RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
rj_oregon's comments:
on The Big One
Two things for the Portland metro area. There is a state geo agency that published a detailed series of earthquake hazard maps. If you are considering a home purchase, look at these first (sorry, realtors!). I was surprised to see that in Beaverton there is a large area of soil that will cause major structural problems; this is far from the fault line that runs through downtown PDX.
Second: No, a wave will not wash over the coast range. If there is a tsunami headed straight for the coast it will cross the Columbia bar. What will the effect be of that wave as it travels inland, and what could be the expected distance of travel inland?
I've been told that even if the tsunami wave itself doesn't reach Portland, there will be a back-up of the Columbia, as flow to the ocean is blocked by the incoming wave. Picture that you could put a curtain wall across the Columbia at, say, Longview WA, for one minute, and all the water flowing down the rivers has nowhere to go but will spread out as the water backs up. Consider the Cowlitz R. (elevation 3 feet where it joins Columbia), what will happen to Longview WA? And the Wmt R. is elevation 10 feet where it joins the Columbia, Sauvie Island might be under water? Vancouver? PDX Airport and the levee at Marine Drive? How far does the backup go? So, while the coastal impact of a tsunami has been studied ad infinitum, I have yet to see any answer to the river back-up question. Or is there nothing to worry about? Could we see water 5, 10 feet above the flood stage in Portland and Northwest Indistrial zones? What will happen to the Columbia Bar, will the sand bar be altered enough to bring a halt to shipping traffic as they sort out the new channel and dredge the shifted river sediment? And Seattle, wow. Hasn't anyone tried to model the tsunami wave action in the Puget Sound? The ports? What happens when a wall of water travels south and ends up in Tacoma and Olympia? As the water travels to narrower channels, it piles up higher.
I've seen no answers from any authority. Grad students: thesis topic and computer models, anyone?
posted 3 years ago
view in context
on Tea Party
IMHO.... The tea party is not a party, it is an astroturf political PR campaign mascarading as a movement. Recall at the time of its founding, it was "promoted" by Fox news. The first TP events were actively promoted on various pundit and news shows broadcast on the Fox News channel: there were banner graphics even with the phrase "FN Tea Party Protest." The FN stands for Fox News, and FN pundits repeatedly implored their viewers to attend these rallies. (The evidence is there, in 2009, in numerous Fox News channel video clips that were replayed by comedians.) It has served as a bullhorn for the pundits on the part of the camp exemplified by the likes of Beck, O'Reily, Limbaugh, et al. Throughout the year of its founding, it seems you couldn't find any gap between these pundit's rants-du jour and the "talking points" of the tea party.
Who writes their platform, who are their leaders, what is their funding, where is their "headquarters?" It's a disturbing illustration of how money and media can buy mind-share of the American public. It reflects poorly on American political discourse that this "group" / campaign has been given so much media exposure, completely out of proportion with the attendance at their events; oh, but since it was essentially founded by a media outlet, I guess that explains the exposure. The TP orchestrated a campaign not to participate in civil discourse, but to disrupt it; recall the "storm the town hall meetings" push in the summer of 2009. And the "birther movement." And the race-baiting, and the graphics invoking Hitler. As if. It seems like the group is just disgruntled people who don't want to accept that Republicans lost out in the 2008 elections.
I'd echo what other's have mentioned: where was the Tea Party outrage when the previous administration created a 1 Billion $ deficit by enacting tax cuts for the wealthiest, engulfed us in a second Iraq war, stood by while Wall Street deregulated itself into oblivion with leveraged derivitives and became too big to fail.
posted 3 years ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
Scottmil,
I do agree... health care did not get expensive solely because of patients; nor do I buy the notion that it is the public is responsible. We are caught up in a web of profit-seekers...
Gereng, jdevine59 -
you seem to be trying to tell us that preventive medicine is the best answer to everything, and I'm not buying it. Though it may reduce the need for expensive services, it will not replace modern medicine (great to augment it though). Do I have to tell you the first-hand stories of people close to me who have (1) bodily injury, (2) cancer by age 50, (3) prostate cancer in 70's, (4) mental illness and/or substance abuse, (5) a cyst the size of a grapefruit, (6) cerebral palsey, (7) already have diabetes. Half these people are a model of health and fitness; some of them were born with it or it was beyond their control, the rest need critical care. I know their personal stories. In most of the cases, no level of measures you describe will resolve their outcome today, and in half these examples the outcome was probably "baked in" either by genetics or circumstance or for reasons that no-one can explain yet.
