Ran across this 1999 report about Maggie's Ditch from the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Apparently, one of the most polluted bodies of water in Florida, right in our backyard. Beginning from behind the former Gulf Power building on Pace Blvd., Maggie's Ditch drainage basin flows under the Burlington Northern Railroad and W street and then into Bayou Chico. One of three tributaries feeding the bayou, the drainage basin has been a contributing factor to the sludgy pollution plaguing the bayou for years.
Here is the 1999 Report from the Northwest Florida Water Management District
Maggie's Ditch as well as Bayou Chico has been the focus of recent environmental clean up activities in the area. Here is a report on the Florida Forever Act and includes slightly more recent data on the Maggie's Ditch cleanup: Florida Forever - 5 Year Work Plan
Also, Florida's Water - Good website on water quality issues
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Organic Smell Remover - Removes cat pee and skunk odors!
Removes cat pee and skunk odors! What could be better?
I have tried it, and yes it removes cat pee smells. I have not had the opportunity to try it on skunk smells, but if ever the opportunity arises, it will be my first choice. I have a friend who told me about the recipe for removing cat pee and other icky smells. I recently saw it on a PBS documentary about skunks.
Now for the recipe:
I have tried it, and yes it removes cat pee smells. I have not had the opportunity to try it on skunk smells, but if ever the opportunity arises, it will be my first choice. I have a friend who told me about the recipe for removing cat pee and other icky smells. I recently saw it on a PBS documentary about skunks.
Now for the recipe:
- 1 liter (quart) of hydrogen peroxide
- 1/4 cup baking soda
- 1 tsp soap
- Do not store the solution - it will produce gases and the container could explode, so please do not store the solution it only costs a few cents to make it fresh each time you need it
- Test it for bleaching before you soak down that favorite article of clothing. Hydrogen peroxide is used as a bleaching agent. Although I have not tried it out, I have heard that you can substitute ammonia for hydrogen peroxide (but again, test it before you use it).
Nuclear Atrocity Perpetrated By the United States
I read an Associated Press article the other day regarding the United States' nuclear testing on the Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll (both are a part of the Marshall Islands). I am sure most everyone has heard of the Bikini Atoll testing that was performed; however, if not here is some footage from the web:
I can understand in the infancy of nuclear testing that we annihilate and irradiate a few islands. Sad, but I can understand it considering the Western World's affinity to force change upon the Earth and upon existence. By it's very nature, change is destructive. So now, for the atrocity:
According to the AP article Court Won't Hear Appeal of from Marshall Islands, the United States government agreed that in reparation for our testing of 67 atomic bombs in the Marshall Islands, the Country would pay $385 million to the people of the Enewetak Atoll and $563 million to the people of the Bikini Atoll. The United States has not followed through with it's promise to pay and has only paid a fraction of the amount.
The atomic testing which was performed in the 1940's and 1950's totaled the equivalent of exploding 1.6 atomic bombs per day for 12 years. Now, the Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from the Marshall Islands over whether they can sue for reparations. When we will WE, as a Country realize that we need to be held accountable for our actions and that if the Government does something we do not approve of, we need to stop it or else we need to pay up when we are called out on it. The Marshall Islands have called us out and we need to do the right thing. Money is not the solution to the problem, but money will go a long way to restoring an economy which was devastated by the land and water becoming a nuclear wasteland.
I can understand in the infancy of nuclear testing that we annihilate and irradiate a few islands. Sad, but I can understand it considering the Western World's affinity to force change upon the Earth and upon existence. By it's very nature, change is destructive. So now, for the atrocity:
According to the AP article Court Won't Hear Appeal of from Marshall Islands, the United States government agreed that in reparation for our testing of 67 atomic bombs in the Marshall Islands, the Country would pay $385 million to the people of the Enewetak Atoll and $563 million to the people of the Bikini Atoll. The United States has not followed through with it's promise to pay and has only paid a fraction of the amount.
