Just for the record, every time we've suffered a major oil spill —EVERY TIME and regardless of which party was in power! — we've put a 6 month to one year moratorium on the activity that caused the spill.
We've shown that we can drill in deep water but we don't have a way to fix the problems that might occur as a result of that drilling ... and only deep water drilling is affected by the moratorium (shallow water drilling will continue).
While I really do understand the economic impact the moratorium will have on an area that has yet to recover from Katrina (and all those other hurricanes), please, let's not be disingenuous and imply that Pres. Obama is doing something out of the ordinary.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
A public option for the rest of us
Dear Sen. Schumer,
Congratulations on the recent vote to debate health care reform in the U.S. Senate. It is historic on so many levels and I support your efforts with everything I am.
However, the Sunday morning after that vote, I watched you on one of the Sunday morning media shows plead with reform opponents to allow an "opt out" provision of some sort. You said something on the order of: "Just because you don't want the public option, don't make it impossible for me to get it."
This troubles me. If this "opt out" provision comes to pass, millions of Americans will be condemned to continued poor health care options. Those Americans who live in places like Texas and Alabama deserve good health care, too.
I'm a life-long Texan and, in so many ways, damned proud to be one. But I also know our state's miserable record where it comes to human services. I have no illusions, no reason to hope that our state's Republican leadership will embrace health care reform, particularly anything that smacks of a public option. After all, these are the same yahoos who rejected federal stimulus funds because it's not friendly to business and might force Texas to improve and modernize the way it handles unemployment.
Senator, I know who represents Texas in the United States Senate. You do, too. They do not represent me in this matter; nor do they represent the hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents in Texas who believe, as you and I do, that this nation cannot afford to continue to pay premium prices for third-rate health care outcomes.
If left up to these senators and political leaders from Texas, there will be no public option or health care reform at all, which will plunge citizens in the South even deeper into poverty.
Please, Senator. You, and other progressive senators, must not give up on a public option that is available to all Americans, and not just to a fortunate few.
Congratulations on the recent vote to debate health care reform in the U.S. Senate. It is historic on so many levels and I support your efforts with everything I am.
However, the Sunday morning after that vote, I watched you on one of the Sunday morning media shows plead with reform opponents to allow an "opt out" provision of some sort. You said something on the order of: "Just because you don't want the public option, don't make it impossible for me to get it."
This troubles me. If this "opt out" provision comes to pass, millions of Americans will be condemned to continued poor health care options. Those Americans who live in places like Texas and Alabama deserve good health care, too.
I'm a life-long Texan and, in so many ways, damned proud to be one. But I also know our state's miserable record where it comes to human services. I have no illusions, no reason to hope that our state's Republican leadership will embrace health care reform, particularly anything that smacks of a public option. After all, these are the same yahoos who rejected federal stimulus funds because it's not friendly to business and might force Texas to improve and modernize the way it handles unemployment.
Senator, I know who represents Texas in the United States Senate. You do, too. They do not represent me in this matter; nor do they represent the hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents in Texas who believe, as you and I do, that this nation cannot afford to continue to pay premium prices for third-rate health care outcomes.
If left up to these senators and political leaders from Texas, there will be no public option or health care reform at all, which will plunge citizens in the South even deeper into poverty.
Please, Senator. You, and other progressive senators, must not give up on a public option that is available to all Americans, and not just to a fortunate few.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Mercury rising: the USGS report tells only part of the story
A new report released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey measuring mercury levels in fish is not the first such warning we’ve had about this. In fact, the report probably understates the seriousness of mercury contamination in America, and certainly in this part of Texas.
According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?
USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.
In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.
Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.
Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.
This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.
The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.
So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.
And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.
I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.
According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?
USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.
In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.
Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.
Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.
This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.
The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.
So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.
And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.
I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.
