After my "rant" last night that supports Howard Stern's discussion on reasons why there are so few Doctors and so little reform I read this Editorial in the NY Times this morning regarding the current bill to increase medical residencies.
The authors are from the Dartmouth Institute the one that studies the discrepancies with regards to health care costs and benefits. They are widely cited in their research that shows care costs are all over the map and there is little real reasoning or need for some of the outrageous costs and expenses when it comes to saving a life.
I have to agree that until its you that is "dying" you wonder why you would go to one Hospital and the procedures there could make the end of life equally helpful or extended and go to another with basically the same result and the costs 10x higher. The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota is one noted hospital where care, quality and costs are significantly lower than many other major counterparts. Reasoning aside there is no universal "standard" when it comes to treatment and therefore no universal cost either. So an X-Ray could cost in one city $150 dollars and $400 in other. Same equipment, same technician and skill set so why the difference.
As I have theorized some of it is dictated by what the Doctors (specifically specialists make) there is encouragement to run numerous treatments and tests with significant financial rewards and outcomes for the Doctor/Hospital often with little result or affect on the patient. That and that Insurance also dictates costs, treatments and in turn payments you have this odd discrepancies between treatment and care and ultimately costs.
So would having more Doctors benefit us? YES if they were in the General Practice category. Those in the front lines of medical treatment for early diagnosis and preventative care. But there is no MONEY in that field so we have more Doctors practicing in cities where fees can be higher and more and more "specialists" who can demand exorbitant fees. The more the "specialists" the more the cost. Nothing wrong with getting quality care as those people are always supposed to be on the cutting edge of change but again I really wonder are they? The lack of transparency is something here I would like to see. If the medical field were like car dealers or even construction businesses where they had to show the actual costs on invoice for each item and the markup for them that is based on overhead of the business you would see exactly how and why something costs what it costs.
I used to work in Time and Materials contract. I had a standard markup for simple standard building items a higher markup for those special orders and requests that were not readily available. The reasoning being is that I may have to take more time in finding, storing or even understanding the needs for that item. I can't bill for "time" to read specs or information which could take hours on some things so I simply marked that item up more to cover the time required to make sure we had the things we needed to install it and that more importantly HOW to do it. Many contractors have markups that vary on the type of work.. interior vs exterior, plumbing vs electrical needs and so. Its often complex and confusing so many choose to keep that "rationale" to themselves and ultimately it can bite you in the ass later when trying to truly maintain bookkeeping records.
I chose transparency and then I could easily measure what was costing me more vs less and adjust accordingly. If I found that installing IKEA cabinets took more time and materials their markup was simply higher. People were always surprised that I had a higher markup on those cabinets as well as any restored or recycled ones. They simply took more time and not just labor (and materials) but in planning and that needed to be compensated as well.
So having a fully itemized billing with costs, time and full awareness of why each thing is this is not easy and that took time.. but my customers saw where there dollar was going. I included copies of time sheets as well for any worker. TMI was the end result but I had never had a dispute of why something was this.. they saw it.
Most people hate accounting and bookkeeping and few professionals outside of business majors take the course work needed to understand the complexities of running a business. Again be you Doctors or Dentists or Contractors you have the cost of doing business. Insurance - liability and otherwise, employees, materials, rent and other expenses. The value of having an Accountant or Consultant who specializes in that type of business to set up and periodically come in audit and plan would I believe largely help offset these outrageous and sometimes unexplainable costs; as well as help these businesses succeed.
The other is being realistic about what you want to earn. I truly am mystified that Doctors think that six figure salaries are acceptable. Much like Bankers who claim to be doing "God's work" also feel that is equitable we have become a nation where all professions deserve huge incomes which for years were considered noble or decent or simply a desire to do "good". Meanwhile those individuals such as Farmers who feed us, Educators who teach us, Nurses who do the front line work are paid significantly less. The reasoning being is that they "chose" their profession and needed less schooling etc. Okay.... There is no justification that they are doing any less of "God's work" than the assholes at Goldman's or some Doctor/God at UCLA.
Equity has been the large argument in regards to reform. Deserving or not and no one wants to give up anything. I remember growing up we used to all know that Doctor's wives were the one's in fur. I never understood that as frankly I have not been all that impressed with Doctors in my life. I have prayed, hoped and feared every time I go to a Doctor. I simply do not trust them. I sadly now have gotten older and had to go them. Right now I wish I could go to Peru to get my Dental work. I feel very much exploited and exposed and have no other choice. And to those who don't want reform well one day you will be here too and these are tight shoes to walk in.
______________________________________________________
Doctors No One Needs
By SHANNON BROWNLEE and DAVID GOODMAN
Published: December 22, 2009
FOR anyone who has had to wait a long time to schedule a medical appointment, it might seem as if the world needs more doctors, and that training more of them would be a good idea. An amendment that teaching hospitals are pushing to include in the health care legislation before a final vote is taken in the Senate and the House would do just that. It would add 15,000 medical residency slots to the 100,000 residencies the federal government now finances, most of them through Medicare.
This amendment is being heavily promoted by several doctor specialty societies and the Association of American Medical Colleges, a group that represents the nation’s major teaching hospitals. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It would raise Medicare’s bill for residencies, which is already $9 billion a year. More important, since the cost of health care follows the supply of doctors, the added slots would substantially increase the national health care bill. And the measure would not address the underlying reason that patients are forced to wait to see doctors.
Over the past 20 years, the number of doctors in relation to the American population has risen by 30 percent. Yet in many parts of the country, more doctors has simply meant more doctors, not better access for patients, not better communication among a patient’s health care providers, and not better results. The truth is that regions with the highest number of doctors per capita tend to deliver lower quality care at a higher cost.
Increasing the number of doctors would make our health care system worse, not better, because the United States doesn’t actually need more doctors. What we do need is for primary care to reclaim its central role in the delivery of medicine, to provide the preventive care, chronic disease management and coordination of services that is lacking in so many parts of the country. Primary care doctors can help patients avoid unnecessary visits to specialists, hospitals and emergency rooms, thus lowering health care costs.
Granted, the teaching hospitals and others lobbying for more doctors would have Congress designate some of the new residency slots for family practice, pediatrics and internal medicine. But there are already plenty of residency openings in those areas that currently go unfilled. And since the amendment would not prohibit the positions going to specialists, that is who would fill them. If the past is prologue, these newly minted specialists would most likely gravitate toward cities like New York, Los Angeles and Miami, which already have plenty of doctors — and relatively poor care.
Our national problem is that primary care doctors are leaving their practices in droves, driven out by their low pay (relative to that of specialists), long hours and mountains of paperwork. Some of them go to work in emergency rooms or hospitals, others become specialists, and many simply abandon medicine. The idea that there’s a supply-side solution to this problem is a little like thinking you can fill a bucket with holes in the bottom by pouring in more water.
Increasing the number of residency slots would also mean that the United States would continue to rob other nations of their doctors. More than a quarter of American residencies are filled by graduates of foreign medical schools, more than half of them from poor countries. After training here, many stay, leaving the people of their own countries holding the bill for their training. In a kind of reverse foreign aid, the president’s Global Health Initiative is poised to invest millions in medical education in Africa and elsewhere, while American academic institutions expect to employ more of their medical school graduates.
Before adding residency slots, Congress should demand that academic medical centers come up with a plan to improve the disorganized, fragmented care that plagues much of the country. Insurers and Medicare should pay family-practice doctors and general internists enough to keep them in the field. And federal financing for medical education programs should hinge on their plans to train more primary care doctors and fewer specialists.
Otherwise, we’ll simply end up perpetuating a system in which too many doctors provide poor-quality care at too high a price.
Shannon Brownlee, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, is the author of “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.” David Goodman is a professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Howard Stern may be right
Last week I was listening to Howard Stern discussing why he believes most Doctors are AGAINST health care reform. Now Howard may be the last person one would validate as an accurate pundit on the issue but there were some things he said resonated with me that made me think he may be right.
His points were that the AMA wants fewer Doctors as fewer Doctors mean a select supply of available physicians who will corner the market and in turn dictate fees and rates. Yes tort reform is essential but one has to wonder with the level of care by these "elites" why would anyone sue let alone win for negligence. Well maybe that is because the elite aren't necessarily good at what they do despite the ability to pass the complex test and stringent and bizarre requirements (days with no sleep, etc) during their training which somehow makes someone a "better" Doctor.
Howard reminded the listeners that the amount of time 8 years and more in school and internships puts one in a vaulted place of few and the God like belief that you are unique and talented. So talented that you should receive a higher salary and lifestyle befitting one of such status. So one who believes as such would go to great lengths to assure its retention and do little to affect its loss.
Doctors are not satisfied making middle class incomes they want to be rich. They "heal" people. Well what they do is administer the teachings and practices of years gone by practices and the work done by their more intelligent and innovative physicians who research for years unrecognized for their efforts.. of course they are compensated and financed well by the drug companies for their efforts. But let's get real there are FEW Doctors that are "geniuses" who solve and cure illness. I commend the Doctors that do advocate reform but I have to wonder if they are just more ethical or simply more pissed that they can't get their share of the pie.