Try telling the guy who worked for the asbestos mine 30 years ago that he should now switch to preventive medicine. Tell me how a fit guy like Lance Armsrong screwed up to get cancer. And if bike seats cause testicular cancer, should we all give up riding bikes? I know two people who swear by alternative medicine who are the sickest persons I know, who may have benefited from some regular checkups and blood tests and instead have developed conditions that are beyond repair.
I have personally heard some real quack medicine in the alternative / preventive community too. I don't buy this thing you seem to be pitching, it is slanted as preventive 100% good, establishment medical as 100% bad. Can you name a fad alternative approach that turned out to be bogus or bunk? If you can't, you are not doing a balanced examination.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
The cost of the MRI is an eye opener. Isn't it also the case that there are stand-alone for-profit MRI centers that would charge you one tenth the cost for the same procedure? I also read that manufacturers in Asia came to market with newer cheaper machines to address the high cost of first-generation devices. I suspect these new small MRIs are the ones installed in trailers and shopping malls by the stand-alone services.
Are we paying 9/10ths just to have our doctor check over the result? Well, I doubt it really (don't blame your physician, who probably doesn't know the billing). The hospital board / administrator goes out buys the machine, expects to pay for it in N years. Once the cost is recovered and maintenance is paid for, it's a cash cow for the hospital, and the profit is used to spread out on other areas that lose money (there's the cost shifting) or to fatten the bottom line or to save money for the next hospital wing construction fund.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
I've never heard of this, saw an AAFP document here. At first glance it seems that coordination of care across all the care providers is the key component.
I wonder,
doesn't an HMO plan like Kaiser try to do the same thing (all services under one roof)? How does it differ?
Does the current VA system constitute a medical home provider? (Aside from the fact that pediatrics is not part of the base population, it's mature adults.) I mean look at it, there even are VA homes for elder care (my uncle was in one until the end of his life.)
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
Personal responsibility, maybe 50%, but by pegging it on "lifestyle choices" you seem to say all health outcomes can be influenced by choice. Oh, I choose not to be poor? By personal responsibility I might work my way out of that circumstance... in the better part of a lifetime. I choose not to have birth defects? I "choose" to never have a auto/pedestrian accident or any injuries, like breaking a leg skiing. There. Mind and will over matter.
Doesn't work for me in the real world.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
Johnreid:
Fee for treatment, versus a flat salary. Is it any wonder that every visit seems to result in a "procedure" or a prescription? Didn't I hear the panelist say the VA doctor works on flat salary? Isn't that better?
Just as a counterpoint: with advancing age I get more regular checkups, and with a change of insurance I found a new physician. I told him I don't take any medications period (except multivitamin) and his response was: "good." I tell you that exchange was rewarding. To his credit, he was pleased to go with the "less is more" approach and is interested in preventive care. If you can, shop for a physician who agrees with your view.
Keep in mind, all physicians and hospitals are lobbied heavily by pharma/equipment sales reps, right up to and including kickbacks and bribes and "incentive programs" (which in theory have been "banned"). Pharma and equipment companies are conducting a "war for market share" every day. This is our free market capitalism-in-healthcare operating in its normal mode. The doctor receives pressure in this. The consumer is bombarded by ads catering to their fears (or their libedo, or vanity), selling drugs, selling "food porn" (ever wonder why we eat so many calories?), and so on.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
Next step: don't allow the drug or insurance industry to hide behind exemptions from anti-trust law in the U.S. Petition your representatives to enact legislatation this year. That's how you control costs: don't allow these industries to operate as a monopoly!
As reported in the NY Times here (March 18 2010, mis-titled as "In New Health Care Package, Drug Makers to Pay More"), the reconciliation bill gets the drug industry to pay out $28 billion. In the Senate package, it was to be $23 billion, reconciliation bumped that up to $28 billion. ("The pharmaceutical industry fee is graduated, with $2.5 billion to be paid in 2011, $3 billion from 2012 to 2016, $3.5 billion in 2017, $4.2 billion in 2018, and $2.8 billion in 2019 and thereafter.")
