Search Insurance

Showing posts with label Federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2012

The Politics of Federal Budget Cuts Considered


Indeed, I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about crony capitalism and the unintended consequences it creates. Now then, since my politics are right-leaning, although I am a libertarian, I would first like to point out the terrible situation our federal government's budget is in due to the inherent corruption which goes along with all the social services our government provides. The healthcare industry and specifically the health-insurance industry spent quite a bit of time writing The Affordable Health Care Act.

The pharmaceutical industry also has deep pockets for lobbying. And we should never forget the warnings of Dwight D. Eisenhower with his closing remarks on the Industrial Military Complex. It was determined long ago that our nation needed to support the defense industry so that we could ramp up quickly in case there was a war. The capacity to quickly go from 0 to 60 in our manufacturing sector to produce weapon systems to win a war is paramount, and we know this, and learned this lesson from World War II.

Besides, the federal government's number one job is to protect the American people from enemies both foreign and domestic. The reason we have a federal government is to pool the assets of the states for our common defense; our military. Of course, as our nation prospered and had more money folks started to say that we needed to spend more money here at home on our own people. We began setting up social services, and they can be quite problematic. Once you set up such a service, it never seems to want to go away, and it always grows. Just like the government, which is unfortunate because they are the ones running the social services such as Medicare and Social Security - and yes, now ObamaCare too.

The Business Journal in Phoenix posted an article on September 13, 2012 titled; "Arizona could lose 10,000 jobs from Medicare cuts," by one of their best reporters by far; Angela Gonzales. The article stated that a 2% cut in Medicare costs would do this. Okay, but can you even imagine how many jobs they'd lose if Arizona lost a good portion of the defense industry there? Raytheon, Boeing, Motorola, etc., etc., believe me there are some heavy hitters in Arizona when it comes to the defense industry.

Well, today we have to make some budget cuts. We need a more efficient military, running under Six Sigma supply chain efficiency standards, we are going to have to cut 15%, but I believe we can do that through better efficiencies, but we cannot afford to lower our standards, and we must maintain the greatest military in the solar system, not just here on Earth. Think of it like an Olympic athlete holding the world record, best of breed and best on the planet, that Olympic athlete must now beat their own personal best regardless of the competition far behind.

Now then, they say that all politics is local, and since we also have to cut social services, and we still haven't dealt with the healthcare costs rising at 8% per year, it's time to deal with all that too. Merely cutting 24% for Medicare isn't enough, that would only account for the rise in costs of the last three years, we needed to cut 35 or 45% of that prior to those rises. Yes, these are unheard of cuts, and one of the toughest things to do once you promised a population something is to take it away. That's when they really get angry.

Likewise, we've given food stamps to 47 million people, they are getting free food, and they are likely to vote for the Democrats and the socialist leanings to continue to get that free food, and that free money from the government. The Democrats keep promising to continually give away more money without cutting benefits. That's "unsustainable", using their own favored buzzword. On September 12, 2012 there was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal by Anna Wilde Matthews titled "Health-Plan Costs Rise More Slowly" and interestingly enough the title might be a little misleading.

The article explained that businesses were cutting benefits and limiting the use of medical care to make up for the increase in costs. It turns out that the average cost of healthcare for corporate employees went up by an average of $632 last year. That is a significant amount, but it's a lot less than the increase in healthcare costs in the last few years. It's not that healthcare costs have risen any less, they have actually risen more, but companies are combating this by lowering the amount of benefits that employees get.

The government will have to do the same thing, they have no choice, we cannot continue these increasing costs, trillion dollar per year deficits, or blowing up a bubble that we've blown up long enough due to crony capitalism, government giveaways, and politicians that care more about getting elected than doing what must be done to prevent our nation from bankruptcy. It's time that we ditch the politics and do what we have to do.

The government created this nightmarish problem, it cannot afford to sustain it, and it's time to fix it. Unfortunately, no one wants to stand up in Washington DC and be a man, to tell it like it is, or exhibit a tough love attitude with the American people. These are not leaders, and we deserve more. Please consider all this and think on it.




Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.WorldThinkTank.net - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.




Friday, August 31, 2012

US Agriculture Federal Grants


The US government issues agricultural grants to manufacturers and producers of agricultural commodities to aid agricultural development and improve the agricultural industry as a whole through various grant programs

Some of these include

1. Aiding producers of agricultural commodities to carry out sufficient research to aid the production and cultivation of better agricultural commodities and products. This would help in facilitating proper methods of cultivation and thereby increase agricultural yield.

2. Grants to facilitate better methods of agricultural production and thereby improve the quality of commodities resulting in an increased consumption of agricultural products.

3. Grants to improve and maintain the health of animals engaged in agricultural activities. Healthier farm animals will lead to increased agricultural activities.

4. Federal grants to maintain and conserve the wetlands, grazing lands and other farm lands that are key to the production and cultivation of agricultural commodities. Conserving such lands will also reduce environmental damage and thereby improve production

5. Grants to construct better water management facilities and irrigation plants thereby improving the overall quality of water.

6. Reduction of salt load on in the land by carrying out necessary environmental practices. This would lead to better production of agricultural commodities.

7. Improve farm income levels by stabilizing the balance between supply and demand for agricultural produce. This stabilization will lead to better national welfare and less inconsistencies.

8. Grants for establishing agricultural teaching capacities including faculty preparation, instrumentation for reading, development and selection of curriculum and materials.

9. Establishing projects and communities to meet the food and nutrition requirements of people in lower income groups and to assist in improving their general nutrition.

10. Promote national welfare and economic stability and strength in the agricultural industry by establishing strong crop insurance programs.