In all sincerity I have to wonder where we really are with resolutions. Nixon declared a war on cancer in 1971 and little has been done to cure this disease. Well why when there is money in the treatments for the "cure." And yet we have a pill that enables men a one hour erection but nothing that prevents that same role in conception? Priorities and finances dictate care and treatment. Why else would they spend 1.5 million plus a day to ensure little is done to change the status quo.
I am facing debts of a small car in Dental care. Dental care has risen even faster than medical costs over inflation with great advances in technology that should make both costs and treatments less so. But instead its just the opposite. I was told by one Dentist if I wanted to do this right I should just get out the gold Amex. I was wondering whose gold Amex to which he was referring.
I found this in ParaPundit blog site....
A federal survey shows that 27 percent of adults without insurance saw a dentist in 2004, down from 29 percent in 1996, when dental fees were significantly lower, even after adjusting for inflation. For adults with private insurance, the rate was virtually unchanged, at 57 percent, up from 56 percent. Since 1990, the number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat, about 150,000 to 160,000, while the population has risen about 22 percent. In addition, more dentists are working part time.
Notice the point above about more dentists working part time. That's probably at least in part due to a rising number of women working as dentists. Women work fewer hours than men on average. So when the number of training slots remains the same but more slots are given to women the effect is to decrease the supply of workers available.
Curiously, for those men who still manage to win a slot in dental school the effect is to raise their income. So the men who don't make it into dentistry make less money than they would have but the men who still manage to win a spot in a dental school make more. Yet another reason why inequality is rising. It really pays to be a winner. Try to avoid losing.
The inflation-adjusted cost of dentistry is rising.
Partly as a result, dental fees have risen much faster than inflation. In real dollars, the cost of the average dental procedure rose 25 percent from 1996 to 2004. The average American adult patient now spends roughly $600 annually on dental care, with insurance picking up about half the tab.
Dentists’ incomes have grown faster than that of the typical American and the incomes of medical doctors. Formerly poor relations to physicians, American dentists in general practice made an average salary of $185,000 in 2004, the most recent data available. That figure is similar to what non-specialist doctors make, but dentists work far fewer hours.
Since fewer dentists are getting trained now than in the early 1980s (a decline of over 20%) the number of dentists will actually decrease in coming years as many practicing dentists retire. So if you are thinking about getting dental work done best to get it done sooner. It will probably cost less now than in a few years from now. Another alternative is to get dental work done in another country if you have any plans for travel to countries with lower dental costs.
The article reports that pediatricians are applying flouride varnish to baby teeth so that poor parents can avoid the need to see dentists. Great idea. Avoiding cavities is the best outcome. Also, we could make much more use of cheaper dental technicians like other countries do.
Outside the United States, more than 50 countries, including some western European nations, now allow technicians called dental therapists to drill and fill cavities, usually in children.
One does not need all the knowledge of a dentist to do the drilling and filling of cavities. A dental caries vaccine would be a great way to cut the need for dentistry as well.
By Randall Parker at 2007 October 14 06:46 PM Economics Health
Again the concept of supply and demand, an aging population with increasing dental needs it seems that once again perhaps reform is not something anyone wants to see in this industry either.
Dental Insurance that I carry has a 1,000 limit annually. Not enough to even make headway on any major oral work required and once again most work is not covered, from implants to surgery the insurance coverage is denied.
So on this eve of supposedly health reform ask yourself what is really holding back reform. GREED. We have way too many individuals, including practitioners that would not like to see their income drop or costs to be transparent and equitable. Sorry that just is not the American way. I mean you spent six figures getting that "special" degree and yet you also signed an oath to do no harm but that hasn't stopped you.
I don't revere Doctors or Dentists. I respect them for their work. But I do not understand how they can be thought of as "deserving" a six figure income for simply administering basic care.
His points were that the AMA wants fewer Doctors as fewer Doctors mean a select supply of available physicians who will corner the market and in turn dictate fees and rates. Yes tort reform is essential but one has to wonder with the level of care by these "elites" why would anyone sue let alone win for negligence. Well maybe that is because the elite aren't necessarily good at what they do despite the ability to pass the complex test and stringent and bizarre requirements (days with no sleep, etc) during their training which somehow makes someone a "better" Doctor.
Howard reminded the listeners that the amount of time 8 years and more in school and internships puts one in a vaulted place of few and the God like belief that you are unique and talented. So talented that you should receive a higher salary and lifestyle befitting one of such status. So one who believes as such would go to great lengths to assure its retention and do little to affect its loss.
Doctors are not satisfied making middle class incomes they want to be rich. They "heal" people. Well what they do is administer the teachings and practices of years gone by practices and the work done by their more intelligent and innovative physicians who research for years unrecognized for their efforts.. of course they are compensated and financed well by the drug companies for their efforts. But let's get real there are FEW Doctors that are "geniuses" who solve and cure illness. I commend the Doctors that do advocate reform but I have to wonder if they are just more ethical or simply more pissed that they can't get their share of the pie.
In all sincerity I have to wonder where we really are with resolutions. Nixon declared a war on cancer in 1971 and little has been done to cure this disease. Well why when there is money in the treatments for the "cure." And yet we have a pill that enables men a one hour erection but nothing that prevents that same role in conception? Priorities and finances dictate care and treatment. Why else would they spend 1.5 million plus a day to ensure little is done to change the status quo.
I am facing debts of a small car in Dental care. Dental care has risen even faster than medical costs over inflation with great advances in technology that should make both costs and treatments less so. But instead its just the opposite. I was told by one Dentist if I wanted to do this right I should just get out the gold Amex. I was wondering whose gold Amex to which he was referring.
I found this in ParaPundit blog site....
A federal survey shows that 27 percent of adults without insurance saw a dentist in 2004, down from 29 percent in 1996, when dental fees were significantly lower, even after adjusting for inflation. For adults with private insurance, the rate was virtually unchanged, at 57 percent, up from 56 percent. Since 1990, the number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat, about 150,000 to 160,000, while the population has risen about 22 percent. In addition, more dentists are working part time.
Notice the point above about more dentists working part time. That's probably at least in part due to a rising number of women working as dentists. Women work fewer hours than men on average. So when the number of training slots remains the same but more slots are given to women the effect is to decrease the supply of workers available.
Curiously, for those men who still manage to win a slot in dental school the effect is to raise their income. So the men who don't make it into dentistry make less money than they would have but the men who still manage to win a spot in a dental school make more. Yet another reason why inequality is rising. It really pays to be a winner. Try to avoid losing.
The inflation-adjusted cost of dentistry is rising.
Partly as a result, dental fees have risen much faster than inflation. In real dollars, the cost of the average dental procedure rose 25 percent from 1996 to 2004. The average American adult patient now spends roughly $600 annually on dental care, with insurance picking up about half the tab.
Dentists’ incomes have grown faster than that of the typical American and the incomes of medical doctors. Formerly poor relations to physicians, American dentists in general practice made an average salary of $185,000 in 2004, the most recent data available. That figure is similar to what non-specialist doctors make, but dentists work far fewer hours.
Since fewer dentists are getting trained now than in the early 1980s (a decline of over 20%) the number of dentists will actually decrease in coming years as many practicing dentists retire. So if you are thinking about getting dental work done best to get it done sooner. It will probably cost less now than in a few years from now. Another alternative is to get dental work done in another country if you have any plans for travel to countries with lower dental costs.
The article reports that pediatricians are applying flouride varnish to baby teeth so that poor parents can avoid the need to see dentists. Great idea. Avoiding cavities is the best outcome. Also, we could make much more use of cheaper dental technicians like other countries do.
Outside the United States, more than 50 countries, including some western European nations, now allow technicians called dental therapists to drill and fill cavities, usually in children.
One does not need all the knowledge of a dentist to do the drilling and filling of cavities. A dental caries vaccine would be a great way to cut the need for dentistry as well.
By Randall Parker at 2007 October 14 06:46 PM Economics Health
Again the concept of supply and demand, an aging population with increasing dental needs it seems that once again perhaps reform is not something anyone wants to see in this industry either.
Dental Insurance that I carry has a 1,000 limit annually. Not enough to even make headway on any major oral work required and once again most work is not covered, from implants to surgery the insurance coverage is denied.
So on this eve of supposedly health reform ask yourself what is really holding back reform. GREED. We have way too many individuals, including practitioners that would not like to see their income drop or costs to be transparent and equitable. Sorry that just is not the American way. I mean you spent six figures getting that "special" degree and yet you also signed an oath to do no harm but that hasn't stopped you.
I don't revere Doctors or Dentists. I respect them for their work. But I do not understand how they can be thought of as "deserving" a six figure income for simply administering basic care.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Health Care = Dead Care
I red this this morning in the American Prospect with regards to the ongoing hideous argument that seems to pervade when it comes to health care.
I also just read in Fast Company an article about John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods who is a self avowed Conscious Capitalist as in Libertarian in Green colors making excuses and spouting insane rhetoric about the need for less is more when it comes to regulation, Government and of course anything that stops the ongoing pursuit of company good at the sake of doing so for the benefit of all. In other words Free Market economy Ayn Rand style. God did she manage to blow him too? I am sure she was well into her dotage when the hippie philosopher was finding himself in the 70s? My God there is hope for me!
