Sunday, May 30, 2010

Insurance Companies Improving Ahead of Schedule

First, I gotta complain. I just spent nearly seven hours setting up a new wireless router at the house, using the foolproof simplified instructions and Belkin's telephone support (who after an hour told me I have a "firewall problem" and they can't help me). Somebody tell me, why does a router wear out? There are no moving parts to one of these things, but my old one got so bad you had to reset it several times a day. I think I've got this one working now.

It definitely cheered me up to see a news story like this.
Of all the things Danielle Hertz will have to worry about when she graduates from Ohio State this spring, health insurance won't be one of them.

Under the new federal health-reform law, she and other adult children can stay on their parents' health-insurance policies until they're 26 years old.

The federal provision kicks in for policies renewed after Sept. 23, but several health-insurance companies already have let students graduating in the spring stay on their parents' policies.

Jumping in early helps insurers and employers avoid the paperwork involved in having to drop adult children from policies only to pick them up again in a few months.

"It would be a nightmare for the (human resources) departments," said Debora Spano, spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare. "It's easier and makes life simpler for everybody involved. And it keeps those kids insured."

Besides, young, healthy people are inexpensive to insure.

All of this is a relief for Hertz, 21, who plans to spend the summer searching for a job.

"I had friends who graduated before me ... that were getting off their parents' health insurance, and it was making me nervous to be on my own ... for that," the Springfield resident said.

Hertz, a dual English and communication major, said she'll stay on the insurance her mother gets through her employer.

"I didn't intend on doing that, but it gives me stability while I'm on my job search," she said. "It's just nice that I don't have to stress about that on top of everything else." Insurers following new health law early

I'm sure they're real concerned about kids being insured. Luckily for all involved, it's less paperwork -- that is, less expensive -- to just keep graduating college students on their parents' plans for the few months before the deadline.

As provisions of the health care overhaul fall into place, Americans are really going to be thankful that our leaders had the courage to pass the bill.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama's approval rating trend:

May 21- CNN- 51%

May 24- CBS- 47%

May 31- Gallup- 46%

expect this trend to continue as oil continues to fill the Gulf of Mexico and the American people continue to learn how much more Obamacare will add to the deficit than they were told and their insurance premiums skyrocket this fall

November 12

there will be change we'll all believe in

May 31, 2010 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama sent Biden to Arlington today because he wanted to go on a trip instead of honoring our war heroes

when veterans complained he said "oh, I'll give a speech in Chicago"

today he cancelled it because of a thunderstorm

couldn't wait around for it to blow over

pathetic

November 12

there will be change we'll all believe in

May 31, 2010 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the White House is saying they have been "in charge" from the beginning so Obama is the one to blame for the failure:

"HOUSTON — The Obama administration scrambled to respond on Sunday after the failure of the latest effort to kill the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. Administration officials acknowledged the possibility that tens of thousands of barrels of oil might continue pouring out until August, when two relief wells are scheduled to be completed.

“We are prepared for the worst,” said Carol M. Browner, President Obama’s climate change and energy policy adviser. “We have been prepared from the beginning.”

Senior officials acknowledged that the new technique BP will use to try to cap the leak — severing the riser pipe and placing a containment dome over the cut riser — could result in as much as 20 percent more oil flowing into the water.

“This is obviously a difficult situation,” Ms. Browner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “but it’s important for people to understand that from the beginning, the government has been in charge.”

The White House said that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar would make his eighth trip to the region and that the number of government and contract employees sent to work in areas affected by the spill would be tripled.

But despite the White House efforts, the criticism also intensified. Colin L. Powell, who served as secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told ABC’s “This Week” that the administration must move in quickly with “decisive force and demonstrate that it’s doing everything that it can do.”

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, appearing on “Meet the Press,” again criticized the administration’s efforts, saying: “We need our federal government exactly for this kind of crisis. I think there could have been a greater sense of urgency.”

