MB Blog - July 2008
Over the past two months, rising gas prices have fueled a heated debate. And, if you think the debate is raging now, just wait for the winter months to hit consumers.
Between home heating costs and gas prices, it's not going to be pretty.
As the debate rages on, the most frequently asked questions by public officials and the press seem to be the following.
Should we drill more on the outer continental shelf?
Should we open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling? (Proponents like to call it "exploration," but this isn't an ad campaign, so I'm going to stick with "drilling").
Why didn't Congress dramatically raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ago?
None of these questions is terribly productive. Sure, pondering the historical roadblocks to increasing CAFE standards is instructive. But it really doesn't do much for future planning around our country's energy problem.
It's like we're stuck in the energy twilight zone, waiting for the inevitably macabre ending. Instead of more shortsightedness and attempts at political point scoring, the real questions we should be asking include:
When will we get about the business of moving toward a new energy economy, featuring the greatly enhanced use of renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal?
How can we mobilize a workforce, with proper training, to prepare for the inevitable transition?
How soon can we institute a true carbon auction at the federal level, using the proceeds to both help consumers and spurn research and development?
We simply have to stop the narrow fossil fuel supply discussion. A recent Washington Post article outlines the stark reality of world fossil fuel supply.
Here's the money line.
There it is, supply will never again keep up with demand. So, let's cut the nonsense.
Between home heating costs and gas prices, it's not going to be pretty.
As the debate rages on, the most frequently asked questions by public officials and the press seem to be the following.
Should we drill more on the outer continental shelf?
Should we open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling? (Proponents like to call it "exploration," but this isn't an ad campaign, so I'm going to stick with "drilling").
Why didn't Congress dramatically raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ago?
None of these questions is terribly productive. Sure, pondering the historical roadblocks to increasing CAFE standards is instructive. But it really doesn't do much for future planning around our country's energy problem.
It's like we're stuck in the energy twilight zone, waiting for the inevitably macabre ending. Instead of more shortsightedness and attempts at political point scoring, the real questions we should be asking include:
When will we get about the business of moving toward a new energy economy, featuring the greatly enhanced use of renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal?
How can we mobilize a workforce, with proper training, to prepare for the inevitable transition?
How soon can we institute a true carbon auction at the federal level, using the proceeds to both help consumers and spurn research and development?
We simply have to stop the narrow fossil fuel supply discussion. A recent Washington Post article outlines the stark reality of world fossil fuel supply.
Here's the money line.
The United States is at the leading edge of what may lie ahead for worldwide oil production. Global petroleum output is still rising, but the rate of growth is slowing. Supply is not increasing fast enough to keep up with soaring global demand, putting ever more upward pressure on oil prices.
There it is, supply will never again keep up with demand. So, let's cut the nonsense.
Over the past decade, job transitions have become increasingly common in the United States. Perhaps the technology boom of the late 1990's perpetuated the change, or perhaps it is because of the move toward corporate consolidation of most major economic sectors.
Whatever the reason, there's no denying it; the era of working an entire career for one company is over.
As Americans become more mobile in their professional lives, they need something more than the stagnant, employer-based health coverage system we currently have in this country.
Accordingly, insurance companies really need to get their act together and figure out how their increasingly unpopular product is going to best serve a mobile workforce.
Sure, the insurance industry will tout the benefits of COBRA as a good plan for job transitions. But, all COBRA really does is give a worker the same coverage they had at their previous job, at double or triple the cost.
Good for insurance companies, bad for you.
Imagine this. You just graduated from college. You're excited because you scored a great job with a good entry-level salary. Unfortunately, the start date for your job is not until three months after graduation. Read More »
Whatever the reason, there's no denying it; the era of working an entire career for one company is over.
As Americans become more mobile in their professional lives, they need something more than the stagnant, employer-based health coverage system we currently have in this country.
Accordingly, insurance companies really need to get their act together and figure out how their increasingly unpopular product is going to best serve a mobile workforce.