The atomic testing which was performed in the 1940's and 1950's totaled the equivalent of exploding 1.6 atomic bombs per day for 12 years. Now, the Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from the Marshall Islands over whether they can sue for reparations. When we will WE, as a Country realize that we need to be held accountable for our actions and that if the Government does something we do not approve of, we need to stop it or else we need to pay up when we are called out on it. The Marshall Islands have called us out and we need to do the right thing. Money is not the solution to the problem, but money will go a long way to restoring an economy which was devastated by the land and water becoming a nuclear wasteland.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Energy Saver's Rebate Program
I received an email from GE today. The email was obviously an attempt to get me to purchase new appliances from GE but the selling point is actually a good opportunity to take advantage of some Federal Funding which has become available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Apparently part of the act allots funding to State's for a rebate program to encourage residents to recycle their old appliances and purchase newer energy efficient appliances.
A perfect solution to the problem? No, of course not. A step in the right direction? Maybe. A chance for you to save some money on buying that new refrigerator you needed? Of course, take advantage of it if you can.
Here are a couple of links:
A perfect solution to the problem? No, of course not. A step in the right direction? Maybe. A chance for you to save some money on buying that new refrigerator you needed? Of course, take advantage of it if you can.
Here are a couple of links:
Friday, December 25, 2009
Times They Are a Changing - Environmentally Speaking Anyway - 2
In my previous post, I discussed some very negative current issues focusing on some local pollution problems in the Pensacola Florida area. So with the understanding that there are significant problems and that these problems are systemic to the Country and the World as a whole, the question remains: What do we do about it?
That is a question that the world is currently struggling with. However, as a member of one of the better developed countries and one of the larger polluting countries in the world, there are some simple things that each and every one of us can do. Now you will hear people talk about how one individual's effort to reduce their discharge of pollutants will not reverse or slow the destruction of the world. But, I firmly believe that if everyone just took some minor steps in their everyday lives to reduce their pollution, then the World would be a better place; if for no other reason than to ingrain pollution control and reduction into the social consciousness (the zeitgeist). But I do believe that an individual effort by everyone will produce tangible results (albeit the results may be minor in comparison to the reduction of pollution that could be made if the World governments just began enforcing the pollution control standards that are currently in place).
I was listening to a National Public Radio (NPR) story (I believe it was on Fresh Air, but could be mistaken) a few weeks ago. The individual being interviewed was talking about the pollution that farms produce and the pollution control measures that are in place. Apparently, the way the current system is designed is to monitor large farms (I do not remember the specifics so I am just going to give some examples using made up numbers to illustrate the gist of the conversation). Farms of say 90 acres or more are monitored for pollution levels. However, three farms of say 30 acres apiece owned by the same farmer in the same general area which together produce the same amount of pollution as the single large farm, are not monitored because each farm is individually below the large farm threshold and thus the pollution produced goes unregulated. Additionally, the interviewee was discussing how companies are required to report when they illegally pollute, but the government doesn't do anything other than file the report. Instead of investigating the pollution and fining the company (which by the way, the fines could be used to reduce the tax dollars spent cleaning up Superfund sites and other areas of pollution as well as serving as a deterrent for polluting), the reports are filed and nothing is done. The companies are left to continue to pollute.
So how does each individual making an effort to reduce their pollution footprint help prevent the large companies from polluting and help force the government to rethink the current pollution control laws, regulation, monitoring programs, law enforcement programs (i.e. fines and repercussions for polluters)? Simple, the more each individual focuses on their own actions, the harder it will be for the corporate machine to justify its actions to the people, and more importantly, the more the people doing the polluting on behalf of the corporate machine will feel obligated to speak up and stop the atrocity of corporate pollution. Each individual's actions will have an effect on the current social consciousness and if enough people have similar actions and beliefs, society as a whole may have a paradigm shift. Just look at the "hippy movement" or the "tree huggers" of yore, these are now mainstream beliefs. So lets all just do our part individually and get involved in our local governments to let our local governments know where we stand on the issue of pollution.
Some Additional Resources I Have Found:
How Do I Reduce My Personal Pollution Levels?
That is a question that the world is currently struggling with. However, as a member of one of the better developed countries and one of the larger polluting countries in the world, there are some simple things that each and every one of us can do. Now you will hear people talk about how one individual's effort to reduce their discharge of pollutants will not reverse or slow the destruction of the world. But, I firmly believe that if everyone just took some minor steps in their everyday lives to reduce their pollution, then the World would be a better place; if for no other reason than to ingrain pollution control and reduction into the social consciousness (the zeitgeist). But I do believe that an individual effort by everyone will produce tangible results (albeit the results may be minor in comparison to the reduction of pollution that could be made if the World governments just began enforcing the pollution control standards that are currently in place).