Visit these pages to learn more about how agriculture grants and government grants can help you




Thursday, July 19, 2012

A Single-Payer Federal Health System Structured to Promote Wellness


A wellness lifestyle is not a faith-based philosophy. It is a lifestyle shown by incontrovertible evidence to be effective at reducing the need for medical care while boosting quality of life. It is a disciplined approach characterized by reason, motivated by exuberance, grounded by athleticism and made possible by liberty. Liberty is viewed as the exercise of maximum personal and societal freedom.

Despite the Obama Administration's success in getting the "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) through Congress, medical care costs are higher than ever and expected to increase even more. Drastic action is needed.

The time has come for a revolutionary perspective, if we are ever to become healthy here (the U.S.) and healthy now (within the next couple years). Attention must be given both to the organization and to the purposes of an integrated health care system. What we have is a fragmented medical delivery business. It's time to seek a new foundation for a system capable of supporting a national goal of citizen wellness.

The next health care debate should be addressed to absolute reform of the health sector from start to finish, from bottom to top. We need three separate but equal and interdependent goal parts:

1) vastly better health status outcomes;

2) dramatic cost reductions; and

3) improved medical care delivery.

Before continuing, please take a quick two-question quiz. Question one, and please make your best estimate right off the proverbial "top of your head," is: How much does the average American spend annually for medical care, including drugs? OK?

Make a guess.

The answer is $7,960 per person, as of 2009. Let's call it $8,000 a year - it's probably closer to $9,000, now that two years have passed since the massive amounts of data needed to do this were analyzed. That is the average spent by every man, woman and child. How much did YOU spend on medical care last year? Chances are, it was not even close to this amount. The high average cost is due to extraordinary bills incurred by a small segment of the population-the aged, the afflicted and the masses who live worseness lifestyles and thus suffer terrible illnesses that otherwise might have been avoided. On second thought, maybe this latter category encompasses a majority of American adults.

One more question: What do you suppose other nations spend on health care? Well, the answer is "nothing close to what we spend." The country that invests the most on medical care after us is Norway-$5,352 per person. Next in line of big health sector spenders are England ($3,487) and France ($3,978). (Source: "Health at a Glance 2011," OECD Indicators, November 23, 2011.)

The practical implications of this American medical largess is that expensive medical care limits all other federal initiatives, it raises employer costs and thus inhibits salary increases while adding to our crushing Federal deficit.

To say it's "the best in the world," a claim ritually put forward by all Republicans vying for that party's presidential nomination, is not consistent with our health status relative to other Western nations. We are spending far more while doing much less well.

No independent health care experts believe our system is the best; most in fact think it's dreadful. A report from the OECD (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) addressed this claim. The OECD concluded that claims that America's health system is the "best in the world" "are not true." (Maria Bartiromo, "Is America Faltering as a Health Care Leader?" USA Today, One on One, October 18, 2011.)

How, specifically, is it not true? Why do world health leaders fail to recognize what seems self-evident to patriotic, god-fearing, America-loving Republican candidates? Why do these foreigners miss recognizing the obvious-that ours is the best health care system in the whole wide world?

Let me review very briefly a few of the reasons that might influence their thinking:

* The focus of our system in on treatment, not prevention or wellness promotion.

* The costs of our medical services are greater than anywhere else.

* Our system is organized to deliver the most expensive services available, often when not even needed, which can have serious side effects.

* U.S. life expectancy is 78.2 years; Japan's is 83 years and Western nations average 79.5 years. Republicans wave the flag of American "exceptionalism." We're exceptional all right. With respect to health, we're exceptionally ill-not even average healthy. With respect to our system and to our health status, we rank with Chile and the Czech Republic. (Source: Robert J. Samuelson, "A grim diagnosis for our ailing health care system," Washington Post, November 27, 2011.)

* We have fewer doctors per capital than other developed nations. This is not necessarily an unfavorable indicator, though we might benefit from a better ratio of primary care to specialized doctors. We could most benefit if we led the way not so much with more medical doctors but rather with more wellness coaches, educators, programs and incentives.

* The U.S. medical system favors more expensive procedures. Knee replacement surgery costs more in the U.S. ($14,946) than in France ($12,424) and Canada ($9,910). The same is true of most other categories, such as MRI exams and angioplasties. Yet, despite high costs, we do more of all these and other costly procedures.

We do derive value for the big bucks invested treating multiple disease conditions exacerbated by high-risk lifestyles. Patients with breast cancer have a longer survival rate by a factor of about six percent, though we fare less well treating diabetes and asthma. (Editorial, USA Today, "Dutch Treat - a medical system with full coverage, lower costs," October 19, 2011.)

In summary, the U.S. health care system is, in fact, the best in the world-for doctors, hospitals, insurance and drug companies. Not, unfortunately, for individual consumers or American society.

Fee-for-service reimbursement encourages doctors to administer more services than necessary, adding to their profit and patient risks. Government oversight is minimal, despite the insistence of Republican politicians that medical care would be cheap and we'd all live forever if only government got out of the way of public-spirited free enterprise job creators.

My recommendation for better health now and here is a bit radical, but these are radically hazardous times. To control costs and promote health status, the U.S. needs a government-administered single-payer system. We need a national campaign to create a system that promotes REAL wellness education, lifestyle practices and socio-cultural supports. Little fixes will not reduce costs nor promote well-being. The situation is dire, financially and in terms of a population growing fatter and sicker. Revolutionary reforms must find their way to the negotiating table. The challenge is epic-it involves a fifth of the economy and 100 percent of the nation's health.

Robert Green Ingersoll, America's greatest orator of the 19th century, said: "If, with all the time at my disposal, with all the wealth of the resources of this vast universe, to do with as I will, I could not produce a better scheme of life than now prevails, I would be ashamed of my efforts and consider my work a humiliating failure." Well, our challenge is far less daunting than producing "a better scheme of life. Out task is to design a better medical system that costs less than the one we have but does vastly more to promote health here and now, as soon as possible.