But, that concession is nothing compared to what was to be under the original House bill that didn't get enacted. As reported in the Washington Insider here (March 18 2010, "How reconciliation Irons Out the House and Senate Health Bills"):
"The nation’s drug makers, under that agreement, would dedicate $80 billion toward health care reform over the next decade if Democrats would oppose further industry reforms..." like
"... allowing Americans to buy their prescriptions from abroad, and .... empowering states to negotiate directly with companies on behalf of their lowest-income seniors."
Rep Waxman managed to keep the provision allowing state negotiations for low-income seniors, but lost the other provisions. In the end, the bite out of pharma's hide went from $80 billion down to $28 billion.
Again, the NYT article,
"... drug makers plan to support the new bill. Americans for Stable and Quality Health Care, a group largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry, has unveiled a..."
30-second TV spot endorsing the house vote on the Senate bill. If they were for it, I suspect they think they cut a sweet deal.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
I don't want to direct this in particular to josephemer (posting today), but to the broader group of posters on this and several of the health forums. They make statements like, with the right diet "healthcare costs could be lowered by at least 50% with no cost to the government or to consumers."
To you folks who only say diet is the be-all and end-all:
Will the right diet help a schizophrenic or a manic depressive stay on their meds? And will a good diet pay for those meds and the weekly visits to the shrink? Their life literally depends on it.
What role can diet play for someone with cerebral palsey, or... pick your affliction.
Diet can contribute to dental health, but you still need to perform dental "maintaenance" for good health.
Are Mediterranians free from all disease and cancer? I know, the studies say there is reduced incidence... It is not treatment.
Can a person who overeats, or has metabolic problems that turn anything they eat into stored fat, reliably solve this problem through diet? Obesity cetainly is a problem here, but "good foods" have calories too.
About cost: Let me ask you another question: where do you buy your food, and how much time and $ do you dedicate to preparing (and shopping for) food? So, are you privileged to live in... a natural-foods neighborhood. Face it, I shop some of these places because I can, and what I spend is above average and over what many can afford.
When will good wholesome foods be available cheap and widespread in all neighborhods, maybe the neighborhoods you've never been to, maybe the rural area where there is no grocery store or the grocery section has a choice of three "fresh vegetables" (potatoes, onions, and square tomatos), and, available to those folks who get off work after 10PM...
Diet is (generally) not paliative care. Diet does not prevent accidents. And it does not drive disease to 0%, so you still need health care and a system to deliver care. You still need some care at end-of-life.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
RE: "I am also offended by the many commentaries and opinion pieces by writers who are certain the problem with our health care system is due to the masses of uninsured."
Please go to Google and type in "cost shifting." I think you are not taking that cost into account.
RE: "Lower income and higher income people are already covered. My tax dollars will continue to subsidize medical care for lower income individuals. As someone who makes just a bit too much to qualify for any type of medical subsidy, AND works for a very small employer who can't afford to carry coverage for the less than 10 employees, I can't afford any type of health insurance."
It seems you refute your own point here while attacking the bill that just passed. To say low and high income people are covered is simply false: we don't ahve health care for all, we have health insurance for "a lot." Look at the number of bankrupcy filings in the US due to excess medical costs among bth insured and uninsured people. Are you saying that the new bill's tax credits, which I believe are on a sliding scale (not just a cut-off) will not provide you relief for the cost of health insurance? That the availability of alternative exchanges will not help your less-than-10 employer find a policy? I agree, however, that I think more must be done to tackle costs, and the bill does not seem to do enough. At least it's a start.
Second, there are unhealthy people who are not covered because they cannot get insurance at any cost (regardless of income), they are rejected from the insurance market. Medicaid and Medicare don't cover a lot of those people (except the most poor). So at least the health bill will provide relief there, eventually.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on RX: Containing Costs
RE: "Health-care in America did not get expensive because of the patients." While drugs are not the sole source of rising costs, it does present a pressure point in the system that could be used to beat back rising costs and frivolous (unneeded) prescription drug use.