I was listening to a National Public Radio (NPR) story (I believe it was on Fresh Air, but could be mistaken) a few weeks ago. The individual being interviewed was talking about the pollution that farms produce and the pollution control measures that are in place. Apparently, the way the current system is designed is to monitor large farms (I do not remember the specifics so I am just going to give some examples using made up numbers to illustrate the gist of the conversation). Farms of say 90 acres or more are monitored for pollution levels. However, three farms of say 30 acres apiece owned by the same farmer in the same general area which together produce the same amount of pollution as the single large farm, are not monitored because each farm is individually below the large farm threshold and thus the pollution produced goes unregulated. Additionally, the interviewee was discussing how companies are required to report when they illegally pollute, but the government doesn't do anything other than file the report. Instead of investigating the pollution and fining the company (which by the way, the fines could be used to reduce the tax dollars spent cleaning up Superfund sites and other areas of pollution as well as serving as a deterrent for polluting), the reports are filed and nothing is done. The companies are left to continue to pollute.
So how does each individual making an effort to reduce their pollution footprint help prevent the large companies from polluting and help force the government to rethink the current pollution control laws, regulation, monitoring programs, law enforcement programs (i.e. fines and repercussions for polluters)? Simple, the more each individual focuses on their own actions, the harder it will be for the corporate machine to justify its actions to the people, and more importantly, the more the people doing the polluting on behalf of the corporate machine will feel obligated to speak up and stop the atrocity of corporate pollution. Each individual's actions will have an effect on the current social consciousness and if enough people have similar actions and beliefs, society as a whole may have a paradigm shift. Just look at the "hippy movement" or the "tree huggers" of yore, these are now mainstream beliefs. So lets all just do our part individually and get involved in our local governments to let our local governments know where we stand on the issue of pollution.
Some Additional Resources I Have Found:
- Earthtrends - Interesting website with some really good tables and charts, a good place to start some basic research
- Think you don't pollute when take your kids to the park? Take a bicycle to the park next time.
- Green Living - Interesting site with some good information
- European Pollution
- Interesting report on the world's energy
How Do I Reduce My Personal Pollution Levels?
- Some simple tips from Oregon
- Some tips from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Being from a coastal community, here are some boating pollution tips from the EPA
- Some simple tips from Colorado
- Interesting site - be sure to click the links on the left in order to find the information
- Each year an average of 2 gallons of paint per person is sold each year in the US - pollution control!!!
- For those of you with older vehicles or vehicles sitting in the yard awaiting repair or disposal
- What Can We Do?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Times They Are a Changing - Environmentally Speaking Anyway
Being a resident in the panhandle of Florida, I am of course concerned, but unfortunately not shocked or in anyway amazed, by the recent water quality study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The study found that water tested in the metropolitan area of Pensacola Florida (serviced by Emerald Coast Utilities Authority, ECUA) has the worst water quality among one hundred of the nation's largest water systems. While only the water serviced by ECUA was included in the study, I would imagine that the water of the surrounding smaller utility companies is of similar quality. The one item I can think of which might yield cleaner water in areas of the city and surrounding areas is the location of public drinking water wells near sites of centralized pollution.
I did some online research a couple of years ago about the landfills in the northwest Florida area and found many Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reports and studies available via Google search. Some very disturbing reports and studies of pollution contained in the heart of metropolitan Pensacola. There are reports of the monitoring of plumes of underground pollutants. There was even one of the largest pollution related residential relocations which occurred off of Davis Highway and Fairfield several years ago. So depending on the proximity to a site of source pollution, the study could be somewhat biased in relation to the area serviced by ECUA and the areas serviced by other utility companies; however, the study is certainly indicative of a serious problem.
But really, is it that hard to believe that an area where the only protection which the aquifer system has from pollutants is sand and topsoil combined with one of the larger concentrations of Super Fund sites in the Country has bad water quality. There is little to no bedrock to filter the rainwater as it flows through the various Superfund sites and other sites of source pollution.
