Supreme Court denies suit fast-track

COMMENTS: #32


A CASE FOR A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM



Let me begin with some apparently outlandish statements, prove them and finally make the case for a single payer system.




1. We do not have a single health insurance company in the United States: we have third party payers.




2. A casualty company or insurance company is one that for a premium assumes risk for unforeseeable events likely to injure the client should injurious events occur by chance.




3. For the last fifty years we have had in the United States the statistical occurrence of all diseases, illnesses and medical condition for each Statistical Metropolitan Standard Analysis (SMSA) in every county of the United States. These are referred to as morbidity and mortality rates in a typical demographically statistically sufficient group.



4. Thus, what we have is not health insurance companies BUT are Third Party Payers, companies that take premiums and pay claims according to the occurrences of statistically predictable morbidity.



5. Insurance is risk assumption for unforeseen casualty which for a premium is assumed by a casualty company. There has to be RISK!



6. Since we know morbidity rates for every county in the Country, there is no risk to assume, all occurrences being historically predictable.



7. Insurance companies, then, make money, by paying as few claims as possible under exclusions, limitations and deductibles agreed to by patient groups or individuals.



8. Health Insurance companies CLAIM an average net profit of 3.5%. This does not include generous compensation to boards of directors and outlandish performance bonuses to management all the way to the local level. A performance bonus is defined in this business as the difference between expected and known payment of claims and actual payments, which may include denials, denial appeals or even policy cancellation on pretextual grounds.



9. According to NIH we now pay 140% of what would be necessary to cover eveyone for every condition without co-pays or deductibles. The 140% is made up on premiums versus the actual rising costs of provider services.



10. In the SMSA's upon which morbidity rates are based there is excluded most 21 to 35 year olds who have no coverage, pay no premiums and depend on emergency facilities for their rare health problems. Add those missed premiums to the income base and we pay 168% of what would be needed to provide universal heath care to every man, woman and child,



11. Now Medicare claims and the CBO affirms that the G&A for Medicare overhead is 3.5%. Is the fact that it is that same percentage as claimed as insurance profit without the internal waste and bonuses merely a coincidence?



12. Were we to include those who do not pay premiums and have Medicare simply pay out claims at full price to hospitals and physicians and negotiated prices to pharmaceutical companies, we could balance the entire federal budget in seven years.



13. Were we to means-test Social Security at $150,000 and remove the cap on social security wage deductions. we would be in a surplus situation in four years.



This is the case for the Single Payer System. We are currently 14th in the Industrial World in healthcare outcomes.. Jan. 20, 2009 Gar. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children 

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans

#26Apr. 25, 2011 - 12:40 PM EST 


By Dan Springer


Published April 25, 2011


Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.


Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”


The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.


The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.


“What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.


At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.


Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down. Alaska officials are blasting the Environmental Protection Agency.


“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”


The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.


“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”


Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.