Recall that a decade or two back, federal law was changed to allow easy direct marketing of prescription drugs to consumers i.e. on television commercials. This bypassed the doctor by allowing the pharma industry to pitch directly to consumers: stimulate their fears and little aches and pains. It caused the consumer to go to the doctor's office and demand a particular medication. It would be easy to take that away. Feds should pass a law to recind the right to pitch to the consumer. This should be an easy one-page bill and could take effectimmediately. It would certainly take the fuel away from "the hypochondriac within us," and put the professional, the doctor, back in the driver's seat and allow them to act as the cost-control agent (is this medication really justified?) Putting consumers into the driver's seat for something as complex as prescription drugs was a big mistake.
What is being advertised? The most expensive, patented and proprietary medications: cost the most to produce, but also generate the most profit, and protected by patent for X years. From the corporate POV, these are the medications that one manufacturer has "a lock" on. Pfizer's little blue pill comes to mind, but also the allergy and arthritis medications.
It's a shame that every state has to do their own efficacy studies. What Oregon does at the state makes more sense if it is done for all at the federal level, it would be so much more cost-effective. But the health-industrial complex (yes?) has managed to steer the debate into 50 little subcompartments thus diffusing the effectiveness...
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
This is a good question. Strangely, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce---"Fighting for Your Business(r,tm,c)" they say---came out opposed to health care reform before there was a final bill, then made a big-money push to the finish line:
August 13 2009 NY Times: Ad Watch: US Chamber of Commerce
"Chamber officials would not discuss the amount they are spending but said it was “multimillions of dollars,” making this ad buy one of the biggest by a single group so far in the health care debate. The ads began running on Wednesday [August 2009] on network television in 20 states"
March 14 2010 NY Times: Millions spent to sway Democrats on Health Care
"The Chamber of Commerce is leading the opposition to the health care bill with a coalition called Employers for a Healthy Economy. In two weeks, the group has bought more than $7 million in television advertising and plans to spend up to $3 million more. Americans for Prosperity, a group financed by David Koch, the oilman, is also jumping into the fray with an advertising campaign of nearly $1 million."
Some five or more years ago, there was an insightful New Yorker article describing how the health care system was killing, had killed, the U.S. automotive industry. Just a few years later, look what happened as there was a final stake through the heart of two of the "US big three." I think the case made was a built-in cost of $1000 or $2000 is incurred for each vehicle, directly attributable to health care costs that were not incurred by competitors (overseas or in foreign-owned US plants). If you want to blame unions you miss the point: blame the difference in health care costs between the US and every other industrialized nation!
Why the Chamber is opposed is, well, is it a mystery? Big Pharma is a member, the article tells you where they are putting their money. It seems that at the Chamber, the biggest pot of money talks the loudest, not membership or headcount.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
From the regence 2008 annual report at
http://www.regence.com/about/annualReport/annual-report.jsp
it seems Regence is non-profit.
"....medical care for Regence members consumes nearly 89 cents of every premium dollar..." (2008)
"Unlike some other companies, Regence doesn’t measure success by how much money we make – we’re a nonprofit company. Instead, we set our sights on meeting the health care needs of our members and facilitating their use of the health care system. With members as our highest priority, our unwavering focus today is on cost as a barrier to care. We’re committed to reinventing health care so it does a better job for the people it is intended to serve."
Makes you feel good, doesn't it? That said, I will tell you, when I was shopping in the individual insuance market, the plan I could get from Regence was not remarkably different than the for-profit competition, and they turned me down for individual insurance. When I was a state employee many many years ago, BC/BS was my insurer, and it was a Cadillac plan compared to what's offered today to individuals, and it was not cheap to buy either.
So, as a member, you may be their highest priority, but it still is a club with doors that shut to keep some members from joining. I got in via the back door: OMIP high-risk portability pool, 1.5x higher premium. That's very noble of them to be the plan administrator for OMIP. I still can't see evidence showing that their non-profit status has produced better results, lower costs, more coverage, or significantly different benefit plans.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
I have been confused about the not-for-profit status that many people attribute to Blue Cross / Blue Shield (see cliffr's comment in todays posts).