Sure, the insurance industry will tout the benefits of COBRA as a good plan for job transitions. But, all COBRA really does is give a worker the same coverage they had at their previous job, at double or triple the cost.
Good for insurance companies, bad for you.
Imagine this. You just graduated from college. You're excited because you scored a great job with a good entry-level salary. Unfortunately, the start date for your job is not until three months after graduation. Read More »
The "not a drop" chorus is getting louder with each passing day.
Atrisco Oil and Gas CEO Peter Sanchez, along with New Mexico Oil and Gas Association President Bob Gallagher sing the tune here.
Former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux sing it here.
Finally, United States Senator Kit Bond sings it here.
Boy, I wonder who wrote that tune.
Atrisco Oil and Gas CEO Peter Sanchez, along with New Mexico Oil and Gas Association President Bob Gallagher sing the tune here.
Former United States Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux sing it here.
Finally, United States Senator Kit Bond sings it here.
Boy, I wonder who wrote that tune.
The average cost of health insurance premiums has nearly doubled since 2000. While corporations and large businesses have been best equipped to weather the insurance premium storm, small businesses have been abandoned, left to fend for themselves on an increasingly slanted playing field.
Small business is the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and fulfilling the American dream for so many entrepreneurs. But, our health care policies force small business to bear the brunt of health care costs, effectively killing the American dream for so many.
Perhaps that's why I get so disillusioned when I hear public officials talk about the importance of small business, only to turn around and hurt said American Economic Backbone by supporting the status quo.
Firms in Taiwan, or Germany, or Denmark have an incredible advantage over small businesses in the United States. In fact, a person starting a small business, today, in one of the aforementioned countries does not even have to consider health care as a major line item in their budget.
Can you imagine how much more competitive American small businesses would be if they were not forced to agonize over health care costs?
This is not to say we must retrofit American health coverage with a system from another country. No, we have a uniquely American problem with our system-a problem that requires an evidence-based, American solution.
At least one solution appears to be gaining traction in a few states, and in Congress. That solution is based on the old adage of power in numbers.
The basic concept is to allow small businesses, perhaps even across state lines, to form purchasing pools. The larger pools would help mitigate risk and thus lower costs.
Predictably, insurance companies are against the idea, blocking it in state capitals across the country. You can bet that when federal legislation on small business purchasing pools is introduced next year, the insurance lobby will be out in full force.
As small businesses in United States continue to bear the brunt of rising insurance premiums, they must look past the rhetoric and discover who's ready to fight on behalf of their interests.
Small business is the backbone of our economy, providing jobs and fulfilling the American dream for so many entrepreneurs. But, our health care policies force small business to bear the brunt of health care costs, effectively killing the American dream for so many.
Perhaps that's why I get so disillusioned when I hear public officials talk about the importance of small business, only to turn around and hurt said American Economic Backbone by supporting the status quo.
Firms in Taiwan, or Germany, or Denmark have an incredible advantage over small businesses in the United States. In fact, a person starting a small business, today, in one of the aforementioned countries does not even have to consider health care as a major line item in their budget.
Can you imagine how much more competitive American small businesses would be if they were not forced to agonize over health care costs?
This is not to say we must retrofit American health coverage with a system from another country. No, we have a uniquely American problem with our system-a problem that requires an evidence-based, American solution.
At least one solution appears to be gaining traction in a few states, and in Congress. That solution is based on the old adage of power in numbers.
The basic concept is to allow small businesses, perhaps even across state lines, to form purchasing pools. The larger pools would help mitigate risk and thus lower costs.
Predictably, insurance companies are against the idea, blocking it in state capitals across the country. You can bet that when federal legislation on small business purchasing pools is introduced next year, the insurance lobby will be out in full force.
As small businesses in United States continue to bear the brunt of rising insurance premiums, they must look past the rhetoric and discover who's ready to fight on behalf of their interests.
It was revealed yesterday that in October 2007, representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency were sent to explain to Congress how climate change would negatively impact public health. That was until the Vice President's office got hold of the prepared testimony and slashed an entire section. (link)
Lovely.