I will say the author, Paul Waldman, pulls no punches when it comes to assailing the reasons Republicans/Conservative and Joe Liberman are against health care. Not to mention the MILLIONS of dollars they reap from their alliance to this murderous industry. Ironic or is it an oxymoron to say health care is responsible for over 45,000 deaths a year in this country. What can you say when arguing for the right to health care for all. This is Darwinian let the weakest die off - oh wait that is a principle that Conservatives can't espouse. Wasn't Darwin one of those Evolutionists? Well in this case they would be happy to use survival of the fittest if it meant getting their way.
I reprint the article below and if you are interested in the insane interview with guru to the new Libertarian movement in Fast Company please click on the link to the article. I will not reprint it as one must also read the sycophants responses that undoubtedly flooded at Mackey's request decrying the interview. Good times!
__________________________________________________
A Eulogy for the Public Option?
If health-care reform is to be a true progressive victory, there has to be room for future improvement.
Paul Waldman | December 15, 2009 | web only
The debate over health-care reform has been many things. It has been an education in both the intricacies of public policy and the ease with which fears can be activated and deception accomplished. It has been a dispiriting exercise in the limits and pathologies of American politics. And it has been a clash of values.
Because progressives think government can actually solve problems, they tend to have at least a partially technocratic view of policy. At least in theory, it should be possible to analyze a problem, assess various solutions to it, select the one most likely to solve it, and then implement that solution. Yet so often in our country, this self-evidently sensible approach ends up feeling like an unattainable ideal.
In the course of this process, we've discovered -- if there was any doubt before -- just how deep conservatives' hatred of government runs, from the grass roots all the way to members of Congress. It's not just that right-wingers are suspicious of government or that they prefer the free market whenever possible. Their antipathy to government is so intense that they would rather see some of their fellow citizens die for lack of health insurance than see those citizens get government coverage. That may sound like a harsh assessment, but it is no exaggeration. In the system as it is today, 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. If you believe the status quo is preferable to an expansion of government's role in health care, you're supporting that.
Each week seems to bring a new proposal or compromise that inches us closer to a conclusion of this debate. The latest, announced in somewhat vague terms by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week, would have traded the public option for a new system that would have included national nonprofit insurers in the exchanges. Perhaps most remarkably, the proposal would have allowed people over 55 who didn't have insurance from their employers to buy coverage from Medicare. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman withdrew his support for this deal, effectively ruling out the Medicare expansion and killing hope for any sort of public option in the process.This latest compromise may have failed, but it's worth taking stock of where the progressive values that are supposed to be driving this whole effort now stand.
While health-care reform is a subject of almost infinite complexity and involves hundreds of other important issues (like cost), I would argue that there are two essential value questions progressives should continue to ask themselves at each bend in the road to reform: Are we getting a system that is universal? And will Americans get the security that so many of them now lack?
The fact that the United States is the only industrialized country where many citizens don't have access to medical care has always been a major offense to progressive values. Conservatives believe in markets, with the understanding that markets seldom work out for everyone. Progressives, on the other hand, believe that there are some areas – health care being one – where citizens should not be left to the market's mercies. The idea of universal coverage is that everyone – and we mean everyone – deserves coverage, just as everyone deserves an education or the right to worship as they please.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that both the bill passed by the House and the initial Senate bill would cover 94 percent of Americans when fully implemented. This is both very good and not quite good enough: Over 30 million people who wouldn't otherwise have coverage will get it, but around 18 million people will still be without it.
And what about security? As I've argued many times before, this was always the most compelling justification for the public option. The simple fact is that government health insurance offers security, while private health insurance doesn't. Most of the time, private health insurance works just fine for people. But people with pre-existing conditions can't get covered, people who get sick find themselves thrown off their insurance, and people who thought they had good coverage wind up being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. None of these things happen to people who have government health insurance. Medicare doesn't deny people coverage because of their prior medical history. The Veterans' Administration doesn't have “lifetime limits."
That's the most critical fact separating government health coverage from private health coverage, and the essential reason progressives wanted even a watered-down public option. While an attempt to ensure security within the private system is certainly being made, most of us will still have no choice but to rely on a private insurance company now that the public option is on its way out.
So we need to consider whether health-care legislation sets the conditions for future improvements. How hard will it be to implement further changes that push the system in the direction it ought to go? If you establish one national health-insurance exchange instead of 50 state exchanges, for example, it will be much easier to deal with insurance-company abuses as they arise.
Health-care reform's ability to evolve is why the expansion of Medicare could be so important – and why conservatives are terrified of it. If we opened Medicare to anyone over the age of 55, it would change the nature of the program -- it would no longer be an insurance system just meant for retired Americans. If people from 55 to 64 turn out to like it (as they likely would, given that Medicare beneficiaries are substantially more satisfied with their insurance when compared to those with private insurance), it would become perfectly reasonable to open the program up to people over 45, or 35, or 25 in the future. Opening up Medicare would serve the progressive values of both universality and security, which is precisely why Joe Lieberman, who has made wreaking vengeance on progressives his twisted life's work, has now vowed to kill it.
Two fundamentally different visions of a just society are at odds in the debate over health care. Does that mean that if reform passes, the progressive vision will have triumphed? That depends on your view of the fullness of the reform glass.
Unfortunately, if it does pass, the United States will still have what is in many ways the worst health-care system in the developed world. It will still be the most expensive and the least able to control costs. It will still leave for-profit insurance companies with more control over citizens' lives than those companies have in any comparable nation. Even if the most optimistic predictions about coverage come true, it will still leave us with more uninsured than other countries have.
If we're lucky, reform will make it easier for those problems to be solved down the road. Whether a political and policy victory becomes a lasting triumph of progressive values is something we won't know for quite a few years.
I also just read in Fast Company an article about John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods who is a self avowed Conscious Capitalist as in Libertarian in Green colors making excuses and spouting insane rhetoric about the need for less is more when it comes to regulation, Government and of course anything that stops the ongoing pursuit of company good at the sake of doing so for the benefit of all. In other words Free Market economy Ayn Rand style. God did she manage to blow him too? I am sure she was well into her dotage when the hippie philosopher was finding himself in the 70s? My God there is hope for me!
I will say the author, Paul Waldman, pulls no punches when it comes to assailing the reasons Republicans/Conservative and Joe Liberman are against health care. Not to mention the MILLIONS of dollars they reap from their alliance to this murderous industry. Ironic or is it an oxymoron to say health care is responsible for over 45,000 deaths a year in this country. What can you say when arguing for the right to health care for all. This is Darwinian let the weakest die off - oh wait that is a principle that Conservatives can't espouse. Wasn't Darwin one of those Evolutionists? Well in this case they would be happy to use survival of the fittest if it meant getting their way.
I reprint the article below and if you are interested in the insane interview with guru to the new Libertarian movement in Fast Company please click on the link to the article. I will not reprint it as one must also read the sycophants responses that undoubtedly flooded at Mackey's request decrying the interview. Good times!
__________________________________________________
A Eulogy for the Public Option?
If health-care reform is to be a true progressive victory, there has to be room for future improvement.
Paul Waldman | December 15, 2009 | web only
The debate over health-care reform has been many things. It has been an education in both the intricacies of public policy and the ease with which fears can be activated and deception accomplished. It has been a dispiriting exercise in the limits and pathologies of American politics. And it has been a clash of values.
Because progressives think government can actually solve problems, they tend to have at least a partially technocratic view of policy. At least in theory, it should be possible to analyze a problem, assess various solutions to it, select the one most likely to solve it, and then implement that solution. Yet so often in our country, this self-evidently sensible approach ends up feeling like an unattainable ideal.
In the course of this process, we've discovered -- if there was any doubt before -- just how deep conservatives' hatred of government runs, from the grass roots all the way to members of Congress. It's not just that right-wingers are suspicious of government or that they prefer the free market whenever possible. Their antipathy to government is so intense that they would rather see some of their fellow citizens die for lack of health insurance than see those citizens get government coverage. That may sound like a harsh assessment, but it is no exaggeration. In the system as it is today, 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. If you believe the status quo is preferable to an expansion of government's role in health care, you're supporting that.
Each week seems to bring a new proposal or compromise that inches us closer to a conclusion of this debate. The latest, announced in somewhat vague terms by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week, would have traded the public option for a new system that would have included national nonprofit insurers in the exchanges. Perhaps most remarkably, the proposal would have allowed people over 55 who didn't have insurance from their employers to buy coverage from Medicare. Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman withdrew his support for this deal, effectively ruling out the Medicare expansion and killing hope for any sort of public option in the process.This latest compromise may have failed, but it's worth taking stock of where the progressive values that are supposed to be driving this whole effort now stand.
While health-care reform is a subject of almost infinite complexity and involves hundreds of other important issues (like cost), I would argue that there are two essential value questions progressives should continue to ask themselves at each bend in the road to reform: Are we getting a system that is universal? And will Americans get the security that so many of them now lack?
The fact that the United States is the only industrialized country where many citizens don't have access to medical care has always been a major offense to progressive values. Conservatives believe in markets, with the understanding that markets seldom work out for everyone. Progressives, on the other hand, believe that there are some areas – health care being one – where citizens should not be left to the market's mercies. The idea of universal coverage is that everyone – and we mean everyone – deserves coverage, just as everyone deserves an education or the right to worship as they please.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that both the bill passed by the House and the initial Senate bill would cover 94 percent of Americans when fully implemented. This is both very good and not quite good enough: Over 30 million people who wouldn't otherwise have coverage will get it, but around 18 million people will still be without it.
