our trade deficits. I don't have the latest figures for 2009, but they still must be around $400 billion, improved compared to the $700 billion in 2008 and $800 billion in 2008, if I remember correctly, but a sizable loss nonetheless. But Wendy on the METAR Board totaled up the cumulative trading deficits since 1977 and got a number of about $30 trillion. For reasons I don't understand, this does not seem to bother anybody but me. As long as we insist on importing so much energy, I can conceive of no way we can run a positive trade balance of even $1.
We have a very serious problem in this country in that we hear lots of appeals to reduce taxes but nothing about what services we will drop to pay for the tax loss (The charade that cutting taxes will increase revenue is nutty. If it is true, let's reduce taxes to zero so the government will roll in money. I agree there is probably some level of taxes that will maximize revenues, but I have no idea what it is.). We can't even get rid of the subsidy on something like corn based ethanol. You have to do a lot of calculation to show there is any carbon dioxide benefit, and, if you cut down a forest to plant corn, you go negative. We can't get rid of anything so stupid (I don't use this word much) as Medicare Advantage which is considerably more costly than regular Medicare. Maybe we can cut out some benefits to the poor because they don't vote (I take no comfort in this.), but that is about the size of it. It has been suggested that we terminate manned missions to the Moon, and even that has received a lot of flack from the same people who want to cut taxes.
If you cut out the ENTIRE discretionary spending of the Federal government (i.e. the budget goes to ZERO), which by the way includes the DOD, you cut out $1.4 trillion from the budget, but the forecasted deficit is $1.55 trillion, so you wouldn't even balance the budget then. And, of course, you put maybe 2 million Civil Servants out on the street which will swell unemployment plus all sorts of Federal contracts are kaput which are the life blood of many industries.
Short term, I agree that deflation is a likely probability for the next couple of years, and may be beyond that too for a long, long time. Perhaps inflation is the answer, but I think that Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, would like to see some inflation. I have never fully understood why we haven't had raging inflation since 2001. The Federal government may be pushing on the end of a string.
The problem we face currently is deflation in spite of the huge Federal deficits. To get inflation, employment will have to increase, manufacturing will have to increase, and both loan demand and loaning will have to increase. Certainly none of this is in sight yet. The latest figures on employment in January were a loss although somehow the percentage of unemployment dropped.
There is all sorts of talk about the Federal deficits, but no talk about our trade deficits. I don't have the latest figures for 2009, but they still must be around $400 billion, improved compared to the $700 billion in 2008 and $800 billion in 2008, if I remember correctly, but a sizable loss nonetheless. But Wendy on the METAR Board totaled up the cumulative trading deficits since 1977 and got a number of about $30 trillion. For reasons I don't understand, this does not seem to bother anybody but me. As long as we insist on importing so much energy, I can conceive of no way we can run a positive trade balance of even $1.
We have a very serious problem in this country in that we hear lots of appeals to reduce taxes but nothing about what services we will drop to pay for the tax loss (The charade that cutting taxes will increase revenue is nutty. If it is true, let's reduce taxes to zero so the government will roll in money. I agree there is probably some level of taxes that will maximize revenues, but I have no idea what it is.). We can't even get rid of the subsidy on something like corn based ethanol. You have to do a lot of calculation to show there is any carbon dioxide benefit, and, if you cut down a forest to plant corn, you go negative. We can't get rid of anything so stupid (I don't use this word much) as Medicare Advantage which is considerably more costly than regular Medicare. Maybe we can cut out some benefits to the poor because they don't vote (I take no comfort in this.), but that is about the size of it. It has been suggested that we terminate manned missions to the Moon, and even that has received a lot of flack from the same people who want to cut taxes.
If you cut out the ENTIRE discretionary spending of the Federal government (i.e. the budget goes to ZERO), which by the way includes the DOD, you cut out $1.4 trillion from the budget, but the forecasted deficit is $1.55 trillion, so you wouldn't even balance the budget then. And, of course, you put maybe 2 million Civil Servants out on the street which will swell unemployment plus all sorts of Federal contracts are kaput which are the life blood of many industries.