I do have to say that progress has been made in recent years to help improve the standards of health in the area. But as with anything, more needs to be done. Maybe instead of issuing bonds for the Waterfront Park, the City of Pensacola could issue bonds to help ECUA and other utility companies install more sophisticated watering filtering and processing systems.
I would love to be able to say that ECUA and other utility companies need to provide us with clean water but ultimately those costs will have to be passed down to the consumer which means more expensive water. I, personally, would not be opposed to offsetting some of the costs of better water purification technology with local taxes (which will be assessed anyway, it's just a matter of allocating the taxes to where they need to go). We as a people need to let our local government know that we want clean air, water, ground, and a safe place for our residents to live.
But, we, the people of the community, must accept that the water quality is as much our own fault as anyone's. We have allowed the government to not properly enforce pollution standards and not properly fine polluters. We have washed load after load of dishes and clothes using soaps which will place "harmless" chemicals into our groundwater. We need to take responsibility for the clean up. We need to tell our local politicians that we want the money we pay in taxes to go to the greater good of the community and we need to take personal action and use organic soaps, wash fewer loads of dishes and clothes, use less soap n the shower, stop pouring our used motor oils on the ground, install more and better drainage systems to filtering road runoff before it can leach into our water supply. We are a part of the cause, we need to be a part of the solution and we need to stop blaming someone else for problems that we are an integral part of. We need to act and make change.
Now, here are a few links to get you started in your research of the local problems. Only after you have knowledge of the problems will you be able to provide solutions. Please post links to additional research that may be helpful others -- thanks.
Water Quality Study:
General Pollution in Northwest Florida:
I did some online research a couple of years ago about the landfills in the northwest Florida area and found many Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reports and studies available via Google search. Some very disturbing reports and studies of pollution contained in the heart of metropolitan Pensacola. There are reports of the monitoring of plumes of underground pollutants. There was even one of the largest pollution related residential relocations which occurred off of Davis Highway and Fairfield several years ago. So depending on the proximity to a site of source pollution, the study could be somewhat biased in relation to the area serviced by ECUA and the areas serviced by other utility companies; however, the study is certainly indicative of a serious problem.
But really, is it that hard to believe that an area where the only protection which the aquifer system has from pollutants is sand and topsoil combined with one of the larger concentrations of Super Fund sites in the Country has bad water quality. There is little to no bedrock to filter the rainwater as it flows through the various Superfund sites and other sites of source pollution.
I do have to say that progress has been made in recent years to help improve the standards of health in the area. But as with anything, more needs to be done. Maybe instead of issuing bonds for the Waterfront Park, the City of Pensacola could issue bonds to help ECUA and other utility companies install more sophisticated watering filtering and processing systems.
I would love to be able to say that ECUA and other utility companies need to provide us with clean water but ultimately those costs will have to be passed down to the consumer which means more expensive water. I, personally, would not be opposed to offsetting some of the costs of better water purification technology with local taxes (which will be assessed anyway, it's just a matter of allocating the taxes to where they need to go). We as a people need to let our local government know that we want clean air, water, ground, and a safe place for our residents to live.
But, we, the people of the community, must accept that the water quality is as much our own fault as anyone's. We have allowed the government to not properly enforce pollution standards and not properly fine polluters. We have washed load after load of dishes and clothes using soaps which will place "harmless" chemicals into our groundwater. We need to take responsibility for the clean up. We need to tell our local politicians that we want the money we pay in taxes to go to the greater good of the community and we need to take personal action and use organic soaps, wash fewer loads of dishes and clothes, use less soap n the shower, stop pouring our used motor oils on the ground, install more and better drainage systems to filtering road runoff before it can leach into our water supply. We are a part of the cause, we need to be a part of the solution and we need to stop blaming someone else for problems that we are an integral part of. We need to act and make change.
Now, here are a few links to get you started in your research of the local problems. Only after you have knowledge of the problems will you be able to provide solutions. Please post links to additional research that may be helpful others -- thanks.