Publisher of the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (AWR) - a weekly electronic newsletter devoted to commentaries on current issues that affect personal and social well being from a quality of life perspective. The emphasis is on REAL wellness, which is also the topic of Don's latest book. Read about it here - https://www.createspace.com/3478226 - The "REAL" acronym reflects key issues embraced and advanced in Don's philosophy, namely, Reason, Exuberance, Athleticism and Liberty. Sample copy of Don's latest edition by request. If you like it, you can sign up - the price is right - free. Contact Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com




Monday, June 18, 2012

Mental Health Care Coverage in Minnesota - Supplementing Federal Healthcare Reform


In 2007, the governor of Minnesota proposed a mental health initiative and the legislature passed it. One of the more important components of the initiative was legislation amending Minnesota's two programs for the uninsured - General Assistance Medical Care and Minnesota Care - to add to the comprehensive mental health and addictions benefit.

Who Is Covered?

General Assistance Medical Care covers those with income at or below 75% of the federal poverty level who meet one or more of additional criteria known as General Assistance Medical Care qualifiers. Qualifiers include waiting or appealing disability determination by Social Security Administration or state medical review team; or being in a homeless or live in shelter, hotel, or other place of public accommodation.

Minnesota Care covers children and pregnant women, parents, and caretakers up to 275% of the federal poverty level, except that parents and caretakers gross income cannot exceed $50,000. Single adults without children increased to 200% of federal poverty level by January 1, 2008 and will rise to 215% of federal poverty level by January 1, 2009.

What Services Are Covered?

For Minnesota Care, there are limits of $10,000 on inpatient care for any condition (physical, mental health, or addictions) for parents over 175% of federal poverty level and childless adults. For General Assistance Medical Care, inpatient benefits are fully covered. Both programs cover chemical dependency outpatient services. An intensive array of outpatient and residential mental health services are available.

What Is The Cost?

In Minnesota, the Medicaid Temporary Assistance for Needy Families population, General Assistance Medical Care and Minnesota Care are enrolled in comprehensive nonprofit health plans that are responsible to deliver and are at risk for the entire health benefit, including behavioral health. Adding mental health rehabilitative services (including adult rehabilitative mental health services individual and group rehabilitation services, assertive community treatment, intensive residential treatment and mobile and residential crisis services) to Minnesota Care was projected to cost $3.40 per person per month. For General Assistance Medical Care, which includes a homeless population, the cost was $7.01 per person per month. The additional targeted case management service was projected to cost $2.22 per person per month for Minnesota Care and $7.66 for General Assistance Medical Care.

The legislature appropriated a total of $1 million in additional state dollars in fiscal year 2008 and $ 3.5 million in fiscal year 2009 to add the adult rehabilitative services and case management in Minnesota Care. State funds previously targeted for case management were moved from the counties to the state in an amount of $4.4 million in fiscal year 2009.

What Led To Comprehensive Coverage?

The state collected data on the residents served by Minnesota Care, General Assistance Medical Care, and Medicaid managed care plans serving non-disabled populations, and discovered that an increasing number of individuals with serious mental illnesses were in these plans. Several insurance reforms - similar to those included in the national healthcare reform bill - modified the private market, including guaranteed issue in small and large group plans, broader rate bands, parity for mental health and chemical dependency services, medical loss ratios, high risk insurance pool, and others. A lawsuit by the attorney general called attention to health plan denials of payment for court-ordered treatment, for example for civil commitment or out of home placement for adolescents.

Health plans settled with an agreement that behavioral and mental health benefits would be covered by a health plan if the court based its decision on a diagnostic evaluation and plan of care developed by a qualified professional. In addition to the court-ordered services provision, the state contracts and capitation with prepaid health programs (Minnesota Care and General Assistance Medical Care) were amended to align risk and responsibility for services in institutions for mental illnesses, 180 days of nursing home or home health, and court-ordered treatment. There were also highly successful experiments reducing costs and improving outcomes for commercial and non-disabled Medicaid clients who were offered a more intensive community based mental health service that improved coordination with and linkages to behavioral healthcare, primary care, and other needed services.

These demonstrations produced a positive return on investment - $0.38/person/month - and gave the health plans tools to manage the increased risk that resulted from several insurance reforms, including parity, a statutory definition of medical necessity, and the court-ordered treatment provision.

The state supported comprehensive coverage because it sought to provide mental health and addiction services in Minnesota as part of mainstream healthcare. Minnesota's mental health agency and other stakeholders desired to move mental illness from its historical treatment as a social disease requiring social services to an illness like any other. They wanted to foster earlier interventions and avoid shifting enrollees among different programs in order to access specific services. Operationalizing this change required rethinking medical necessity determinations, provider credentialing, contracting, procedure codes and other processes common to private insurance plans.

How Did It Get Through The Political Process?

Three factors significantly contributed to the political viability of a benefit expansion in the Minnesota Care and General Assistance Medical Care programs:

>> The governor of Minnesota and the administration provided strong leadership. The provisions to expand the mental health benefits in these plans were part of the governor's mental health initiative, set forth in advance of the 2007 legislative session.

>> An extremely strong coalition of stakeholders formed a mental health action group. This group is co-chaired by a representative from the department of human services and included representation from the private insurance industry and organized and knowledgeable advocacy and provider communities.

>> There was strong support in the legislature for the expansion of benefits in Minnesota Care and General Assistance Medical Care, including from a member of the finance committee in the house, who has a son with schizophrenia. The creation of a mental health division in the health and human services policy committee also helped move the policy discussion forward.

Why Does This Approach to Healthcare Reform Work?

A recent survey of community behavioral health organizations found that on average, 42% of reimbursement for services came from private insurers. While this represents the average, the survey found that there was quite a range in reimbursement sources. For community behavioral health organizations that specialize in services such as Assertive Community Treatment or case management, Medicaid is the predominant reimbursement source, either through fee-for-service or managed care.