And what about security? As I've argued many times before, this was always the most compelling justification for the public option. The simple fact is that government health insurance offers security, while private health insurance doesn't. Most of the time, private health insurance works just fine for people. But people with pre-existing conditions can't get covered, people who get sick find themselves thrown off their insurance, and people who thought they had good coverage wind up being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills. None of these things happen to people who have government health insurance. Medicare doesn't deny people coverage because of their prior medical history. The Veterans' Administration doesn't have “lifetime limits."
That's the most critical fact separating government health coverage from private health coverage, and the essential reason progressives wanted even a watered-down public option. While an attempt to ensure security within the private system is certainly being made, most of us will still have no choice but to rely on a private insurance company now that the public option is on its way out.
So we need to consider whether health-care legislation sets the conditions for future improvements. How hard will it be to implement further changes that push the system in the direction it ought to go? If you establish one national health-insurance exchange instead of 50 state exchanges, for example, it will be much easier to deal with insurance-company abuses as they arise.
Health-care reform's ability to evolve is why the expansion of Medicare could be so important – and why conservatives are terrified of it. If we opened Medicare to anyone over the age of 55, it would change the nature of the program -- it would no longer be an insurance system just meant for retired Americans. If people from 55 to 64 turn out to like it (as they likely would, given that Medicare beneficiaries are substantially more satisfied with their insurance when compared to those with private insurance), it would become perfectly reasonable to open the program up to people over 45, or 35, or 25 in the future. Opening up Medicare would serve the progressive values of both universality and security, which is precisely why Joe Lieberman, who has made wreaking vengeance on progressives his twisted life's work, has now vowed to kill it.
Two fundamentally different visions of a just society are at odds in the debate over health care. Does that mean that if reform passes, the progressive vision will have triumphed? That depends on your view of the fullness of the reform glass.
Unfortunately, if it does pass, the United States will still have what is in many ways the worst health-care system in the developed world. It will still be the most expensive and the least able to control costs. It will still leave for-profit insurance companies with more control over citizens' lives than those companies have in any comparable nation. Even if the most optimistic predictions about coverage come true, it will still leave us with more uninsured than other countries have.
If we're lucky, reform will make it easier for those problems to be solved down the road. Whether a political and policy victory becomes a lasting triumph of progressive values is something we won't know for quite a few years.
Social Media and other Marketing Tools
One of the things that I value is privacy. This is getting tougher and tougher with the ever increasing ways one can invade and/or disclose one's personal privacy.
I recall reading an interview or two or ten where the author/speaker says "anyone without a website will not be in business by the end of the decade." Well we are ending a decade and you would be surprised at the number of business that still do not have web pages and those with web pages but no business anymore.
How significant a web page was in driving business is something I would like very much to see numbers on. For years business people were told without a presence in the Yellow Pages you would lose significant business. Again numbers like that would have to be measured and analyzed and most small businesses rarely do that type of cost benefit analysis.
I actually do ask every client how they found me. You would be surprised how few actually recall but most found me through a flyer, brochure or some actual physical contact with my information. I get some who found me from googling a yellow page ad which still lists my construction business but NONE who ever found me via googling "green consultant" and then going to my website reading the information and in turn contacting me that way. Few actually read my website and what is interesting is that they are sure I am still a contractor despite the information to the contrary.
Now admittedly I do perform a unique service and most people think all contractors and speciality contractors (roofers, etc) are fully educated and informed about current building science, green build, etc and in turn will inform they, the customer, about all those options. As you read in a previous blog we know that it is not the case and its why I thought education or coaching would be a beneficial niche. However being unique doesn't mean you are the only one. There are many in my field and many who do different things under the same "green" umbrella.
It is extremely challenging to be a small provider in business and spend the money getting new training, education and also supporting, marketing and running a business. So you get what we have in the field - those who have vested entirely in green build and those who are struggling to find the balance. The have and have-nots I call them. Like banks it appears that small single shingle businesses will dissolve in the wake of bigger better financed companies/builders who can ride this out by taking on remodeling while in turn driving out their competitors. Its going to get a lot worse on the construction front in the years ahead as they fight over the "cash for caulkers" program that Obama is proposing.
So how do you market your business in ways that is affordable and reaches a number of heads that will actually utilize your services?
1. Advertising. Through both conventional print, television and radio. Well I have done varying print options and I can assure you NONE of them brought me any business. I tried transit advertising and it did bring me one call for something so out there I can't even say what to say about it but it did get a call. But almost ALL of the calls were other advertising and marketing firms looking to further their business.
2. Networking. From joining varying groups - BNI, LeTip, Chamber of Commerce. Well those are fine if that is what you are looking for expensive organizations that are almost pyramid schemes to keep them in business. I have participated in the free meet and greets and frankly have NEVER gotten any business from them in anyway but hits from them to get their members business.
3. Google Ads. I have no idea if these work at all. Again what clients say is they don't recall exactly how they found me; I am thinking they probably don't want to admit that this is the way the found me. I spend very little on this and my belief is that it is not really the most successful way of advertising but it is a great way of building brand/name recognition. But as I don't "click that link" I think most consumers are like me and would prefer to research it further thinking of course that those not paying for advertising are not trying as hard and in turn are ones who business I support. If anything it is almost a reverse logic or at least inherent skepticism.
But again I try to think like my customers and my market and this is Seattle a notoriously "thrifty" city that prides itself on being green so they also don't think they need my services as much as they think. And in this economy people are not realizing how much they actually need me so going for word of mouth is not something I can rely on when there are few mouths.
5. Trade Shows. These are great again at building a brand. Ironically I got more out of state clients from a local trade show than local ones. Why? Because where they live they don't have this kind of service, I am affordable and accommodating.
In those cases I did much of the work via Skype and E-mail and sent them what they need in an easy report with samples and product specs. In that case they if they are seeking LEED or other certs, I will find out if these qualify for points and in turn they can find someone at "home" who will sign off at that time when they ultimately make the final decision.
Trade shows are great at finding partners for that endeavor, however, who share your these are extremely expensive and I will not do them again unless I can find a co-operative venture or small neighborhood/community ones that are affordable and on single weekend days or in summer months.
6. Guerrilla Marketing. These are the flyer's, brochures, etc that you literally spread throughout your community. This is small business but it builds your business in your area. You will have to do this alone or with help but this was and still is my larges and most affordable marketing tool.
7. Social Media. This is the MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Blogging, etc. I have a business Facebook page and a LinkedIn profile and guess what NOT a call or customer. Why that doesn't shock me. Again my odd niche of what I do attracts numerous "greenies" wanting to connect with me but mostly they are time consuming and distracting. My LinkedIn profile is so generic and vague with details and specifics that I get few inquires or "links."
I do not have a personal Facebook nor do I Twitter. I was highly reticent about blogging as there are so many enthusiastic bloggers about green building and the like I frankly did not want mine to become GBA or Jetson Green as that is not who I am nor have plans to be.
I real life I have no need to Facebook anyone. I can call them or email them and speak to them directly. I text only when I need to and do not use that as a substitute to actually pick up a phone and call. And guess what I have personal stationery and still send thank you cards and mail when I can. I think there is something meaningful about a personalized note. I do not need people from 20 years ago getting in touch with me because we went to grade/high school together. I am sorry but its not 1977 anymore and if we were such great friends then why weren't we still friends now and well its not 1977 anymore so I am not sure I care to relieve the time period thanks. I never looked good in clingy palazzo pants.
I read that you will have to have a Facebook to survive and Twitter if you want your business to succeed. What.Ever. I think like many millions of small business people the mundane details of our daily lives and business is not something for the masses. Do I think a Facebook page with my photos and personal information will find me business or a job that has meaning? I have no idea because given what I know about people and the marketplace I don't think so. I think its largely a fad and way to not be alone. To find people like you and to distract you from yourself or your poor work. I don't think real business people are using the site to find like business minds, employees or business (and I don't and I don't think I am all that unique either) I think they are using it to check up on employees or prospective employees and what they are up to. I don't think its a good thing.
I also don't think its a good thing to put up too much personal information. With hackers and identity theft on the rise do you really need anyone and everyone to know when and where you went to school, your past employment history and your personal details to the nth degree? What are you thinking. I have had two very odd encounters from online information and now no longer even use Craigslist to buy or sell anything. Think about it recall the power of Ebay? We stick with nothing long enough anymore to really measure its true meaning or longevity. Its only a matter of time before Craigslist is replaced. Too many frauds, scams and killers have destroyed its usefulness.
I received a call from someone who said he saw my profile on LinkedIn and was my classmate at the UW. I knew immediately he was lying because the dates I listed are current ones not actual ones but he said he wanted to talk about what I do. So I met him at a Starbucks far from my home in the midday. Sure enough a suburban dad arrived sat down said "you aren't who I think you are" and left immediately. That is another reason why my photo is obama-ized. You have to be careful regardless.
I was listening to Howard Stern this morning and he said this is further proof that we are de-evolving and are infantalizing ourselves. We have Apps (I am sure that will be the next MUST for business) that basically do everything now so we don't have to ever be home and when we are out its like being at home so its not so lonely. Next time you are in a coffee shop, bar or restaurant watch how many people are texting, surfing, listening to anything but the people around them. Its stranger danger but without the strangers or the danger right?