Water Quality Study:
- Nice Summary Article by North Escambia.com
- Here's the Article by Environmental Working Group (EWG)
- Be sure to read EWG's rating methodology
- ECUA's response to the study -- I have to admit that they have some good points to consider regarding the reliability of the study by EWG
- ECUA's 2008 Water Quality Report
General Pollution in Northwest Florida:
- Agrico Chemical Company Superfund Site - 118 East Fairfield Drive, Pensacola Florida
- Nice brief overview and aerial view of the current site
- Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) information regarding the Agrico Superfund site
- Agrico Chemical Company Superfund Site Update (report by the EPA) - 2008
- Information from the City of Pensacola
- Public Health Assessment for Agrico Chemical Company Superfund Site, report by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- City of Pensacola suggested contacts regarding the Agrico Superfund site
- American Creosote Works - 701 South J Street, Pensacola, Florida
- Nice brief overview and aerial view of the current site
- Overview of the site by the City of Pensacola
- Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) information regarding the American Creosote Works Superfund site
- Public Health Assessment for American Creosote Works Superfund Site, report by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- Report from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on the American Creosote Works Superfund site
- Conceptual reuse plan by the City of Pensacola
- Remediation System Evaluation report per an October 5, 2005 EPA on site visit
- Interesting article on creosote related illnesses
- Beulah Landfill - Beulah, Florida
- Beulah Landfill - Superfund site being put to a new purpose
- Beulah Landfill - Information from the EPA on the Beulah Landfill Superfund site status
- Escambia Treating Company (aka Mount Dioxin) - 3910 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida
- Nice brief overview and aerial view of the current site
- Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) information regarding the Escambia Treating Company Superfund site
- Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) article on th status of the clean up at the Escambia Treating Company site
- Nice brief discussion from Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE)
- Also, be sure to read the groundwater considerations of Mount Dioxin by Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE)
- EPA report on the relocation of 358 local residents due to pollution caused by the Escambia Wood Treating Company Superfund site
- Cleanup efforts at Mount Dioxin
- Old report on the beginning phases of cleanup at Mount Dioxin
- Pensacola Naval Air Station - Pensacola, Florida
- Whiting Field Naval Air Station - Milton, Florida
- General
- Listing of Florida Superfund Sites
- Information by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on what the government is doing to clean up and reuse Superfund sites
- Interesting information on the demographics of pollutant origins - site is pretty interesting overall, actually
- Summary article by the Pensacola News Journal (PNJ) regarding local pollution sites
- Interesting Pensacola News Journal article from 2003 regarding Pensacola water supply pollution. Including pollution from the Agrico site and related litigation
Monday, December 7, 2009
Healthcare Reform -- Is it a dream or a reality?
As an auditor working at a Regional firm I have a diverse spectrum of client from local governments, to not-for-profit organizations, to for profit entities. In my (albeit somewhat limited) years of experience (4 years in public accounting) I have seen one consistent trait in most of my clients; except for churches and healthcare entities, everyone is cutting costs. The spending of churches is well out of the spectrum of this discussion (maybe a later day). Healthcare, however, is a subject I'm willing to broach.
You ever wonder why it is that your Explanation of Benefits (EOB) shows an amount for charges not allowed or why when you accidentally get billed instead of your insurance company (assuming you have an insurance company), your bill is outrageously more expensive than what is actually billed to your insurer? It's because healthcare is a necessity and at some point you must pay for it or die. And, as with anything in a capitalist country, the better the doctor/healthcare, the greater the demand. The greater the demand, the higher the price. Therefore, those who can afford it will get the best healthcare and those who cannot afford it will receive poor and inadequate healthcare.
So how does the insurance company get to pay less money than you do for services? Simple, the insurer says to the doctor, "We won't pay more than this amount." Simple because the insurance company has the power of numbers on its size. The doctor gets the security of knowing that payment for services will be collectible and that he will have many new patient oppuurtunities as there "x" number people in the plan and only "y" number of doctors where "x" is much greater than "y". So if the doctor didn't go with the insurer he will be assured not to get those potential customers.