Reimbursement from private insurance and Medicaid managed care is uniformly better than Medicaid fee-for-service. In addition to higher rates, the private insurers and Medicaid managed care organizations have been willing to offer special contracts for packages of services for crisis care and hospital discharge plus aftercare.




Linda Rosenberg is the president and CEO of the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. TNC specializes in lobbying for mental and behavioral healthcare reform. Lean more at http://www.thenationalcouncil.org.




Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Cities, States, and Others Step Up Action on Climate, Despite Federal Reluctance


Last year, Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall issued a harsh warning of the consequences of climate change: mass chaos, national security crises and food shortages. If climate change occurs abruptly, the report declared, there could be a catastrophic breakdown in international security. Wars over access to food, water, and energy would likely break out between states. Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct by 2050 due to the effects of global warming.

Climate change is the most serious challenge facing the international community. In order to plan for a sustainable future - one that meets needs today without compromising meeting the needs of future generations - global warming must be addressed. We have arrived at a stage in human evolution that requires international cooperation - a stage which demands that world leaders put world priorities ahead of national political agendas in order to halt the peril threatening humanity.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) asked all nations to renew their commitment to implement policies based on the three pillars of sustainable development - economic, environmental and social - in order to arrest environmental deterioration and revive world economic growth. In particular, the report stated, poverty has played a major role in environmental degradation. Not only is it our moral obligation to eliminate poverty, the report revealed it is essential to protecting and improving the environment. Further reports have concluded that environmentally unsound technology has been exponentially far more detrimental to sustainable development than even population growth. In order to achieve sustainable development, the Commission reported, our cities must be considered in the global concerted effort.

Rural-to-urban migration and its negative impacts must be stopped, or better, as Urbanist Kaarin Taipale puts it, we must "transform urban growth into an engine of sustainability." Since three-fourths of the global warming pollution could be solved if we decreased burning fossil fuels, one of the most effective ways to transform urban growth is by switching to alternative energy sources. Fortunately, there are many means of harnessing energy which have less damaging impacts on our environment than fossil fuels, and we already have developed all the technological resources needed. Now we must admit there is a problem and start working in the direction to make this transition. If our current leaders do not want to face this pressing challenge with integrity, then as Leonardo Dicaprio urges, we need to vote for leaders who care about the environment and our health and the future generations.

A Call to Action

On October 25, 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) called for a national energy strategy enlisting the oil industry in a process that would help consumers while making the transition to alternative energy technologies. Her plan redirects the hidden "tax" that Americans are already paying to OPEC and the oil companies, but she explained "lasts only long enough to kick-start the alternative energy market that we all know is out there."

Speaking to Cleantech Venture Network, a group of venture capitalists who recently were named by Wall Street Journal reports for their success in developing clean energy as a viable investment category, Clinton emphasized the immediate concern which is how to help citizens pay their bills and keep the economy moving in the face of dramatically higher energy costs. There is no question, she said, that our failure to make better energy choices is sapping our pocketbooks, limiting our competitiveness, threatening our environment and even our national security. "Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made that brutally clear."

The far reaching problem we face, Senator Clinton stated, is coping with the impacts of massive economic development and competition for oil in other parts of the world such as India and China in the next twenty years. "Loosening environmental standards or opening up a new oil field or two is not going to offset this seismic shift in energy demand," she explained. Her plan unburdens the American people of foreign oil dependence, investing a portion of the profits into the U.S. energy future, instead of regimes we would never choose to subsidize.

The oil industries can choose to either reinvest their profits into America's energy future or contribute to a new Strategic Energy Fund, she said. The Strategic Energy Fund would help consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promote adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies, while stimulating research and investment by the private sector. She also recommends assessing an alternative energy development fee for those companies deciding not to directly reinvest in our energy future. That fee, she explained would help fund energy transition.

"The Fund could generate as much as $20 billion a year to help with home heating oil costs and develop new energy strategies." In this way, she explained, we would reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, make existing alternative technologies more affordable, jump start our technology, and regain U.S. world leadership. It's got "Made in America" written on it, in addition to providing a role model for developing nations.

The "energy revolution" can be as big and important as the industrial revolution and the explosion of the information age. However, we have to do what America has always done when faced with a big challenge, she said, "roll up our sleeves and dedicate this country to finding a solution." In effect, she explained, "the country that put a man on the moon can be the country to find new lower cost and cleaner forms of energy. Our nation needs it. Our planet needs it."

Addressing Climate Change

The Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 articulated the need to include humanity as well as environmental protection in the sustainability equation. Hence, it concluded, the critical problem of poverty must also be addressed. When the United Nations authorized the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, it had already realized poverty had deepened and environmental degradation had worsened since the 1992 Summit. The world needed a new summit of actions with results, and not just intent.

Managing urban environmental conditions ultimately belongs with national governments, businesses, scientific bodies, and communities working together; but history shows us U.S. involvement has always sped and strengthened global progress in improving urban environmental conditions for sustainable development.

Although the United States makes up four percent of the world's population and produces 22 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, it's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol's call for reductions in the greenhouse gases merely underscores Federal unwillingness to address climate change. Claiming that the treaty would raise energy prices and kill five million U.S. jobs, the Administration has even raised questions about the scientific legitimacy of climate change. As British Petroleum CEO John Browne put it, "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted."

According to a study published by Princeton professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, the U.S. could reduce emissions to below the 1970 levels just with its current technology. "We in fact already have everything we need to face this challenge," Vice President Gore has said, "save perhaps political will. But in our democracy political will is a renewable resource."

Embracing the Urban Challenge

The former Vice President challenged the notion that addressing the problem of climate change would harm our economy. "Incredible opportunities in addressing climate change are available that would help, not hurt, our economy," he said. Citing how the city of Portland, Oregon, independently decided to reduce greenhouse emissions below the Kyoto limits, Gore reported that Portland has come within a hair of achieving its goal "and has prospered economically while doing so."