Ever since the explosion and the resulting leak, estimates of how much oil is escaping have differed by thousands of barrels a day. Both government and BP officials said on Sunday that they had no accurate idea of how much oil was spilling into the gulf."

swift, Barry

May 31, 2010 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Following the failure this weekend of BP's attempt to plug the spewing mile-deep well, public anger over the spill and how it occurred is growing, as tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents face a pollution impact on their livelihoods.

A group calling itself Seize BP, which has already staged anti-BP protests, said on Monday it would organize demonstrations in more than 50 U.S. cities from Thursday to Saturday to protest the damage from the leaking oil.

The group demands that BP's assets be immediately seized and held in trust to pay compensation for the spill triggered by the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

May 31, 2010 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

did you know that the main reason the oil can't be stopped is because it is at a depth that has impossible conditions to work under?

if the leak had happened in shallow water, it would have been plugged by now

if this had happened on the north shore of Alaska, where no one lives, the impact would be less significant

but they had to do this in the Gulf because oil drilling is banned in most shallower regions

environmentalists are to blame

June 02, 2010 4:27 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

if the leak had happened in shallow water, it would have been plugged by now

The Ixtoc I oil well, which was dug in shallow water at approximately 150 feet, exploded on June 3, 1979 and was not plugged until March 23, 1980, nine months later. "...Prevailing winds caused extensive damage along the US coast with the Texas coast suffering the greatest. The IXTOC I accident was the biggest single spill ever [at that time], with an estimated 3.5 million barrels of oil released..."

I've told you plenty of times Anon, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. The fact is a similar well in shallower water was not plugged in less than 2 months -- it took 9 months to cap Ixtox I. And the procedures BP has been using to try to cap the failed Deepwater Horizon rig are exactly the same procedures they used in 1979 and 1980 to try to cap the failed Ixtox I rig. The *only* attempt that worked to kill Ixtox I's leak, as reported by Bloomberg BusinessWeek was digging relief wells to perform a "bottom kill." The relief wells being dug (two of them, now that the Obama administration has ordered BP to drill the second relief well) are not expected to reach their target until August, 2010.

if this had happened on the north shore of Alaska, where no one lives, the impact would be less significant

Wrong again, Anon. Audubon and many others report the fact that "Alaska's North Slope encompasses an immense and spectacular Arctic ecosystem that provides critical habitat for many species of fish and wildlife...", which may be "no one" to you, but many people value all life forms, all of God's creations, and do not feel it is justified to risk a "spectacular Arctic ecosystem" for crude oil.

but they had to do this in the Gulf because oil drilling is banned in most shallower regions

Where do you come up with them? Most of the shallower regions have already been pumped dry, hence the move to deeper waters by the BP's of the world, looking to maintain their obscene profits.

Newsweek reports: "Much of the offshore drilling in the gulf occurs on the “shelf,” where the water is often less than 200 feet deep. This kind of shallow-water drilling is considered pretty safe, but geologists say the shelf has been largely picked over and you’re not likely to find any huge oil reserves to harvest there. For that, you’ll have to go deeper. The benefit of deep-water drilling is, of course, increased profits and oil flow..."

June 02, 2010 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ixtoc I oil well, which was dug in shallow water at approximately 150 feet, exploded on June 3, 1979 and was not plugged nine months later"

31 years ago?

the containment device tried weeks ago failed because of the cold temperatures in deep waters

it has worked in many instances in shallow

you haven't heard about them because they were quickly fixed

"'Alaska's North Slope provides critical habitat for many species of fish and wildlife, which may be "no one" to you, but many people value all life forms, all of God's creations,"

kumbayah!

the Unabomber and Squeaky Fromme are with you in spirit

"Most of the shallower regions have already been pumped dry, hence the move to deeper waters by the BP's of the world, looking to maintain their obscene profits"

the are plenty of shallow fields left

the tree huggers have succeeded in banning drilling there

BP made obscene profits because they were providing a commodity with a market

they may have made errors by cost-cutting but they are selling oil to meet public demand

you still driving?