Now, each insurance company is in the business of collecting a small fee from individuals and investing this money. The money that is invested is used to pay out claims. The idea is that claims will be paid primarily by the earnings on the investments with the original fees remaining to collateralize new patients and growth. The theory being that claims expenses should be less than claims revenue. We've already concluded that the doctors and health system form an oligopoly. As the doctors and healthsystem increase prices, the insurance company loses profits. As the insurer loses profits it can either increase rates charged to customers or it can attempt to force the doctors to reduce their prices. The insurers use both tactics to improve financial performance. So in the end what we have is the insurer telling the doctor how much it will pay. The doctor may or may not drop the plan, the same is true for raising rates to customers, some may pay and some may leave. But the insurance companies have wielded enough power and influence in the system to allow them to apply a great force to the prices charged to them which ultimately benefits the customer (think about the EOB differences discussed above). So the insurer plays an important role in keeping the oligopoly from exerting too much price influence.
Now there are some differences in the way insurance companies want to pay doctors and the way doctors want to be paid. Insurance companies want to pay on a per member basis. Essentially the insurer collects each individual's premium and they want to pass a portion of that premium along to the doctor each month regardless of the services the doctor actually performs. The doctor, however, wants to receive money each time he/she performs a service for someone. This is a difference that an intermediary organization can solve. The intermediary organization can receive the monthly fees from the insurer and then pay the doctor for each time he/she performs a service for a fee. Now a third organization has stepped in and allowed both the doctors and the insurers to share their risk with the organization (the intermediary charges a small fee of course). So now you have three organizations (insurer, intermediary, and healthcare system) working together to provide services for a fixed fee to the consumer (insurance rate). The intermediary can provide other services too, such as datamining claims to identify patterns and educate the doctors on appropriate preventative measures. All in all this system works pretty well. . . . except for the constantly rising rates to the customers and lack of availability of insurance to customer who cannot afford it. Insurance is outrageously expensive unless your employer foots a significant portion of the bill.
So now why is such a bad idea if the largest insurer in the country steps in and interrupts this perfect model of capitalism gone awry? Why is it so bad to have government sponsored healthcare? Now, yes I am a huge proponent of duplicitous waste existing in governments of all sizes and not to mention 'good ole boy' tactics to boot. But, if done right, government sponsored healthcare reform could be one of the greatest achievements this country accomplishes this century. Is the O'Bama plan, the best plan. Probably not, but it's a start. Will we ever have a perfect healthcare system? No. So why would it be so bad to have the government step in? Extra tax dollars you say? No new taxes, you say? Well I'm sure that it won't be free to the people but if the right measures and forces are pushed onto the healthcare system then the system will be forced to reform. With the right reform, the tax burden on society could be greatkly reduced. For one, what about the current cost to society of people who cannot afford healthcare and so are not treated preventatively but instead are treated only after becoming severely ill and then there is no one to pay for the healthcare that they received? Who pays this cost now? You do.
Now, something that you may not think about is that a huge cost to healthcare is drug costs. Everyone sees the revenues of drug companies but few stop to think about how their earnings are used to perform research and development for new drugs. Many drugs take 20+ years to develop and get approved without earning any revenue against the expense. Then, the company has a limited time before alternative drugs are able to flood the market. So it's natural that drug companies will have to charge a lot for their drugs to finance the research and development. Wouldn't it make sense to have this cost passed on to all Americans? The cost of developing a drug that you may or may not need. It may sound unfair to pay for the cost of developing a drug that you don't ever need. But what about the drug you do need? Isn't it just as unfair to the people helping to pay for the development of the drug you need.
So, do I support the O'Bama plan? Not really. Do I support healthcare reform? Yes, who doesn't. I say you have to start somewhere or you will never get anywhere.
Here is the link to the article that started this posting: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/11/24/An-Insightful-Article-on-Health-Care-Costs/
You ever wonder why it is that your Explanation of Benefits (EOB) shows an amount for charges not allowed or why when you accidentally get billed instead of your insurance company (assuming you have an insurance company), your bill is outrageously more expensive than what is actually billed to your insurer? It's because healthcare is a necessity and at some point you must pay for it or die. And, as with anything in a capitalist country, the better the doctor/healthcare, the greater the demand. The greater the demand, the higher the price. Therefore, those who can afford it will get the best healthcare and those who cannot afford it will receive poor and inadequate healthcare.