More than 160 cities have already made commitments and are involved in combating global warming by reshaping their cities through innovative programs and technologies. Mayors across the country created a coalition of their own to deal with climate change.

Worldwide, cities and provinces are working together to end global warming: 675 localities in thirty countries are now documented participants. Moreover, 152 U.S. cities and counties and 100 Canadian localities have joined in Cities for Climate Protection program created and run by ICLEI. Scores of major U.S. cities have already reduced their emissions below 1990 levels, saving $600 million through efficiency measures. These coalition mayors say they have made urban living more eco-friendly while creating local jobs. They have also agreed to pressure Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emissions trading system.

Critics say U.S. government efforts are coming too slowly. According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Administration is spending $2 billion on initiatives to promote renewable energy, clean-coal technology, hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nuclear power. President Bush's energy bill, which went into effect in August 2005, calls for industry to slow emission increases, but it still does not demand an overall reduction.

Senator Clinton explained emphasis must not only be placed on increased use of alternative energy sources, but the federal government must offer direction by setting clear, measurable goals. In this way, she said we can assume leadership in solving our energy crisis. Therefore, as part of her national energy strategy, she is calling on Washington to replace its entire fleet of government vehicles with fuel-efficient cars and trucks by 2010.

Urbanist Kaarin Taipale explained what's wrong with the tempo of the forthcoming energy mandates from the Bush Administration. "They are just now calling for gas efficiency changes, not only are these efforts coming as too little, too late; they only save a few gallons of gas while cars are heavier, using more energy through electronics and air conditioning."

Besides, she said, making cars more energy efficient will not solve our urban problems alone. "Cities must be made to have mass transportation accessible, viable, and not just for the poor," she stated. We need to build cities where people do not depend on their own private car. "I'm not talking about green ideology; where we use bicycles and suffer - or where we all live provincial and primitive lives," she explained. She then cited Manhattan as an example: even though it was not originally purposely planned to be energy efficient, the city offers a great transportation system. In most cities in America - and even more in the rest of the world where buying American cars imitates the American Dream - the car is a status symbol, a signal telling people how well you are doing. "But in Manhattan," she said, "this is not the case. Everyone takes some form of public transportation, not just the poor."

Addressing Climate Change at the Clinton Global Initiative --Thinking Outside the Barrel

"We face a global emergency; a deepening climate crisis that requires us to act." -- Al Gore

The Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in Manhattan on September 14 -16, 2005, served as a catalyst for spurring community-level development while providing a supportive atmosphere from which to facilitate pro-development policies at regional and national levels.

During the session on Climate Change, Senator Clinton remarked that while the Federal government has avoided responsibility for climate change, state and local governments have been providing models for action. The very large disadvantage of this state and local leadership, Senator Clinton warned, "is it could lead to a patchwork of regulation, which I think would be very unfortunate and would pose extra burdens on the private sector." In effect, she said, it is the private sector that has a big stake in pushing for a real national response - one that will actually deal with the problem, not continue to deny it or postpone it.

Senator Clinton described her visit to Barrow, Alaska, where she met with a number of the scientists who have been charting climate change for 30 years. While 'off the radar' for many of us, the situation there is having very problematic effects for all of us. One professor studying the effects of Permafrost thawing explained that, as the Permafrost melts, it releases carbon and methane which makes our global warming worse. When Clinton asked him what an individual citizen could do to solve the problem, he responded, "plant more trees." Trees have a sequestering ability. They absorb the excess carbon dioxide in that atmosphere and in return give back clean oxygen. That's something every one of us can do, she added, alone, with family, group, neighborhoods, and communities. And the other is: each of us can make decisions that insure we are as energy efficient as we can be in our homes and in our places of business and try to make better choices about transportation. While these individual choices might seem very small in and of themselves, she told us, in the aggregate, they can also influence policy.

Tom Roper, retired Victorian Parliament and current Project Director of the Global Sustainable Energy Islands Initiative (GSEII), represents a group that must rely on the International community. While the small island developing states (SIDS) are collectively the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions through fossil fuel use and deforestation, Honorable Roper explained, they are most impacted by climate change. In addition, island states contain a disproportionately high amount of below poverty level income citizens. "Most SIDS are ill-equipped to deal with their existing environmental problems," said Roper, let alone the predictions of rising sea levels. The 43 members of the Alliance of Small Island States represent 50 million citizens. No where are people more at the mercy of international inaction. Roper is supervising projects on the small islands to serve as a role model of sustainability which incorporates energy efficiency and renewable energy. "They are tackling their own economic and social issues as well as environmental," Roper said. "These nations are not just complaining; they are taking action," he added.

Pennsylvania and Perhaps Louisiana . . .

Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and former principal environmental advisor to President Clinton, offered a project to reduce greenhouse gases in Pennsylvania. The project is committed to providing the resources to enable a clean energy future in Pennsylvania through up to $1 billion in tax-free bond financing to build renewable and efficient power plants and fuel production facilities.

Governor Rendell's administration has committed itself to: adopting greenhouse gas tailpipe standards, replacing dirty, inefficient power plants, and securing passage of one of the most far-reaching clean energy laws in the nation.

On a final note: at the Clinton Global Initiative, many found one recommendation most compelling - rebuilding New Orleans as a model of energy efficiency. The city of New Orleans, like older cities, was not built to withstand the effects of a level 5 hurricane. It flourished during a time when the effects of global warming were not yet known. Global warming, however, has been increasingly creating erratic weather patterns with more frequent, extremely severe storms. What better way to target climate change and create hope than by turning New Orleans into a model city for a new, more intelligent tomorrow. As one Climate Change session participant put it, "we've got to think outside the barrel."