In most cases, BC/BS is a for-profit organization, although when BC and BS started they were not-for-profit. Look here on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cross
Some excerpts:
"Blue Cross and Blue Shield developed separately, with Blue Cross plans providing coverage for hospital services, while Blue Shield covered physicians' services... Blue Cross is a name used by an association of health insurance plans throughout the United States.... The Blue Shield concept was developed at the beginning of the 20th century by employers in lumber and mining camps of the Pacific Northwest to provide medical care by paying monthly fees to medical service bureaus composed of groups of physicians... In 1982 Blue Shield merged with the Blue Cross Association to form the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."
"Prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, organizations administering Blue Cross Blue Shield were tax exempt under 501(c)(4) as social welfare plans. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 revoked that exemption because the plans sold commercial-type insurance. They became 501(m) organizations, subject to federal taxation but entitled to "special tax benefits" under IRC 833. In 1994, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit corporations. Some plans are still considered not-for-profit at the state level..."
"...Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield insurance companies are franchisees, independent of the association (and traditionally each other), offering insurance plans within defined regions under one or both of the association's brands...."
"The 14-state WellPoint is the largest Blue Cross Blue Shield member, and is a publicly traded company [WellPoint is definitely a for-profit company]. Other multi-state organizations include CareFirst in the Mid-Atlantic and The Regence Group in the Pacific Northwest. The largest non-investor owned member is health Care Service Corporation, which operates four Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans in the Midwest and Southwest."
[emphasis and comments were added].
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
I know Buffett's companies are in life insurance and auto insurance (Geico). But is he involved in any company doing health insurance? I don't think so, the big health insurers are all independent. Cigna. Wellpoint. Aetna. Kaiser. Humana. United Healthcare.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
LynnB,
Where you write: "I do think medicine is one of the only services where what you pay depends so much on who you are. What is the "cost" of an MRI? That's unclear. The charges may vary from $600 to $1800 depending on whether you have medicare , medicaid, private insurance or are self pay. It will take years for medical costs and charges to be come rational..."
Humor me for a second. Think of all the makes and models of automobiles, all the millions of little parts and repair procedures. Every auto shop has a huge parts book with prices, and a procedures book with estimated procedure cost (time, materials). We've been doing that for decades.
I will point out that all the other industrialized countries (Europe, Americas, Asia) have figured out how to write some form of a "price book" for medical costs, drugs, and procedures. To repeat: All the health systems in the world with better outcomes than ours have implemented a fixed price and fee schedule. I'm sure it was panful to produce, and these have to get revised, and for the innovative new stuff you have to "wing it." But there are 15 other countries that have blazed the trail ahead of us folks, this is not rocket science any more.
The insurance industry and drug companies appear to be calling the shots for this today, IMHO. Only in the U.S. are we experiencing a 3x price disparity, without even blinking, and without taking action. The hospitals, drug companies, insurers, and even doctors, and their lobbyist groups are playing a shell game with costs, so easy to do. (It's notable that the AMA finally came around to support reform this time, in 1992 they came out for the staus quo.)
rhetorical questions:
1) what does the Veteran's Administration charge its clients for an MRI ?
2) What is the internal cost to the VA for that MRI, and how is it paid for?
3) Why do we have no price control or bargainng power over prescription drugs, where outside the U.S., the same pills from the same manufacturers cost so much less? Why do we pay double for the same thing?
4) If this is a "market" and markets are supposed to be efficient, why does it seem there is no "market" at work here, and terrible waste?
5) Does anyone seriously want to defend the current U.S. health care "market" as efficient?
Therein we will find answers to our problem.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
MarkKKlein:
speaking to you as someone who went onto COBRA, and then onto OMIP, I'd recommend that you do act on obtaining insurance, perhaps not today, but do not wait until the last month of your COBRA before acting. In fact, start shopping now even if you will keep your COBRA the full 18 months (or whatever they are extending it to these days). It can take a few months to apply for individual insurance (records transfered, applications reviewed).
If you are applying for an individual policy (not a group policy by re-hiring into another job) I am going to speculate that your medical event will red-flag you as having a preexisting condition. If you are rejected by one or two insurers for an individual plan, and your COBRA coverage is expiring, you are eligible under Oregon state OMIP plan for what they call a portability plan. It will cost a little more than what you are paying your (former) employer's plan. I didn't get dental/vision coverage with OMIP portability: I pay all dental out of pocket now. If you can afford it, OMIP is better than the risk of going uninsured. It was a safety net for me; I'm just lucky to be able to afford it. If you let coverage lapse 30 or 60 days after COBRA, you're in another pickle.