So how does the insurance company get to pay less money than you do for services? Simple, the insurer says to the doctor, "We won't pay more than this amount." Simple because the insurance company has the power of numbers on its size. The doctor gets the security of knowing that payment for services will be collectible and that he will have many new patient oppuurtunities as there "x" number people in the plan and only "y" number of doctors where "x" is much greater than "y". So if the doctor didn't go with the insurer he will be assured not to get those potential customers.
Now, each insurance company is in the business of collecting a small fee from individuals and investing this money. The money that is invested is used to pay out claims. The idea is that claims will be paid primarily by the earnings on the investments with the original fees remaining to collateralize new patients and growth. The theory being that claims expenses should be less than claims revenue. We've already concluded that the doctors and health system form an oligopoly. As the doctors and healthsystem increase prices, the insurance company loses profits. As the insurer loses profits it can either increase rates charged to customers or it can attempt to force the doctors to reduce their prices. The insurers use both tactics to improve financial performance. So in the end what we have is the insurer telling the doctor how much it will pay. The doctor may or may not drop the plan, the same is true for raising rates to customers, some may pay and some may leave. But the insurance companies have wielded enough power and influence in the system to allow them to apply a great force to the prices charged to them which ultimately benefits the customer (think about the EOB differences discussed above). So the insurer plays an important role in keeping the oligopoly from exerting too much price influence.
Now there are some differences in the way insurance companies want to pay doctors and the way doctors want to be paid. Insurance companies want to pay on a per member basis. Essentially the insurer collects each individual's premium and they want to pass a portion of that premium along to the doctor each month regardless of the services the doctor actually performs. The doctor, however, wants to receive money each time he/she performs a service for someone. This is a difference that an intermediary organization can solve. The intermediary organization can receive the monthly fees from the insurer and then pay the doctor for each time he/she performs a service for a fee. Now a third organization has stepped in and allowed both the doctors and the insurers to share their risk with the organization (the intermediary charges a small fee of course). So now you have three organizations (insurer, intermediary, and healthcare system) working together to provide services for a fixed fee to the consumer (insurance rate). The intermediary can provide other services too, such as datamining claims to identify patterns and educate the doctors on appropriate preventative measures. All in all this system works pretty well. . . . except for the constantly rising rates to the customers and lack of availability of insurance to customer who cannot afford it. Insurance is outrageously expensive unless your employer foots a significant portion of the bill.
So now why is such a bad idea if the largest insurer in the country steps in and interrupts this perfect model of capitalism gone awry? Why is it so bad to have government sponsored healthcare? Now, yes I am a huge proponent of duplicitous waste existing in governments of all sizes and not to mention 'good ole boy' tactics to boot. But, if done right, government sponsored healthcare reform could be one of the greatest achievements this country accomplishes this century. Is the O'Bama plan, the best plan. Probably not, but it's a start. Will we ever have a perfect healthcare system? No. So why would it be so bad to have the government step in? Extra tax dollars you say? No new taxes, you say? Well I'm sure that it won't be free to the people but if the right measures and forces are pushed onto the healthcare system then the system will be forced to reform. With the right reform, the tax burden on society could be greatkly reduced. For one, what about the current cost to society of people who cannot afford healthcare and so are not treated preventatively but instead are treated only after becoming severely ill and then there is no one to pay for the healthcare that they received? Who pays this cost now? You do.
Now, something that you may not think about is that a huge cost to healthcare is drug costs. Everyone sees the revenues of drug companies but few stop to think about how their earnings are used to perform research and development for new drugs. Many drugs take 20+ years to develop and get approved without earning any revenue against the expense. Then, the company has a limited time before alternative drugs are able to flood the market. So it's natural that drug companies will have to charge a lot for their drugs to finance the research and development. Wouldn't it make sense to have this cost passed on to all Americans? The cost of developing a drug that you may or may not need. It may sound unfair to pay for the cost of developing a drug that you don't ever need. But what about the drug you do need? Isn't it just as unfair to the people helping to pay for the development of the drug you need.
So, do I support the O'Bama plan? Not really. Do I support healthcare reform? Yes, who doesn't. I say you have to start somewhere or you will never get anywhere.
Here is the link to the article that started this posting: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/11/24/An-Insightful-Article-on-Health-Care-Costs/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)