Elizabeth Autumn, MBA, is a freelance reporter. She covers environment and corporate governance issues and specializes in media analysis. Completing her Masters in Environmental Management at Harvard University, Elizabeth also writes for Crane?s Magazine, Create Magazine, and Publishers Weekly. Prior to this she was a freelance producer for Fox News, in addition she worked for CBS News and on the Emmy-Award winning CBS Documentary "9-11".




Monday, April 23, 2012

Texas Patients, Families May Be Unwitting Victims Of Federal Privacy Laws


While the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a federal law enacted in 1996, is primarily designed to allow Americans, including those in Texas cities of Dallas, Austin and Houston, the right to take health insurance coverage with them, some provisions of the law that protect the confidentiality of information are causing confusion.

Observers are seeing evidence of the issue arise in cases where relatives are being denied access to medical charts, the health care providers citing provisions of the law--commonly known as HIPAA.

The problem, say experts in the field, appears to be confusion as to the intent and actual wording of HIPAA privacy rules, which were introduced in 2003. Some healthcare providers are said to be applying the regulations in a way that may be seen to be overzealous, even arbitrary in nature.

On the other hand, medical professionals and privacy experts extol the legislation, saying it has helped to make confidentiality of health information a priority, something they argue is important as the nation moves toward a system that is more and more focused on computerized medical records.

At the same time, ensuring electronic privacy has produced what some say is a tangle of regulations--the result being confusion as to what is allowed under HIPAA and what is not.

The confusion may itself lead to more government involvement, with Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a sponsor of the original legislation, proposing an office within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would serve to interpret medical privacy rules.

The extent of the problems related to HIPAA are largely unknown since the only complaints investigated relate to patients being denied access to their own medical information, which is a violation of the law.

Officials from HHS say that health care providers, either innocently or purposefully, will cite HIPAA as an excuse for not making permitted disclosures. Some examples of HIPAA misinterpretations have included:

--The cancellation of birthday parties in nursing homes for fear that revealing a resident's date of birth could be a violation.

--Patients being assigned "code names" in doctor office waiting rooms so they could be summoned without identification.

--The refusal of nurses in an emergency room to telephone parents of ailing students for fear of passing out confidential information.

--Delays in creating immunization registries for children.

One key word in the legislation that seems to invoke confusion is "may"-- the law saying medical staff "may" disclose but not requiring that they do so.

Medical professionals on the side of commonsense in the world of HIPAA are distinguishing different categories of secrecy.

So-called "good faith nondisclosures" might include a nurse taking a phone call from someone claiming to be a member of the family. Not being able to verify the relationship might be a cause for refusing to give out medical information to that caller.

On the other hand, using HIPAA as an excuse for not taking time to gather records required by public health officials investigating a case of suspected child abuse might fall under the category of a "bad faith nondisclosure."

The fear by those in the medical field of being penalized for improper disclosures might seem to be unwarranted--especially considering there have been no penalties levied since the legislation was enacted.

In fact, according HHS officials, medical professionals are permitted to talk freely to family friends, as long as the patient does not object. Those discussions can be held without a signed authorization and it is not necessary to have the legal standing of a health care proxy or power of attorney. On the issue of investigation of crimes such as child abuse, HIPAA defers to state laws, which may require such disclosure. Health care workers may not reveal confidential information about a patient or medical case to reporters, but they can discuss general health issues.

Many decisions related to HIPAA issues are made by employees of health care providers who feel safer saying "no" than "yes"-- especially if the rules do not appear to be clear.

When the answer is "no, I can't tell you because of HIPAA," some consumers simply don't object.

Healthcare privacy is an issue that's not likely to go away anytime soon. At the same time, Americans have a deep concern for the ability to stay healthy. If you're a young individual who wants to look ahead with health in mind, you should take a look at the revolutionary, comprehensive and highly affordable individual health insurance solutions created by Precedent specifically for you. For more information, visit us at our website, [http://www.precedent.com]. We offer a unique and innovative suite of individual health insurance solutions, including highly competitive HSA-qualified plans and an unparalleled “real-time” application and acceptance experience.




Precedent puts a new spin on health insurance. Learn more at [http://www.precedent.com]




Thursday, April 5, 2012

Federal Court Reporters Record Proceedings and Produce Transcripts


There are various types of court reporters. But the first characteristic that separates them is whether they practice in state court or in federal court. While the same reporting technologies are used in both situations, the requirements for becoming a federal court reporter are greater than the requirements for becoming a state reporter. In addition to passing the Registered Professional Reporter certification from The National Court Reporters Association, reporters must also have four years of reporting experience before they can qualify as a federal reporter. Most reporters must also pass a stringent test given by the federal district (Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western) that they intend to work in, after which a judge must approve their selection.

Due to the additional hurdles that come with federal reporting, hiring a quality federal court reporter is generally easier than hiring a quality state reporter, especially for government offices that have their own human resources departments. But for law firms and companies, hiring federal court reporters can be more difficult, particularly concerning the potential of the traditional interview process to overlook crucial elements of court reporting that affect a reporter's ability to produce quality transcripts. As a result, many law firms and companies use additional tactics to insure the quality of federal court reporters, or state reporters, as the case may be.

One commonly used tactic is seeking a professional referral. Most organizations that need reporters know other organizations that need reporters, and can take advantage of their advice. However, if an organization would rather go straight to the source, then contacting a reputable reporting agency is the answer. In some cases, organizations prefer the referral method due to the perceived difficulty of identifying a reputable reporting agency, as every agency says that its reporters and litigation support are the best. But identifying a top agency isn't as difficult as it seems when you know what to look for.