Short term, I agree that deflation is a likely probability for the next couple of years, and may be beyond that too for a long, long time. Perhaps inflation is the answer, but I think that Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, would like to see some inflation. I have never fully understood why we haven't had raging inflation since 2001. The Federal government may be pushing on the end of a string.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Health Care For The Masses - RIP
Last December 24th, I wrote on Universal Health Care which now appears to be dead. A good deal of the blame goes to Republicans who demonized any sort of universal health care, but, ultimately, the Democrats did it to themselves. With the election of a Republican Senator from Massasschusetts who says he will vote against whatever health care bill comes out of the conference committee, there are now not enough votes to establish cloture in the Senate so any version of the two health care bills passed by the House or Senate is dead on arrival. The problem could be avoided by having a "hurry up" conference committee, but this idea has been rejected. Now the House could avoid this problem by simply accepting the Senate bill, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she does not have the votes (I believe that the Senate could also vote to accept the House bill before the new Senator is sworn in, but this seems even more unlikely.). So in the end, the Democrats themselves did not want to pass a universal health care bill. A problem with the Democrats is, of course, that they are less disciplined than the Republicans.
So once again, it is proven that trying to pass an "ultimate solution" to a problem fails. In my experience, they always do.
So the idea now is to attack some pieces of the problem. President Clinton did this, most notably with his State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and President Bush the younger did it with Medicare D, a prescription drug program (but with some strong arm twisting to get the votes). So what pieces seem to be possible?
President Obama has reiterated that he would consider some form of tort reform which Republicans now say they want. I like the idea of tort reform, especially for "pain and suffering," but Republicans had six years in which they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and did nothing about tort reform. So my guess is that when push comes to shove, tort reform is dead.
Republicans in particular say they would like to have health insurance by insurance companies the is not restricted by state. I personally like this idea, but I am surprised that Republicans like it because insurance regulation has been one of the things that that been left to the states so to have national health insurance would obviously require some Federal regulation. Republicans are supposedly for states rights. Why take something away from the states? There is a second problem. It sounds nice to say you live in a state with expensive health insurance so you can buy insurance from a state with cheap health insurance, but, to stay in business, wouldn't the prices of insurance in the cheap states have to increase? Perhaps the health insurance in the expensive states would come down some to flatten costs over the U.S., but this would be to the detriment of the low cost states. Since medical expenses in low cost states is probably because the people have low incomes, the people of these states probably can ill afford increased health insurance costs. Thus I think when the issue is looked at closely, it is no go.
It seems like everyone doesn't like the fact that insurance companies can take health history into account in accepting applicants for health insurance. The insurance companies say there will be no preconditions so long as everyone is required to have health insurance. This sounds fine to me, but seems to have a lot of opposition from Republicans who have said this is just another give away to seniors. Well, this is what insurance is all about, isn't it? You take out fire insurance on your home, but it is very unlikely that your home will catch on fire during your occupancy. So you pay for the unfortunates whose homes do burn down or are damaged by fire on the off chance you will be one of them. While youth in general may have fewer health problems, there are those that do, and they would be covered also. As it is there are a number of thousands of people in their early 20s who collect Medicare for kidney problems (You have to have paid a certain number of quarters into Social Security to qualify.). But this idea seems to be a nonstarter.
Interestingly, none of the above deal with people currently unable to get health insurance because of costs though the last item addresses preconditions. So my guess is that maybe some more wheels will be spun on pieces of health care, but in the end nothing will be done. I will be happy to be proved wrong because no action is one of the most ecpensive options.
So once again, it is proven that trying to pass an "ultimate solution" to a problem fails. In my experience, they always do.
So the idea now is to attack some pieces of the problem. President Clinton did this, most notably with his State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and President Bush the younger did it with Medicare D, a prescription drug program (but with some strong arm twisting to get the votes). So what pieces seem to be possible?
President Obama has reiterated that he would consider some form of tort reform which Republicans now say they want. I like the idea of tort reform, especially for "pain and suffering," but Republicans had six years in which they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and did nothing about tort reform. So my guess is that when push comes to shove, tort reform is dead.