If you really believe your business thrives and your resume is attracting legitimate offers than I commend you. I just find that well businesses grew way before the Internet and they are the ones oddly still here. They understand the need for flexibility but one cannot underestimate the power of the past and what experience it brings to the table.
I am not set in my ways I just have divisions of what is personal and what is business. I respect my privacy and more importantly why I advocate transparency in business I don't feel the same way about that in person.
I recall reading an interview or two or ten where the author/speaker says "anyone without a website will not be in business by the end of the decade." Well we are ending a decade and you would be surprised at the number of business that still do not have web pages and those with web pages but no business anymore.
How significant a web page was in driving business is something I would like very much to see numbers on. For years business people were told without a presence in the Yellow Pages you would lose significant business. Again numbers like that would have to be measured and analyzed and most small businesses rarely do that type of cost benefit analysis.
I actually do ask every client how they found me. You would be surprised how few actually recall but most found me through a flyer, brochure or some actual physical contact with my information. I get some who found me from googling a yellow page ad which still lists my construction business but NONE who ever found me via googling "green consultant" and then going to my website reading the information and in turn contacting me that way. Few actually read my website and what is interesting is that they are sure I am still a contractor despite the information to the contrary.
Now admittedly I do perform a unique service and most people think all contractors and speciality contractors (roofers, etc) are fully educated and informed about current building science, green build, etc and in turn will inform they, the customer, about all those options. As you read in a previous blog we know that it is not the case and its why I thought education or coaching would be a beneficial niche. However being unique doesn't mean you are the only one. There are many in my field and many who do different things under the same "green" umbrella.
It is extremely challenging to be a small provider in business and spend the money getting new training, education and also supporting, marketing and running a business. So you get what we have in the field - those who have vested entirely in green build and those who are struggling to find the balance. The have and have-nots I call them. Like banks it appears that small single shingle businesses will dissolve in the wake of bigger better financed companies/builders who can ride this out by taking on remodeling while in turn driving out their competitors. Its going to get a lot worse on the construction front in the years ahead as they fight over the "cash for caulkers" program that Obama is proposing.
So how do you market your business in ways that is affordable and reaches a number of heads that will actually utilize your services?
1. Advertising. Through both conventional print, television and radio. Well I have done varying print options and I can assure you NONE of them brought me any business. I tried transit advertising and it did bring me one call for something so out there I can't even say what to say about it but it did get a call. But almost ALL of the calls were other advertising and marketing firms looking to further their business.
2. Networking. From joining varying groups - BNI, LeTip, Chamber of Commerce. Well those are fine if that is what you are looking for expensive organizations that are almost pyramid schemes to keep them in business. I have participated in the free meet and greets and frankly have NEVER gotten any business from them in anyway but hits from them to get their members business.
3. Google Ads. I have no idea if these work at all. Again what clients say is they don't recall exactly how they found me; I am thinking they probably don't want to admit that this is the way the found me. I spend very little on this and my belief is that it is not really the most successful way of advertising but it is a great way of building brand/name recognition. But as I don't "click that link" I think most consumers are like me and would prefer to research it further thinking of course that those not paying for advertising are not trying as hard and in turn are ones who business I support. If anything it is almost a reverse logic or at least inherent skepticism.
But again I try to think like my customers and my market and this is Seattle a notoriously "thrifty" city that prides itself on being green so they also don't think they need my services as much as they think. And in this economy people are not realizing how much they actually need me so going for word of mouth is not something I can rely on when there are few mouths.
5. Trade Shows. These are great again at building a brand. Ironically I got more out of state clients from a local trade show than local ones. Why? Because where they live they don't have this kind of service, I am affordable and accommodating.
In those cases I did much of the work via Skype and E-mail and sent them what they need in an easy report with samples and product specs. In that case they if they are seeking LEED or other certs, I will find out if these qualify for points and in turn they can find someone at "home" who will sign off at that time when they ultimately make the final decision.
Trade shows are great at finding partners for that endeavor, however, who share your these are extremely expensive and I will not do them again unless I can find a co-operative venture or small neighborhood/community ones that are affordable and on single weekend days or in summer months.
6. Guerrilla Marketing. These are the flyer's, brochures, etc that you literally spread throughout your community. This is small business but it builds your business in your area. You will have to do this alone or with help but this was and still is my larges and most affordable marketing tool.
7. Social Media. This is the MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Blogging, etc. I have a business Facebook page and a LinkedIn profile and guess what NOT a call or customer. Why that doesn't shock me. Again my odd niche of what I do attracts numerous "greenies" wanting to connect with me but mostly they are time consuming and distracting. My LinkedIn profile is so generic and vague with details and specifics that I get few inquires or "links."
I do not have a personal Facebook nor do I Twitter. I was highly reticent about blogging as there are so many enthusiastic bloggers about green building and the like I frankly did not want mine to become GBA or Jetson Green as that is not who I am nor have plans to be.
I real life I have no need to Facebook anyone. I can call them or email them and speak to them directly. I text only when I need to and do not use that as a substitute to actually pick up a phone and call. And guess what I have personal stationery and still send thank you cards and mail when I can. I think there is something meaningful about a personalized note. I do not need people from 20 years ago getting in touch with me because we went to grade/high school together. I am sorry but its not 1977 anymore and if we were such great friends then why weren't we still friends now and well its not 1977 anymore so I am not sure I care to relieve the time period thanks. I never looked good in clingy palazzo pants.
I read that you will have to have a Facebook to survive and Twitter if you want your business to succeed. What.Ever. I think like many millions of small business people the mundane details of our daily lives and business is not something for the masses. Do I think a Facebook page with my photos and personal information will find me business or a job that has meaning? I have no idea because given what I know about people and the marketplace I don't think so. I think its largely a fad and way to not be alone. To find people like you and to distract you from yourself or your poor work. I don't think real business people are using the site to find like business minds, employees or business (and I don't and I don't think I am all that unique either) I think they are using it to check up on employees or prospective employees and what they are up to. I don't think its a good thing.
I also don't think its a good thing to put up too much personal information. With hackers and identity theft on the rise do you really need anyone and everyone to know when and where you went to school, your past employment history and your personal details to the nth degree? What are you thinking. I have had two very odd encounters from online information and now no longer even use Craigslist to buy or sell anything. Think about it recall the power of Ebay? We stick with nothing long enough anymore to really measure its true meaning or longevity. Its only a matter of time before Craigslist is replaced. Too many frauds, scams and killers have destroyed its usefulness.
I received a call from someone who said he saw my profile on LinkedIn and was my classmate at the UW. I knew immediately he was lying because the dates I listed are current ones not actual ones but he said he wanted to talk about what I do. So I met him at a Starbucks far from my home in the midday. Sure enough a suburban dad arrived sat down said "you aren't who I think you are" and left immediately. That is another reason why my photo is obama-ized. You have to be careful regardless.
I was listening to Howard Stern this morning and he said this is further proof that we are de-evolving and are infantalizing ourselves. We have Apps (I am sure that will be the next MUST for business) that basically do everything now so we don't have to ever be home and when we are out its like being at home so its not so lonely. Next time you are in a coffee shop, bar or restaurant watch how many people are texting, surfing, listening to anything but the people around them. Its stranger danger but without the strangers or the danger right?
If you really believe your business thrives and your resume is attracting legitimate offers than I commend you. I just find that well businesses grew way before the Internet and they are the ones oddly still here. They understand the need for flexibility but one cannot underestimate the power of the past and what experience it brings to the table.
I am not set in my ways I just have divisions of what is personal and what is business. I respect my privacy and more importantly why I advocate transparency in business I don't feel the same way about that in person.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Risky Business
I recently had coffee with an Insurance Agent discussing risks and issues surrounding Green Building and LEED.
While I have no problems with either I have said I choose not be to be a LEED AP or do any third party verifications for any organization or group offering such credentials to a building.
My reasons were liability, redundancy between programs (how do you know which is best), unnecessary I believe in residential housing as it offers no tax breaks only additional costs and more importantly if you are building correctly and with energy efficiency and sustainability in mind you don't need the silly plaque on the wall.. just do it. And finally I am not an employee or associate of the USGBC, NAHB, MBA, EEBA, the Lung Association, Energy Star etc so unless they want to hire me to promote their programs and share the indemnity associated with certifications I choose to not PAY them for the privilege.. I will however pay for your resources, education and training and share that with my clients as needed.
I found this article today in Goddard Construction Magazine and it explains the risks that anyone looking to build and certify green what you need to consider prior to taking that project on. I don't want to discourage anyone from building green but I would prefer building SMART over any acronym any day.
_________________________________________________________
Home Environment & Compliance Risk Mitigation In Green Building
Risk Mitigation In Green Building
Written by Franz Wagner, P.E. and Jeff Myung, LEED AP
They say it's always greener on the other side, but Green-built and LEED-certified projects can have you seeing red if owners and contractors do not take precautions to mitigate risk. While many executives in the construction industry initially perceived green building as a fad just a few short years ago, it is undeniably here for good.
Green building offers project stakeholders the allure of increased profitability, but to achieve optimum return on their investment, building owners and contractors need to mitigate the inherent risks associated with sustainable building. The first step to mitigating your risk is to understand how the risks emanating from Green building differ from those emanating from traditional building.