While some organizations try to evaluate an agency's overall quality by evaluating the quality of its reporters-which is extremely time consuming if not impossible-the best way to evaluate agencies' overall quality is to evaluate their screening processes. All agencies evaluate prospective reporters' training credentials, work history and references. But the best agencies also test prospective reporters' reporting skills and screen their personality in order to detect traits that could compromise their reporting ability, such as prejudice, a quick temper or a tendency to easily be bored. Whether you need to hire a state reporter or a federal reporter, choosing a court reporting agency with a thorough screening process can take the guesswork out of hiring the best reporter.




In my research on court reporting and litigation support, I've researched the best ways to hire quality federal reporters.




Monday, March 19, 2012

Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Plan is Short-Term Thinking


The new long-term care insurance proposal that Democrats have included in a Senate health overhaul bill would produce about $58 billion in revenue for the government over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The $58 billion could be used to offset the cost of the national healthcare program which is expected to cost at least $1 trillion over the same period. Legislators must be salivating at a potential source of income with absolutely no potential for expenses for years to come.

Monthly premiums paid by individuals would account for the $58 billion. Premiums would vary by age but are expected to average about $65 per month ($780 a year). Under the proposed program, no one would be eligible for benefits until they have paid premiums for five years - a reason the CBO estimates the program would net revenue for the government for its first 10 years. The CBO generally does not estimate the cost of programs beyond 10 years, the period covered by procedural "pay-as-you-go" rules requiring legislation to be budget-neutral.

When has a government entitlement program accurately estimated income and projected expenses? The CBO already estimates that premiums will be insufficient and will likely need to be increased to maintain the program's solvency. The government already runs a disability insurance program through the Social Security Administration, but it is very difficult to qualify for that program and there is a backlog of people who have appealed Social Security's initial decline of their benefits.

According to the Association some 8.25 million Americans have already purchased long-term care insurance on an individual basis or through their employer. Some 400,000 new policies are now sold each year, as more people understand the need to plan for the risk of needing care. Millions of others will be able to use the built-up value of their homes through a reverse mortgage.

Another underfunded entitlement program where the real cost won't be known for 10 or more years simply shifts the financial obligation to the next generation. That's long-term care planning of the worst kind.




The American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance is the national trade organization providing consumers with relevant and current information designed to help you make smarter decisions. The Association does not sell insurance products but works with several thousand insurance and financial professionals nationwide. Consumers should visit the Association's http://www.aaltci.org/long-term-care-insurance/ to access free information. Insurance and financial professionals should visit the Association's http://www.aaltci.org. Jesse Slome is Executive Director of the Association.




Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Federal Reserve - The Shocking Event That Occurred In October


The Great Recession hasn't been good for much, but there definitely has been one major silver lining. In 2000, any mention of the Federal Reserve would have produced a blank stare from most Americans. Ten years later, everyone knows who the Fed is, the chairman and how the Fed really controls the financial strings of this country. This month, things even became more apparent.

The level of national debt in this country is absolutely horrific. The latest numbers as I run this are in the mid thirteen trillion dollar range. Think about that for a second. Thirteen trillion dollars. That is a lot of cheese, mulla, greenbacks or whatever name you want to give it.

This high national debt scares people. One of the concerns is foreign entities own so much of our debt that it is feared we could become puppets of their desires. To be blunt, the concern is China. The country is growing into a force that will surely rival the United States this decade. The fact the Chinese own so much of our debt would seem to suggest they could crush our economy by dumping the debt and refusing to buy anymore.

Well, here is some breaking news. The Chinese have not purchased any of our long term debt in, well, a long time. In fact, they've started to sell it off to other countries and investors. So, who exactly is buying it? Well, this is where we get back to the Federal Reserve Bank and the shocking revelation.

The Fed is buying our long-term debt. Think about that for a second. We are buying our own debt. How? Through "quantitative easing", which simply means the Fed is creating the money out of the air. We used to call it printing money, but there is little need to do that now given the digital revolution.

Okay, times are tough. Maybe this is just a temporary situation that will be corrected when things get better. Well, here is where the big shock comes in. This is not a small dabble in the market by the Fed. No, this month the Federal Reserve Bank became the second largest holder of our debt trailing only China. Is this not a Ponzi scheme of sorts? It certainly seems so. Bernie Madoff must be snickering in his prison cell.

When you hear the glowing reports in the media that the recession is over and everything is great, don't fall for it. We are on the cusp of a major debt crisis in this country. Just keep watching the Fed to see how things are going.




Barry Milton writes about financial planning for UFCAmerica.com.




Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Federal Speed Limit


It is a topic which has been fought ever since implementation, and successfully, too, as there are currently no national speed limit guidelines. A federally-mandated speed limit was initially implemented in 1974 with the passage of the National Maximum Speed Law. As a response to the 1973 oil embargo, it was an attempt to curb fuel consumption through the reduction of speed on all roads to 55 MPH or less. Fast-forward 13 years, and oil is no longer a scarce resource (at least at the pump). With fuel prices (comparatively) low, and drivers clamoring for higher speeds, the federal government passed the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, allowing states to raise rural speed limits to 65 MPH. Forty-one of them did exactly that. Another eight years pass, and President Clinton signs the National Highway Designation Act, proposing, among other things, the elimination of all national speed limits. States were now free to raise speed limits on national roads as they saw fit.

This is where America's highway policies currently reside. Most highways have posted speed limits of 65 or 70 MPH, while actual vehicle travel rates may be 5-10 MPH higher. Speeds of 80 MPH are not uncommon to see in both rural and urban road conditions. Besides showing how much of a rush Americans are often in, what problems does this create? Keeping in line with the company policies of 3P (People, Planet, Profit), let's begin with the human aspect.