Republicans in particular say they would like to have health insurance by insurance companies the is not restricted by state. I personally like this idea, but I am surprised that Republicans like it because insurance regulation has been one of the things that that been left to the states so to have national health insurance would obviously require some Federal regulation. Republicans are supposedly for states rights. Why take something away from the states? There is a second problem. It sounds nice to say you live in a state with expensive health insurance so you can buy insurance from a state with cheap health insurance, but, to stay in business, wouldn't the prices of insurance in the cheap states have to increase? Perhaps the health insurance in the expensive states would come down some to flatten costs over the U.S., but this would be to the detriment of the low cost states. Since medical expenses in low cost states is probably because the people have low incomes, the people of these states probably can ill afford increased health insurance costs. Thus I think when the issue is looked at closely, it is no go.
It seems like everyone doesn't like the fact that insurance companies can take health history into account in accepting applicants for health insurance. The insurance companies say there will be no preconditions so long as everyone is required to have health insurance. This sounds fine to me, but seems to have a lot of opposition from Republicans who have said this is just another give away to seniors. Well, this is what insurance is all about, isn't it? You take out fire insurance on your home, but it is very unlikely that your home will catch on fire during your occupancy. So you pay for the unfortunates whose homes do burn down or are damaged by fire on the off chance you will be one of them. While youth in general may have fewer health problems, there are those that do, and they would be covered also. As it is there are a number of thousands of people in their early 20s who collect Medicare for kidney problems (You have to have paid a certain number of quarters into Social Security to qualify.). But this idea seems to be a nonstarter.
Interestingly, none of the above deal with people currently unable to get health insurance because of costs though the last item addresses preconditions. So my guess is that maybe some more wheels will be spun on pieces of health care, but in the end nothing will be done. I will be happy to be proved wrong because no action is one of the most ecpensive options.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
UPON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF APOLLO 11, 1969 (Poem)
The moon has been out there
Silently sliding ‘round the Earth,
Sometimes dark and eerie, other times bright and cheerful,
Contemplated by man
During all those millennia of his existence.
Feared by man because of its mystery.
Frustrating man because it was beyond his reach.
The moon has been out there
Endlessly swinging ‘round the Earth.
Howled at by wolves; casting gentle light for lovers;
A friend at night
During all those millennia of mans’ existence.
Studied by man because of its strangeness;
Frustrating him: Swiss green cheese or mountains and seas?
Then the day came
When a great leader
Pit the will of man
Against the forces of nature.
"I believe this nation should commit itself
To achieving a goal before this decade is out
Of landing a man on the moon
And returning him safely to the earth."*
So started the impossible task.
Step after painful step:
"Lord, this contract’s behind!"
"God, that part doesn’t fit!"
"Where in the world are Smith and Jones?"
"At Ames? Why in hell are they there?
Get them to Marshall quick. There’s trouble!"
"Can’t anyone do anything right around here?"
Tension, TENSION, TENSION. It’s tension
That gets the job done.
Must rush! Faster! The decade is passing.
"Can’t anything get done on time?"
Mercury, Gemini, Surveyor, Orbiter,
APOLLO!
And three men died:
Edward White, Virgil Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.
The moon has been out there
Untouched by man all this long time.
Seen first tantalizingly by eye and telescope;
Then Close-up by man
During flight of Apollo in nineteen sixty-eight.
Cold, gray, dry, dead, devoid of life, they said.
Frustrating man preoccupied with life.
On July twentieth, nineteen hundred and sixty nine
Touch the moon, man did on that day.
He walked on it and he gathered some of its treasure.
He shouted for joy!
Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins on Apollo 11.
Moon passive now to meteorite blasts,
But twas a day, studies show, of wild activity.
Written 1971
*John F. Kennedy (May 25th, 1961)
Silently sliding ‘round the Earth,
Sometimes dark and eerie, other times bright and cheerful,
Contemplated by man
During all those millennia of his existence.
Feared by man because of its mystery.
Frustrating man because it was beyond his reach.
The moon has been out there
Endlessly swinging ‘round the Earth.
Howled at by wolves; casting gentle light for lovers;
A friend at night
During all those millennia of mans’ existence.
Studied by man because of its strangeness;
Frustrating him: Swiss green cheese or mountains and seas?
Then the day came
When a great leader
Pit the will of man
Against the forces of nature.
"I believe this nation should commit itself
To achieving a goal before this decade is out
Of landing a man on the moon
And returning him safely to the earth."*
So started the impossible task.
Step after painful step:
"Lord, this contract’s behind!"
"God, that part doesn’t fit!"