Risk Management in Site Selection
To obtain maximum Site Sustainability LEED credits, project owners often seek out locations that have been declared brownfield sites (abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for reuse) and also sites in close proximity to mass transportation, population density and accommodations for electric vehicles and bicyclists.
The development of brownfields may be complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. The land is often contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous compounds such as lead, PCBs, mercury, hydrocarbons and asbestos. Additionally, such sites often pose unique pollution exposures created by working near subways, railroads and waterways. Because site selection is a key component in LEED certification, owners and developers need to evaluate the numerous insurance products available in the current marketplace to address environmental liabilities arising from these projects constructed on remediated properties. Various forms of coverage can be pursued to insure against existing and unknown pollution conditions as well as pollution conditions arising out of the construction work being performed. Each of these insurance products deserves consideration depending on the specifics of the work and the selected project site.
Loss Control Considerations
The stringent LEED credit system offers designers and contractors the guidance they need to produce a sustainable facility, but with those credits also come safety concerns that must be addressed in order to avoid costly insurance claims. The following outlines three loss control considerations that you should discuss with your insurance broker and safety consultant. By informing them of the green design elements planned for your project, your safety consultant can provide adequate training and equipment, and your broker can enhance your policies with the necessary coverage.
1. Material Reuse
LEED credits are offered for reuse of building materials, which often require some of the materials to be abated of lead paint in the case of reusing steel beams or exposed wooden beams, or stripped of hazardous compounds such as mercury in the case of reused electrical devices. At The Graham Company, our safety consultants advise site managers and contractors on best practices and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) standards for protecting employees during this phase of construction.
2. Vegetative Roofing
Vegetative roofs are an ideal way to maximize LEED credits for reducing heat island effects, using maximum green space and capturing and reusing rain water. However, vegetative roofs also present a unique condition for worker-fall protection during construction. The lack of exposed concrete and steel on a rooftop creates new challenges in providing construction workers with fall-arrest anchor points, as well as falling-object protection for those below.
3. Indoor Air Quality Control
During the final phases of construction and just prior to occupancy, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA) place minimum expectations for continuous air exchanges. This challenge creates new demands of ventilation during final construction activities, such as painting, drywall and plastering, floor and carpet installation and waterproofing. While such activities may not have posed concern under traditional building conditions, the progressive LEED requirements for ventilation may now present you with a new series of occupational health concerns.
4. Update Your Insurance Program
Brokers who understand the risks associated with LEED construction are better equipped to structure the insurance coverages for these projects. For example, Builders Risk Policies do not automatically cover some of the unique aspects of a LEED project, such as the loss of earnings from an inability to achieve energy credits or sell off surplus energy due to a loss, or the additional soft costs associated with rebuilding to LEED standards. Keeping your broker informed on the extent of these projects will result in a more comprehensive insurance program to address these LEED-specific exposures.
While I have no problems with either I have said I choose not be to be a LEED AP or do any third party verifications for any organization or group offering such credentials to a building.
My reasons were liability, redundancy between programs (how do you know which is best), unnecessary I believe in residential housing as it offers no tax breaks only additional costs and more importantly if you are building correctly and with energy efficiency and sustainability in mind you don't need the silly plaque on the wall.. just do it. And finally I am not an employee or associate of the USGBC, NAHB, MBA, EEBA, the Lung Association, Energy Star etc so unless they want to hire me to promote their programs and share the indemnity associated with certifications I choose to not PAY them for the privilege.. I will however pay for your resources, education and training and share that with my clients as needed.
I found this article today in Goddard Construction Magazine and it explains the risks that anyone looking to build and certify green what you need to consider prior to taking that project on. I don't want to discourage anyone from building green but I would prefer building SMART over any acronym any day.
_________________________________________________________
Home Environment & Compliance Risk Mitigation In Green Building
Risk Mitigation In Green Building
Written by Franz Wagner, P.E. and Jeff Myung, LEED AP
They say it's always greener on the other side, but Green-built and LEED-certified projects can have you seeing red if owners and contractors do not take precautions to mitigate risk. While many executives in the construction industry initially perceived green building as a fad just a few short years ago, it is undeniably here for good.
Green building offers project stakeholders the allure of increased profitability, but to achieve optimum return on their investment, building owners and contractors need to mitigate the inherent risks associated with sustainable building. The first step to mitigating your risk is to understand how the risks emanating from Green building differ from those emanating from traditional building.
Risk Management in Site Selection
To obtain maximum Site Sustainability LEED credits, project owners often seek out locations that have been declared brownfield sites (abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for reuse) and also sites in close proximity to mass transportation, population density and accommodations for electric vehicles and bicyclists.
The development of brownfields may be complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. The land is often contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous compounds such as lead, PCBs, mercury, hydrocarbons and asbestos. Additionally, such sites often pose unique pollution exposures created by working near subways, railroads and waterways. Because site selection is a key component in LEED certification, owners and developers need to evaluate the numerous insurance products available in the current marketplace to address environmental liabilities arising from these projects constructed on remediated properties. Various forms of coverage can be pursued to insure against existing and unknown pollution conditions as well as pollution conditions arising out of the construction work being performed. Each of these insurance products deserves consideration depending on the specifics of the work and the selected project site.
Loss Control Considerations
The stringent LEED credit system offers designers and contractors the guidance they need to produce a sustainable facility, but with those credits also come safety concerns that must be addressed in order to avoid costly insurance claims. The following outlines three loss control considerations that you should discuss with your insurance broker and safety consultant. By informing them of the green design elements planned for your project, your safety consultant can provide adequate training and equipment, and your broker can enhance your policies with the necessary coverage.
1. Material Reuse
LEED credits are offered for reuse of building materials, which often require some of the materials to be abated of lead paint in the case of reusing steel beams or exposed wooden beams, or stripped of hazardous compounds such as mercury in the case of reused electrical devices. At The Graham Company, our safety consultants advise site managers and contractors on best practices and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) standards for protecting employees during this phase of construction.
2. Vegetative Roofing
Vegetative roofs are an ideal way to maximize LEED credits for reducing heat island effects, using maximum green space and capturing and reusing rain water. However, vegetative roofs also present a unique condition for worker-fall protection during construction. The lack of exposed concrete and steel on a rooftop creates new challenges in providing construction workers with fall-arrest anchor points, as well as falling-object protection for those below.
3. Indoor Air Quality Control
During the final phases of construction and just prior to occupancy, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA) place minimum expectations for continuous air exchanges. This challenge creates new demands of ventilation during final construction activities, such as painting, drywall and plastering, floor and carpet installation and waterproofing. While such activities may not have posed concern under traditional building conditions, the progressive LEED requirements for ventilation may now present you with a new series of occupational health concerns.
4. Update Your Insurance Program
Brokers who understand the risks associated with LEED construction are better equipped to structure the insurance coverages for these projects. For example, Builders Risk Policies do not automatically cover some of the unique aspects of a LEED project, such as the loss of earnings from an inability to achieve energy credits or sell off surplus energy due to a loss, or the additional soft costs associated with rebuilding to LEED standards. Keeping your broker informed on the extent of these projects will result in a more comprehensive insurance program to address these LEED-specific exposures.
Green Notes and Musings
Catching up on my "profession" following a great workshop by Building Science on deep energy retrofits I wanted to see what the feedback for this type of "green job" that Obama is keen on. Current tax credits although small should be the first incentive but more importantly the rising cost of energy, the need to upgrade and stay in your current home and potentially raise its value should be enough reasons to start to move forward in finding this kind of work.
So I turn to GBA (Green Building Advisor) and find an article about the very methods that the workshop encouraged. Enhanced insulated rigid foam boards under siding and on roofs. These are the easiest, affordable options at this time and while really a portion of a retrofit (insulation, crawlspace or basement upgrades and general strong weatherizing improvements are part of this)there is no excuse for any homeowner to seek it out or any contractor interested in finding ways to build this business.
What they found is again the same old argument. "No one asks for it" "Everyone is cheap and want a quick fix" I am sure that when someone calls to look at repairing the roof or siding these options sold as energy efficient and affordable are the last things mentioned. Again even now we want as minimal work for minimal effort and maximum rewards. Customer service is reflected in the very comment no one asks or are cheap. Well expecting consumers to know about your profession and the current trends seems a tad absurd. Quality professionals keep apprised and in turn apprise their customers of new concepts and ideas that will ultimately save them money in the long run.
During the housing flip up and away of the past decade this was not an issue and the idea that if you do it all now how will you have a customer later. Right that always works. The idea is put in something inferior they will have to upgrade right and of course they will do that with you the same dude who neglected to provide them all the options at the time. Bad idea and bad business.
I reprint the article from GBA and note the "excuses" for why they are not pursuing this highly effective work.
____________________________________________________
Roofing and Siding Jobs Are Energy-Retrofit Opportunities
It’s time for roofing and siding contractors to offer thick exterior foam
Posted on Dec 4 by Martin Holladay Green
Every siding job deserves foam. Deep energy retrofits are expensive, in part because the work often requires the replacement of all of a home’s siding and roofing. Whenever a homeowner replaces siding or roofing — for whatever reason —an opportunity arises to add a layer of rigid foam insulation under the new materials.