Speed kills. This isn't a new and surprising phrase, however, the area in which it is describing may be. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health in September, 2009, the progressive elimination of national speed limits has resulted in an estimated total of over 12,500 additional traffic accident deaths since 1987. How could this be? Vehicles have undoubtedly become safer, yet people continue to die in high-speed accidents. One could explain it away with the increase of automobiles on the road, however, that does not explain these facts: In the year following the passage of the National Maximum Speed Law, car crash mortality fell 16.4%. Additionally, following the elimination of set speed limits nationally, in states which did not change their speed rules, highway deaths fell again. On the other side, crash fatalities following the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act increased 9.1% in states which changed their speed limits from 55 to 65 MPH. With the elimination of all national set speed limits in 1995, urban highway deaths increased 4%. In addition to the over 12,000 deaths considered to be a direct result of higher speeds, the study found over 36,500 injuries as a result of those fatal crashes. A federal speed limit is likely to have similar results today as it did in 1974, reducing highway deaths by a comparable percentage.

The second "P" highlights the Planet. In this case, the environmental impacts of high-speed highway driving. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2007, there were 254,403,082 vehicles registered in the United States. On average, each vehicle was driven 11,900 miles annually, consuming approximately 1 gallon of fuel for every 17.2 miles traveled. This results in an annual consumption of 692 gallons per vehicle. According to the EPA, a gallon of gasoline burned in an engine produces 8.8 kilograms (19.4 pounds) of CO2. Using the previous statistics, each vehicle should produce 6,089.6 kilograms (13,424.8 pounds or ~6.7 tons) of CO2 each year. Multiplied by the total number of registered vehicles in the country, and the results show that American driving habits culminate in the release of 1,549,060,366,298 kilograms (1,707,655,248 tons) of CO2 annually.

So what does this have to do with a Federal speed limit? Higher speeds require more energy to maintain, and the energy source in most vehicles is gasoline (or a petroleum product, including diesel). A basic rule of thumb is that, once at highway speeds, the energy required to fight aerodynamic drag increases exponentially. Put simply, if speed doubles, the energy required to do so quadruples. For a vehicle doing 50 MPH in one run and 100 MPH in another, it will have burned twice the fuel in the latter test (4 times higher consumption in half the time). According to research by Consumer Reports on a stock Toyota Camry, the vehicle was consuming at a rate of 40 MPG at 55 MPH, however, it fell to 35 MPG once accelerated to 65 MPH. At 75, it was down to 30 MPG. Assuming that car was a perfect national average example it would be driving 11,900 miles, with 45% on the highway, and 55% in the city. Gleaning the appropriate amount of miles for highway driving only, the vehicle was driven 5,355 miles at high speeds. If the driver kept the vehicle at its optimum speed of 55 MPH, they would have consumed 133.875 gallons, releasing 1,178.1 kilograms (2,597.175 pounds or ~1.3 tons) of CO2. However, if the vehicle was consistently doing 75 MPH, the consumption would be 178.5 gallons, releasing an additional 392.7 kilograms (865.725 pounds or ~0.4 tons) of CO2.

This may not seem like a big deal, but remember those national totals? Let's assume that every registered vehicle drove at 75 MPH on the highways, and that the percentage decrease in consumption was similar (75% of optimum) on all vehicles (this is an under-exaggeration, as many vehicles with poor aerodynamics decrease much faster than the example Camry). Now, we will assume the national average of highway MPG is 25 (deliberately overestimated, considering combined is only slightly over 17 MPG). Achieving only 75% of this value in real-world driving provides an actual highway average of 18.75 MPG. Now, this isn't taking into account the minimal decrease in engine operation time (due to the faster speed). Such a value would likely pose as only a fraction of the additional usage, since the consumption curve increases exponentially, not in a linear fashion. Regardless, such a mileage reduction equates to annual CO2 emissions in the United States, simply as a result of driving 75 instead of 55 MPH, of 159,846,544,482.24 kilograms (352,388,973,063.12 pounds or ~176,194,486 tons). Astounding in its own right, more so when it is seen that it is 10% of total consumer automobile emissions in the U.S.!

Getting outside of the complicated math, that value bears repeating. It is entirely possible (as shown above), that up to 10% of nationwide passenger vehicle fuel-based CO2 emissions are avoidable simply by slowing down! Of all climate change policies in deliberation, this seems to be a "low-hanging fruit". Please understand, these values are simply for presentation and educational purposes. While determined to the highest accuracy, actual results may vary due to a variety of factors. Nonetheless, the writer maintains its significance.

So the first P, People, showed how lower highway speeds reduce the number of fatal accidents. The second P, Planet, provided an environmental rationale to driving slower. The final P, Profit, aims to provide a financial incentive to accomplish the same goal.

At the time of writing, the current national average for regular gasoline is $2.585. Using the values determined above, the national expenditure of driving all those vehicles on the highways for 5,355 miles at 25 MPG is $140,864,767,324.97. However, at the adjusted value of 18.75 MPG, the cost increases to $187,819,689,766.63. The cost savings potential nationally as a result of driving slower is an astronomical $46,954,922,441.66. Per vehicle, this results in an annual savings of $184.57. That type of return resembles the recent tax rebates, and yet this needed no public or private expenditure!

We hope this has been an informative look into the true costs of high-speed highway driving.

Summary of "3P"-based analysis on lower highway speeds:

People

Over 12,500 deaths could have been avoided since 1987

Over 36,500 injuries within fatal car accidents could have been avoided in same time period

Fatality rates increase following speed limit increases

Fatality rates decrease in states with no speed limit changes

Planet

MPG falls as speed exceeds 55 MPH

Potentially 10% of nationwide passenger vehicle fuel-based CO2 emissions a result of high-speed driving

Profit

National cost savings through speed reductions on highways: $46,954,922,441.66 annually

Per vehicle cost savings: $184.57 annually




Joseph Winn is the President/CEO GreenProfit Solutions, Inc., an environmental consulting and benefits firm specializing in assisting small and medium size companies in Going Green. You may contact Joseph at:
jwinn@greenprofitsolutions.com
http://www.greenprofitsolutions.com