"Where in the world are Smith and Jones?"
"At Ames? Why in hell are they there?
Get them to Marshall quick. There’s trouble!"
"Can’t anyone do anything right around here?"
Tension, TENSION, TENSION. It’s tension
That gets the job done.
Must rush! Faster! The decade is passing.
"Can’t anything get done on time?"
Mercury, Gemini, Surveyor, Orbiter,
APOLLO!
And three men died:
Edward White, Virgil Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.
The moon has been out there
Untouched by man all this long time.
Seen first tantalizingly by eye and telescope;
Then Close-up by man
During flight of Apollo in nineteen sixty-eight.
Cold, gray, dry, dead, devoid of life, they said.
Frustrating man preoccupied with life.
On July twentieth, nineteen hundred and sixty nine
Touch the moon, man did on that day.
He walked on it and he gathered some of its treasure.
He shouted for joy!
Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins on Apollo 11.
Moon passive now to meteorite blasts,
But twas a day, studies show, of wild activity.
Written 1971
*John F. Kennedy (May 25th, 1961)
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Deep Water Oil Production
Everyone should read the article on deep water oil production in today's WSJ (5-Jan-2010). The online article is at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126264987791815617.html
You will only get the beginning of the article if you are not an on-line subscriber, but it is on the front page of the print edition. You can also sign up for two free weeks of the online edition.
The Thunder Horse Field in the Gulf of Mexico has been online for a year or so and is producing around 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The Tahiti project of Chevron in the Gulf came online last May and is producing about 150,000 barrels/day. In reality, this is not an increase in U.S. production but is only replacing the decreased production of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. Bringing these deep water fields on line is terribly expensive. They estimate that the Tahiti project has cost $2.5 billion and has taken over 10 years to bring into fruition. But this is the future of oil production growth or replacement.
The largest deep water oil production comes from Angola (of all places) with around 1.5 million barrels/day. So in the U.S., we are just in the process of ramping up.
But a serious problem remains in Prudhoe Bay. The decline in production can result in the closure of the Alaskan Pipeline because a certain amount of flow is needed to keep it going. There is activity going on in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) adjacent to Prudhoe Bay to the West to find medium-sized oil fields that could help (One in Prudhoe Bay has been found adjacent to NPRA that is being brought on line.). We seem to be unable to bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Area (ANWR) to the East; however, there is the moderate Sour Dough Field in Prudhoe Bay that butts up against ANWR. Development of this field has been held up because of disputes between former Governor Sarah Palin and former President Bush over revenue sharing. I don't know whether there is any advance between the current state and Federal administrations.
(Reprinted from Post 316331 in Investment Analysis clubs/Macro Economic Trends and Risks of Motley Fool, 5-Jan-2010)
You will only get the beginning of the article if you are not an on-line subscriber, but it is on the front page of the print edition. You can also sign up for two free weeks of the online edition.
The Thunder Horse Field in the Gulf of Mexico has been online for a year or so and is producing around 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The Tahiti project of Chevron in the Gulf came online last May and is producing about 150,000 barrels/day. In reality, this is not an increase in U.S. production but is only replacing the decreased production of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. Bringing these deep water fields on line is terribly expensive. They estimate that the Tahiti project has cost $2.5 billion and has taken over 10 years to bring into fruition. But this is the future of oil production growth or replacement.
The largest deep water oil production comes from Angola (of all places) with around 1.5 million barrels/day. So in the U.S., we are just in the process of ramping up.
But a serious problem remains in Prudhoe Bay. The decline in production can result in the closure of the Alaskan Pipeline because a certain amount of flow is needed to keep it going. There is activity going on in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) adjacent to Prudhoe Bay to the West to find medium-sized oil fields that could help (One in Prudhoe Bay has been found adjacent to NPRA that is being brought on line.). We seem to be unable to bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Area (ANWR) to the East; however, there is the moderate Sour Dough Field in Prudhoe Bay that butts up against ANWR. Development of this field has been held up because of disputes between former Governor Sarah Palin and former President Bush over revenue sharing. I don't know whether there is any advance between the current state and Federal administrations.
(Reprinted from Post 316331 in Investment Analysis clubs/Macro Economic Trends and Risks of Motley Fool, 5-Jan-2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