Consider the irony in this. On the same day we're being presented with more evidence of the Vice President's campaign against reality, here in New Mexico we have a lame duck state representative lamely bloviating about so-called "left-wing" media bias. Reality bites.
Lovely.
Consider the irony in this. On the same day we're being presented with more evidence of the Vice President's campaign against reality, here in New Mexico we have a lame duck state representative lamely bloviating about so-called "left-wing" media bias. Reality bites.
Two numbers have been seared into the minds of millions of Americans: $4/per gallon of gas and $145/per barrel of crude oil. Explanations abound for how we arrived at this seemingly inconceivable position. Increased demand from China and India, as well as price speculation appear to be the front-runners.
However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.
But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?
I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).
In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.
So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.
Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.
However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.
But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?
I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).
In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.
So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.
Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.
As aggregate spending on health care in the United States approaches $2.5 trillion (yes, that's trillion with a "T"), there is growing concern that people might be getting less than what they are paying for.
Per capita spending on health care in the United States far exceeds that of any other industrialized nation in the world. Yet, Americans are still less healthy than people living in other countries, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rate and survival rates for chronic disease.
If the United States has the best health care in the world, as is often the refrain when discussions of reform arise, then these indisputable indicators of American health would look very different.
The unfortunate reality is that the American health care system is infested with perverse incentives, resulting in a lower quality of care for a much higher cost.
Students graduating from medical school today face daunting loan sums, often exceeding $150,000. Graduates interested in research or family practice need only look at the numbers to realize that opting instead to become a specialist almost certainly means an income two or three times higher. On the face of it, this looks like simple supply and demand, but consider what a system with diminishing emphasis on primary care, wellness and prevention means for the health of a population.
The perverse incentives keep coming once a doctor begins practicing medicine. The trend to improve efficiency via electronic medical records is picking up steam at the state and federal level. But, while insurance companies often reap the greatest benefits of the move to electronic records, the cost of care keeps rising. So, a worthy idea (electronic medical records) gets put on hold because there is little benefit for both doctor and patient.
Finally, consider the use of cutting-edge technology to detect early signs of heart disease. On the face of it, capitalizing on American ingenuity to prevent medical problems from escalating appears to be a solution to our problems. However, research indicates that the use of new medical technology is more often driven by monetary incentives than improved medical outcomes.
Perverse incentives are slowly eroding our health care in the United States. We must recognize this dynamic and begin the hard work of restoring the patient as the focal point of our system.
Per capita spending on health care in the United States far exceeds that of any other industrialized nation in the world. Yet, Americans are still less healthy than people living in other countries, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality rate and survival rates for chronic disease.
If the United States has the best health care in the world, as is often the refrain when discussions of reform arise, then these indisputable indicators of American health would look very different.
The unfortunate reality is that the American health care system is infested with perverse incentives, resulting in a lower quality of care for a much higher cost.
Students graduating from medical school today face daunting loan sums, often exceeding $150,000. Graduates interested in research or family practice need only look at the numbers to realize that opting instead to become a specialist almost certainly means an income two or three times higher. On the face of it, this looks like simple supply and demand, but consider what a system with diminishing emphasis on primary care, wellness and prevention means for the health of a population.
The perverse incentives keep coming once a doctor begins practicing medicine. The trend to improve efficiency via electronic medical records is picking up steam at the state and federal level. But, while insurance companies often reap the greatest benefits of the move to electronic records, the cost of care keeps rising. So, a worthy idea (electronic medical records) gets put on hold because there is little benefit for both doctor and patient.
Finally, consider the use of cutting-edge technology to detect early signs of heart disease. On the face of it, capitalizing on American ingenuity to prevent medical problems from escalating appears to be a solution to our problems. However, research indicates that the use of new medical technology is more often driven by monetary incentives than improved medical outcomes.
Perverse incentives are slowly eroding our health care in the United States. We must recognize this dynamic and begin the hard work of restoring the patient as the focal point of our system.
Posts By Month
PostsHighest Rated Posts