June 02, 2010 12:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

oil drilling is banned in most shallower regions

It is? Then how do you explain the rigs visible from the beach at

Santa Barbara, California

Grand Isle, Louisiana (scroll down to second photograph)

Alaska

Dauphin Island, Alabama, where normally gas platforms are visible from shore, but had an oil rig wash up just off the beach during Hurricane Katrina.

You got your facts wrong again, Anon.

the are plenty of shallow fields left

the tree huggers have succeeded in banning drilling there


They have? Then how do you explain all these rigs shown on these maps?

Map of oil platforms off the coast of California

Map of oil platforms off coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama

Or these gas production rigs off the Lower 48?

These maps demonstrate that the "tree huggers" you imagine obviously have not done a very good job at keeping oil and gas platforms away from our nation's shores.

You might want to ask the Florida tourist industry and former Governor Jeb Bush what sort of "tree-huggers" they are, or were. (Jeb Bush has flip-flopped but who knows, maybe he'll flipflop back again.) When he was Governor, Jeb "...Bush sought to have a permanent ban on drilling within 150 miles of Florida’s coast.

This year, the State of Florida has "demanded $100 million from BP to repair the damage done to its reputation, not its beaches," and "Gov. Charlie Crist secured the first $25 million from BP — when hard-hit states like Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi only scored $15 million each."

the are plenty of shallow fields left

Read this NOAA study which, unlike the nonsense Anon spouts, reports:

"...The oil and gas industry has moved, and will continue to move, into deeper and deeper water in their continuing search for energy reserves. [What? Not because "tree-huggers" are forcing them off shore?] Existing deepwater fields already contribute about 1 million of the 1.6-million barrels of oil a day produced in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. There are currently a total of 15 structures operating in water depths greater than 304 m (1,000 ft). The deepest discovery in 2004 was at a water depth of 2,934 m (9,627 ft)."

June 02, 2010 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

One more time...

Anon said...the are plenty of shallow fields left

the tree huggers have succeeded in banning drilling there


Today's WaPo.com Afternoon Update reports:

"...In Washington, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service approved the first new offshore drilling project in the gulf since Obama's three-week moratorium on shallow water operations expired, granting a permit by Bandon Oil and Gas for a location roughly 50 miles from Louisiana's coast.

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff wrote in an e-mail that the new operation, which will take place 115 feet below the sea's surface, would have to comply with the federal safety rules Obama adopted in the wake of the BP oil spill..."

June 02, 2010 6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You got your facts wrong again, Anon."

no, he was right, despite this stream of misquotes

most shallow water oil rigs are banned off our coasts

June 02, 2010 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yesterday, Obama announced a criminal investigation of BP

how stupid can you get?

now, at a time when the fast and easy flow of information is vital to stop an ongoing catastrophe, one of the key players will have a motive and constitutional reason to be careful what it lets out

wonderful!

can we start a move to persuade this President to resign?

this can't go on for two and a half more years

June 03, 2010 7:40 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

most shallow water oil rigs are banned off our coasts

Prove this statement. Show us lists of shallow oil and/or gas rig applications where "most" have been banned.

The maps I linked to yesterday make it clear that you you are grossly mistaken. There are plenty of shallow water oil and gas rigs working right at this very moment off the coast of several states whose shorelines are dying because of BPs willful negligence. Eleven workers were murdered because BP was more interested in making obscene profits than protecting oil rig workers. I hope we throw the book at them and can't wait to see BP execs do the "perp walk" like "Kenny Boy" from Enron did.

What "easy flow of information" from BP have you hallucinated?

This? From BP Stonewalls as massive plumes of oil discovered under Gulf

"...Nobody can say for sure, in large part because BP refuses to provide the video footage and sensor data that would help establish exactly what is happening at the site of the leak..."

Or maybe this?