I was surprised to discover that my group plan (CIGNA) would permit me to extend medical, dental and vision under COBRA, but when I asked them to extend an individual policy in month #17 of 18, they said, sorry, we don't write individual policies in your state. Try shopping for a company on a web site like esurance.com to find out the going rates and plan options.
Verify well in advance that your current physician is "in plan." If not you'll have to shop for another doctor. You may also find you can't get dental and vision coverage, so make use of all the dental work you need done now if you have dental coverage. And brace yourself for being rejected by individual insurance, for me the rejection letter was a shock, I really thought I had no problems but insurance companies don't care after they make their pronouncement.
Since you are entrepreneurial, I can't speak to whether there are other options like getting a small-business policy. My guess is that having a few employees will not make your insurance any cheaper.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
I did find a site (Kaiser Family Foundation) that has a plan summary and comparison. Don't confuse this with Kaiser Permanente health insurance, this seems to be a different organization. See:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
There seems to be a mandate that insurers must provide four defined levels of plan, labeled in the KFF doc as "bronze, silver, gold, and "young invincibles." It also outlines the percent-income and income level provisions. I believe you would not be restricted to just buying the young invincibles plan ("under 30 plan" as you title it).
Insurers like to slice and dice all their customers as much as possible (or as much as legislation will allow), so they can discontinue or raise rates on the most expensive pools and keep the "good" pools, the ones they can collect money from who rarely use services. This is why it is most important to have the provision that people cannot be dropped. They give the best rates to large groups, like Intel or the State Employees, higher rates to small employers (under 50 people), and even higher rates to individuals, and even higher rates still to individuals they have rejected and put into a high risk pool (OMIP, OHP).
I believe OMIP is contracted so that the plan administrator cannot charge more the 1.5 times some "base" rate, and I don't know how that's enforced but I assume it is a state law or statute. So that, right there, mandates a cap on the high risk pool that prevents the $5,000/month premium being charged.
The single-payer-plan theory is that it's better to create a single pool of 3,000,000 covered individuals, the average costs and premiums go down, or are minimized. Other countries have found this to be the case (go read T.R. Reid's "The Healing of America." plug plug)
So, if OMIP, instead of being 7,000 people covered, was a policy of 100,000 people nationwide with all states participating, that would have bargaining power and spread the risk over more people. The current bill does not seem to eliminate risk pools or enforce caps, but I hope it will cause pools (individual and risk) to expand to larger size (instead of being separated state-by-state, it would be regional or national) and gain economies of scale and rate leverage. A cap should be enacted.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Rx: The Final Health Care Bill
Letter I emailed:
Thanks for passing the bill. I expect to benefit from no-recision, raising the caps, a national market (eventually), lower premiums from a larger insurance pool, ending the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies (separate legislation), increased scrutiny of overhead costs and outcomes.
I'd like to have seen a Medicare-for-all or single-payer option to buy (I am in the individual market, not under an employer's group plan, too well-off for Medicaid and too young for Medicare).
Finally, some progress. This bill's better than none, and it can be built upon. It was now or never, with elections looming later this year.
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Water: From the Bottle or the Tap?
Aha, I found an article related to the question, "Who owns the water that I collect in my gutters?" Answer: it depends, where are you?
Look at NY Times, June 29, "It's now legal to catch a raindrop in Colorado."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?_r=1&em
One note, Washington state may have a restriction...
"The two Colorado laws allow perhaps a quarter-million residents with private wells to begin rainwater harvesting, as well as the setting up of a pilot program for larger scale rain-catching.
"Just 75 miles west of here, in Utah, collecting rainwater from the roof is still illegal unless the roof owner also owns water rights on the ground; the same rigid rules, with a few local exceptions, also apply in Washington State. Meanwhile, 20 miles south of here, in New Mexico, rainwater catchment, as the collecting is called, is mandatory for new dwellings in some places like Santa Fe."
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