Sources on the Web …
The USGS report is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
The “Reel Danger” report is here: http://agresearch.umd.edu/cfnap/realmercuryfacts/studies/reel.htm
A similar report from the Pew Trust is here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30683
The University of Pittsburgh report is here: http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2007/Pages/APHA2007VolzUpstream.aspx
The University of Texas Health Science Center report is here: http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732
Friday, August 7, 2009
On point
In fact, it's so on point, it's devastating. (Full disclosure: I stole the link from a friend's Facebook page ...)
Newspapers and thinking the unthinkablehttp://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
"Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I get it. Why don't you?
So, let me get this straight ...
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Insurance: it's the wrong debate
It's clear the events of the last 18 months have thoroughly discredited the "small government" approach. I'll grant that there is something particularly Jeffersonian about the concept ("the government that governs best governs least") but the common good simply is not served.
It's true, government can't solve all our ills ... nor should it be expected to. However, it can (and should) be able to address those issues that serve the common good.
I have several conservative friends (yes, I do). They hold some pretty strong opinions on health care, opinions I absolutely do not share.
My opinions are pretty strong as well. There is nothing anyone can do or say that will change my belief that our health care system sucks. Excuse me, our health care DELIVERY SYSTEM sucks.
Cubans have better access to health care than the average American and certainly poor Cubans have better access to health care then poor or lower middle class Americans. My personal experiences will trump your Cato Institute anecdotal study ...
Further, the latest studies are clear that US mortality is among the worst of industrialized countries at a per-capita cost that is orders of magnitude greater. In other words, everyone else in the industrialized world has greater access to necessary health care at significantly lower personal cost than Americans do.
Let me put this another way: even accounting for the higher taxes socialized medicine requires, nearly every citizen of nearly every industrialized country on this planet has better access to better health care at a lower cost than Americans do.
As long as the "solution" includes insurance companies, we'll never fix it because profits will trump care every time. Health care costs will continue to eat up an increasingly catastrophic portion of our GDP.
In fact, as long as the debate is about health insurance, we're holding the wrong debate.
It wasn't only shoddy products that brought down GM ... it was the way this country deals with health care (blame the unions, if you want -- and they deserve some blame -- but the way this country approaches health care offers one helluva an example on how to keep the great unwashed in its collective place).
In other words, I don't think Obama will go far enough ...
Call is socialism, whatever. I think affordable health care (notice I didn't say "affordable health INSURANCE") is a basic human right.
Any other debate is the wrong debate.
It's true, government can't solve all our ills ... nor should it be expected to. However, it can (and should) be able to address those issues that serve the common good.
I have several conservative friends (yes, I do). They hold some pretty strong opinions on health care, opinions I absolutely do not share.
My opinions are pretty strong as well. There is nothing anyone can do or say that will change my belief that our health care system sucks. Excuse me, our health care DELIVERY SYSTEM sucks.
Cubans have better access to health care than the average American and certainly poor Cubans have better access to health care then poor or lower middle class Americans. My personal experiences will trump your Cato Institute anecdotal study ...
Further, the latest studies are clear that US mortality is among the worst of industrialized countries at a per-capita cost that is orders of magnitude greater. In other words, everyone else in the industrialized world has greater access to necessary health care at significantly lower personal cost than Americans do.
Let me put this another way: even accounting for the higher taxes socialized medicine requires, nearly every citizen of nearly every industrialized country on this planet has better access to better health care at a lower cost than Americans do.
As long as the "solution" includes insurance companies, we'll never fix it because profits will trump care every time. Health care costs will continue to eat up an increasingly catastrophic portion of our GDP.
In fact, as long as the debate is about health insurance, we're holding the wrong debate.
It wasn't only shoddy products that brought down GM ... it was the way this country deals with health care (blame the unions, if you want -- and they deserve some blame -- but the way this country approaches health care offers one helluva an example on how to keep the great unwashed in its collective place).
In other words, I don't think Obama will go far enough ...
Call is socialism, whatever. I think affordable health care (notice I didn't say "affordable health INSURANCE") is a basic human right.
Any other debate is the wrong debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)