In order to meet the carbon reduction goals that are necessary to avoid a global climate catastrophe, almost every U.S. home will need a deep energy retrofit. In most cases, the work will require walls and roofs to be covered with a thick layer of rigid foam.
The logical time to do this work is when siding or roofing is replaced. It stands to reason, therefore, that siding and roofing contractors should:
Educate themselves on the building science issues surrounding exterior foam insulation;
Be familiar with techniques for installing rigid foam under new siding or roofing;
Regularly suggest that customers consider including thick exterior foam under new siding or roofing.
Unfortuntately, few siding and roofing contactors have taken these steps. Although the upcoming need for massive numbers of deep energy retrofits is understood by many climate scientists and energy experts, this type of work isn’t on the radar screen of most contractors. In fact, customers who are interested in exterior foam retrofits have to search far and wide to find a siding or roofing contractor familiar with the required details.
Most contractors aren’t interested
A friend of mine, Karyn Patno of St. Johnsbury, Vermont, replaced the asphalt shingle roof on her home this year. About half of her house has a cathedral ceiling insulated with thin fiberglass batts.
“After several years of ice dams and leaks, I decided to replace the shingles with a standing-seam metal roof,” Karyn told me. “I thought it would be a good idea to add insulation to the roof at the same time.” She was willing to consider bids for new rigid foam on top of the plywood sheathing or spray polyurethane foam between the rafters.
“I contacted four area roofers,” Karyn said. “Two of them said that they don’t remove the shingles but put the metal roofing directly over the old shingles, and that this method ‘would provide enough added insulation.’ One roofer said he could remove the shingles but was not interested in adding any insulation, because he ‘didn’t do that work.’ The fourth was a builder who also does roofing. He was the only one willing to provide a bid to add insulation along with the new roofing. He suggested removing the shingles, taking off the plywood, adding closed-cell spray foam insulation, replacing the plywood, and putting on the metal roof. Interestingly, this roofer’s bid was not was not the most expensive.”
Siding contractors don’t like thick foam
Intrigued by Karyn’s story, I decided to call several siding and roofing contractors and ask about exterior foam. First I spoke with Carl Beatty, the owner of Beatty’s Builders in New Philadelphia, Ohio. “Customers don’t usually request or care about foam under siding,” said Beatty. “People don’t have the money. They’re just looking for the lowest price.”
Mike Krumm, the owner of Krumm Siding and Roofing in New Richmond, Wisc., said, “People are being led to believe that 3/8 inch of foam is plenty. In any case I have noticed that not many people are willing to pay the extra money. I’ve never had anyone ask for thicker foam, nor have I pushed it.”
Jeff Kaliner, the CEO of Power Windows and Siding in Brookhaven, Penn., told me, “If someone wants an additional layer of insulation, the windows would look sunken in, so we don’t do that.”
I also spoke with John Fiderio, one of the owners of Fiderio & Sons, a remodeling company in Meriden, Conn. Like the other contractors I spoke with, Fiderio doesn’t install thick foam under siding. “As a rule, we use 1/2-inch-thick foam from Dow — or at most 3/4 inch,” Fiderio told me. “When you start going thicker than that, you have to build out your windows.”
Nor does Fiderio recommend foam under new roofing. “In years past, we did some jobs with foam — generally over a cathedral ceiling. But we haven’t done it in years. If there’s an ice dam problem, we usually address it with Ice & Water Shield.”
“Call somebody else”
I also spoke with roofers. William Rodd, one of the owners of Rodd Roofing in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, told me, “If someone asks for foam, we say, ‘Call somebody else.’ We have enough problems without the foam.”
On the other hand, Chad Jackson, an estimator for Bliss Roofing in Clackamas, Oregon, appreciates the advantages of rigid foam under roofing. “If someone asks for foam insulation, we can do it,” Jackson told me. “But hardly anybody asks for it. Even if they know about the advantages of foam, they won’t do it, because everybody’s cheap. But as time goes on, foam insulation will become more necessary. Right now, all these roofing contractors say they don’t want to do it. But ultimately everyone will have to do it.”
A chicken-and-egg problem
To be fair to the contractors I interviewed, there’s no reason to expect contractors to promote thicker insulation when few customers ask for it. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
The only ones who seem distressed by the current status quo are energy nerds and policy wonks, may of whom see steep carbon taxes on the horizon. For those looking ahead, it’s painful to see new siding and roofing being installed over OSB or board sheathing. Each time that happens, another opportunity has been lost.
"Reprinted from www.greenbuildingadvisor.com"
So I turn to GBA (Green Building Advisor) and find an article about the very methods that the workshop encouraged. Enhanced insulated rigid foam boards under siding and on roofs. These are the easiest, affordable options at this time and while really a portion of a retrofit (insulation, crawlspace or basement upgrades and general strong weatherizing improvements are part of this)there is no excuse for any homeowner to seek it out or any contractor interested in finding ways to build this business.
What they found is again the same old argument. "No one asks for it" "Everyone is cheap and want a quick fix" I am sure that when someone calls to look at repairing the roof or siding these options sold as energy efficient and affordable are the last things mentioned. Again even now we want as minimal work for minimal effort and maximum rewards. Customer service is reflected in the very comment no one asks or are cheap. Well expecting consumers to know about your profession and the current trends seems a tad absurd. Quality professionals keep apprised and in turn apprise their customers of new concepts and ideas that will ultimately save them money in the long run.
During the housing flip up and away of the past decade this was not an issue and the idea that if you do it all now how will you have a customer later. Right that always works. The idea is put in something inferior they will have to upgrade right and of course they will do that with you the same dude who neglected to provide them all the options at the time. Bad idea and bad business.
I reprint the article from GBA and note the "excuses" for why they are not pursuing this highly effective work.
____________________________________________________
Roofing and Siding Jobs Are Energy-Retrofit Opportunities
It’s time for roofing and siding contractors to offer thick exterior foam
Posted on Dec 4 by Martin Holladay Green
Every siding job deserves foam. Deep energy retrofits are expensive, in part because the work often requires the replacement of all of a home’s siding and roofing. Whenever a homeowner replaces siding or roofing — for whatever reason —an opportunity arises to add a layer of rigid foam insulation under the new materials.
In order to meet the carbon reduction goals that are necessary to avoid a global climate catastrophe, almost every U.S. home will need a deep energy retrofit. In most cases, the work will require walls and roofs to be covered with a thick layer of rigid foam.
The logical time to do this work is when siding or roofing is replaced. It stands to reason, therefore, that siding and roofing contractors should:
Educate themselves on the building science issues surrounding exterior foam insulation;
Be familiar with techniques for installing rigid foam under new siding or roofing;
Regularly suggest that customers consider including thick exterior foam under new siding or roofing.
Unfortuntately, few siding and roofing contactors have taken these steps. Although the upcoming need for massive numbers of deep energy retrofits is understood by many climate scientists and energy experts, this type of work isn’t on the radar screen of most contractors. In fact, customers who are interested in exterior foam retrofits have to search far and wide to find a siding or roofing contractor familiar with the required details.
Most contractors aren’t interested
A friend of mine, Karyn Patno of St. Johnsbury, Vermont, replaced the asphalt shingle roof on her home this year. About half of her house has a cathedral ceiling insulated with thin fiberglass batts.
“After several years of ice dams and leaks, I decided to replace the shingles with a standing-seam metal roof,” Karyn told me. “I thought it would be a good idea to add insulation to the roof at the same time.” She was willing to consider bids for new rigid foam on top of the plywood sheathing or spray polyurethane foam between the rafters.
“I contacted four area roofers,” Karyn said. “Two of them said that they don’t remove the shingles but put the metal roofing directly over the old shingles, and that this method ‘would provide enough added insulation.’ One roofer said he could remove the shingles but was not interested in adding any insulation, because he ‘didn’t do that work.’ The fourth was a builder who also does roofing. He was the only one willing to provide a bid to add insulation along with the new roofing. He suggested removing the shingles, taking off the plywood, adding closed-cell spray foam insulation, replacing the plywood, and putting on the metal roof. Interestingly, this roofer’s bid was not was not the most expensive.”
Siding contractors don’t like thick foam
Intrigued by Karyn’s story, I decided to call several siding and roofing contractors and ask about exterior foam. First I spoke with Carl Beatty, the owner of Beatty’s Builders in New Philadelphia, Ohio. “Customers don’t usually request or care about foam under siding,” said Beatty. “People don’t have the money. They’re just looking for the lowest price.”
Mike Krumm, the owner of Krumm Siding and Roofing in New Richmond, Wisc., said, “People are being led to believe that 3/8 inch of foam is plenty. In any case I have noticed that not many people are willing to pay the extra money. I’ve never had anyone ask for thicker foam, nor have I pushed it.”
Jeff Kaliner, the CEO of Power Windows and Siding in Brookhaven, Penn., told me, “If someone wants an additional layer of insulation, the windows would look sunken in, so we don’t do that.”
I also spoke with John Fiderio, one of the owners of Fiderio & Sons, a remodeling company in Meriden, Conn. Like the other contractors I spoke with, Fiderio doesn’t install thick foam under siding. “As a rule, we use 1/2-inch-thick foam from Dow — or at most 3/4 inch,” Fiderio told me. “When you start going thicker than that, you have to build out your windows.”