"...BP, the company in charge of the rig that exploded last month in the Gulf of Mexico, hasn't publicly divulged the results of tests on the extent of workers' exposure to evaporating oil or from the burning of crude over the gulf, even though researchers say that data is crucial in determining whether the conditions are safe..."

Or maybe this?

US Government Forces BP to Start Live Feed of Oil Leak Video

June 03, 2010 8:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

More evidence of what Anonymous imagines is "the fast and easy flow of information" from BP criminals:

VENICE, La. — BP PLC CEO Tony Hayward on Sunday disputed claims by scientists that large undersea plumes have been set adrift by the Gulf oil spill and said the cleanup fight has narrowed to surface slicks rolling into Louisiana's coastal marshes.

During a tour of a company staging area for cleanup workers, Hayward said BP's sampling showed "no evidence" that oil was suspended in large masses beneath the surface. He didn't elaborate on how the testing was done.

"The oil is on the surface," Hayward said. "Oil has a specific gravity that's about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity."

Scientists from several universities have reported plumes of what appears to be oil suspended in clouds stretching for miles and reaching hundreds of feet beneath the Gulf's surface.

Those findings — from the University of South Florida, the University of Georgia, Southern Mississippi University and other institutions — were based on initial observations of water samples taken in the Gulf over the last several weeks. They continue to be analyzed.

One researcher said Sunday that their findings are bolstered by the fact that scientists from different institutions have come to similar conclusions after doing separate testing.

"There's been enough evidence from enough different sources," said Marine scientist James Cowan of Louisiana State University, who reported finding a plume last week of oil about 50 miles from the spill site that reached to depths of at least 400 feet...

June 03, 2010 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Watch last week's ABC News video of Sam Champion and Phillipe Cousteau as they dive into the Gulf and film the underwater plumes of oil and dispersant BP says do not exist.

June 03, 2010 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Ixtoc I oil well, which was dug in shallow water at approximately 150 feet, exploded on June 3, 1979 and was not plugged nine months later"

31 years ago?

the containment device tried weeks ago failed because of the cold temperatures in deep waters

it has worked in many instances in shallow

you haven't heard about them because they were quickly fixed


That's right, 31 years ago. Oil well leak capping technology has not changed much in the last 31 years because oil companies like BP are more interested in getting oil out of the ground to fuel their obscene profits than being able to fix leaks, protect workers, and protect the environment.

If the BP's of the world can only stop leaks in shallow water, they should not be allowed to drill in deep water. BP said it could contain a much larger leak at the Deepwater Horizon well than the leak that continues to foul our shores right now, but that was apparently a lie. They have not been able to contain this leak in 46 days and counting.

What information do you have that proves a "containment device...has worked in many instances in shallow" that we "haven't heard about?"

Maybe if oil companies like BP had spent as much money on researching and developing better leak capping capabilities as they did on well digging, this wetlands destroying leak might have already been plugged.

BTW, they tried a contraption called a "sombrero" 31 years ago to siphon oil from the shallow water Ixtoc I leak, but it failed, just like the "top hat" attempt by BP to cap this Deepwater Horizon well failed:

The stuff that didn't work back then is the same stuff that hasn't worked now; same busted blowout preventer, same ineffective booms, same underwater plumes, same toxic dispersant, same failed containment domes, same junk shot, same top kill. It's all the same technology. The Ixtoc well, which couldn't be plugged for nine months, was in 200 feet of water. Now, in 2010, we're using the same techniques to try to plug a well that is leaking in 5,000 feet of water."

Let's hope yesterday's "top cap" works better so we can at least slow the death and destruction of our wetlands caught by AP photographers in spite of BP's attempts to keep photojournalists from documenting what their leak has caused.

BP should be held accountable for cleaning up every drop they spilled and liable for every death they caused IMHO.

June 04, 2010 9:08 AM  
Blogger Jennifer said...

Safety drilling is still the key here. The Katch Kan is doing a safety drilling take this oil and gas report to have an idea what is the company all about.

February 24, 2012 9:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home