Nor does Fiderio recommend foam under new roofing. “In years past, we did some jobs with foam — generally over a cathedral ceiling. But we haven’t done it in years. If there’s an ice dam problem, we usually address it with Ice & Water Shield.”
“Call somebody else”
I also spoke with roofers. William Rodd, one of the owners of Rodd Roofing in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, told me, “If someone asks for foam, we say, ‘Call somebody else.’ We have enough problems without the foam.”
On the other hand, Chad Jackson, an estimator for Bliss Roofing in Clackamas, Oregon, appreciates the advantages of rigid foam under roofing. “If someone asks for foam insulation, we can do it,” Jackson told me. “But hardly anybody asks for it. Even if they know about the advantages of foam, they won’t do it, because everybody’s cheap. But as time goes on, foam insulation will become more necessary. Right now, all these roofing contractors say they don’t want to do it. But ultimately everyone will have to do it.”
A chicken-and-egg problem
To be fair to the contractors I interviewed, there’s no reason to expect contractors to promote thicker insulation when few customers ask for it. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
The only ones who seem distressed by the current status quo are energy nerds and policy wonks, may of whom see steep carbon taxes on the horizon. For those looking ahead, it’s painful to see new siding and roofing being installed over OSB or board sheathing. Each time that happens, another opportunity has been lost.
"Reprinted from www.greenbuildingadvisor.com"
Survey Says...
This morning the front page of the New York Times shows a poll revealing how severe this recession is for the "everyman." You know the ones that Republican's claim to care so much about. The ones that point and laugh at the millionaires that run for public office in the Democratic party, the same millionaires in their party because that is the ONLY people who can run for office. Then ironically to stay there reardless of party affiliations, sell themselves like a Tiger Wood whore to whatever industry/business or lobbyist willing to "donate." Democracy in action and the nice thing is that it is definitely non-partisan!
I have no words about these stories as I know these people. Maybe not these one specifically but definitely friends of mine, myself included, as we face immense pressures to survive in a world and country that seems intent on denial and avoidance. I thought perhaps today of killing Senator Joe Lieberman. Why him? Well why not? Then I am guaranteed three meals a day and roof over my head for life. It couldn't be worse than this. They have work, gyms and I could meet a nice woman companion in which to spend my dotage. Sadly I think I would get off on the idea that I was either insane or that it was "justifiable." When prison is an option you wonder what is next.
I reprint the article below and included some readers comments from the NY Times website. Sometimes their words accurately surmise what many of us feel and cannot express so succininctly.
_______________________________________
Poll Reveals Trauma of Joblessness in U.S.
MICHAEL LUO and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: December 14, 2009
More than half of the nation’s unemployed workers have borrowed money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. An equal number have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments because they are out of work.
Almost half have suffered from depression or anxiety. About 4 in 10 parents have noticed behavioral changes in their children that they attribute to their difficulties in finding work.
Joblessness has wreaked financial and emotional havoc on the lives of many of those out of work, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll of unemployed adults, causing major life changes, mental health issues and trouble maintaining even basic necessities.
The results of the poll, which surveyed 708 unemployed adults from Dec. 5 to Dec. 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, help to lay bare the depth of the trauma experienced by millions across the country who are out of work as the jobless rate hovers at 10 percent and, in particular, as the ranks of the long-term unemployed soar.
Roughly half of the respondents described the recession as a hardship that had caused fundamental changes in their lives. Generally, those who have been out of work longer reported experiencing more acute financial and emotional effects.
“I lost my job in March, and from there on, everything went downhill,” said Vicky Newton, 38, of Mount Pleasant, Mich., a single mother who had been a customer-service representative in an insurance agency.
“After struggling and struggling and not being able to pay my house payments or my other bills, I finally sucked up my pride,” she said in an interview after the poll was conducted. “I got food stamps just to help feed my daughter.”
Over the summer, she abandoned her home in Flint, Mich., after she started receiving foreclosure notices. She now lives 90 minutes away, in a rental house owned by her father.
With unemployment driving foreclosures nationwide, a quarter of those polled said they had either lost their home or been threatened with foreclosure or eviction for not paying their mortgage or rent. About a quarter, like Ms. Newton, have received food stamps. More than half said they had cut back on both luxuries and necessities in their spending. Seven in 10 rated their family’s financial situation as fairly bad or very bad.
But the impact on their lives was not limited to the difficulty in paying bills. Almost half said unemployment had led to more conflicts or arguments with family members and friends; 55 percent have suffered from insomnia.
“Everything gets touched,” said Colleen Klemm, 51, of North Lake, Wis., who lost her job as a manager at a landscaping company last November. “All your relationships are touched by it. You’re never your normal happy-go-lucky person. Your countenance, your self-esteem goes. You think, ‘I’m not employable.’ ”
A quarter of those who experienced anxiety or depression said they had gone to see a mental health professional. Women were significantly more likely than men to acknowledge emotional issues.
Tammy Linville, 29, of Louisville, Ky., said she lost her job as a clerical worker for the Census Bureau a year and a half ago. She began seeing a therapist for depression every week through Medicaid but recently has not been able to go because her car broke down and she cannot afford to fix it.
Her partner works at the Ford plant in the area, but his schedule has been sporadic. They have two small children and at this point, she said, they are “saving quarters for diapers.”
“Every time I think about money, I shut down because there is none,” Ms. Linville said. “I get major panic attacks. I just don’t know what we’re going to do.”
Nearly half of the adults surveyed admitted to feeling embarrassed or ashamed most of the time or sometimes as a result of being out of work. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the traditional image of men as breadwinners, men were significantly more likely than women to report feeling ashamed most of the time.
There was a pervasive sense from the poll that the American dream had been upended for many. Nearly half of those polled said they felt in danger of falling out of their social class, with those out of work six months or more feeling especially vulnerable. Working-class respondents felt at risk in the greatest numbers.
Nearly half of respondents said they did not have health insurance, with the vast majority citing job loss as a reason, a notable finding given the tug of war in Congress over a health care overhaul. The poll offered a glimpse of the potential ripple effect of having no coverage. More than half characterized the cost of basic medical care as a hardship.
Many in the ranks of the unemployed appear to be rethinking their career and life choices. Just over 40 percent said they had moved or considered moving to another part of the state or country where there were more jobs. More than two-thirds of respondents had considered changing their career or field, and 44 percent of those surveyed had pursued job retraining or other educational opportunities.
Joe Whitlow, 31, of Nashville, worked as a mechanic until a repair shop he was running with a friend finally petered out in August. He had contemplated going back to school before, but the potential loss in income always deterred him. Now he is enrolled at a local community college, planning to study accounting.
“When everything went bad, not that I didn’t have a choice, but it made the choice easier,” Mr. Whitlow said.
The poll also shed light on the formal and informal safety nets that the jobless have relied upon. More than half said they were receiving or had received unemployment benefits. But 61 percent of those receiving benefits said the amount was not enough to cover basic necessities.
Meanwhile, a fifth said they had received food from a nonprofit organization or religious institution. Among those with a working spouse, half said their spouse had taken on additional hours or another job to help make ends meet.
Even those who have stayed employed have not escaped the recession’s bite. According to a New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll conducted at the same time as the poll of unemployed adults, about 3 in 10 people said that in the past year, as a result of bad economic conditions, their pay had been cut.
In terms of casting blame for the high unemployment rate, 26 percent of unemployed adults cited former President George W. Bush; 12 percent pointed the finger at banks; 8 percent highlighted jobs going overseas and the same number blamed politicians. Only 3 percent blamed President Obama.
Those out of work were split, however, on the president’s handling of job creation, with 47 percent expressing approval and 44 percent disapproval.
Unemployed Americans are divided over what the future holds for the job market: 39 percent anticipate improvement, 36 percent expect it will stay the same, and 22 percent say it will get worse.
_________________________________________________
I was laid off in Sept. 09. No health insurance (I live in MA and can't afford the state mandated insurance - $320/month, COBRA is ~$450 with discount) and on food stamps. Working about 15 hrs a week doing some writing/consulting work. Fortunately, no kids, only dogs to feed. Just today had to put $400 into my car so it passes inspection next month.
I'm single and not tied down, so I am packing up and moving back to CA where I grew up. Moving near my sister, and can live for much less in her small town and help with her family needs (bro-in-law disabled from old mining accident). Fortunately also I can take my consulting work with me, and there are more hours in the new year.
I'm looking forward to it: not being defined by a stupid job, getting out of the rat race, no cable tv, lots of nature, family.
I agree with others who speculate that we will have a very different country in 5-7 years. We'll either go corporate fascist or Euro progressive. Personally, I'm hoping for a revolution where everyone turns off their tv, stops buying Chinese junk, starts to talk and listen to their neighbors and then hits the streets to begin real nation-building here at home.
We have to stop waiting for the politicians and government to "do something". The truth is, it's in their best interest to NOT do anything. We the People have to do something, however small, to reclaim our humanity: divest from the multi-national banks, er, investment houses; shop your local businesses and farms and support your neighbors; turn off the tv/video games and go outside with your kids to play; watch your neighbors kids as they play (remember those days when the adults would take responsibility for all the kids outside?); invite your friends and neighbors in for potluck supper - it's cheaper, healthy and fun!
Our government, electoral system and economic system have become irrelevant and no longer serve our needs as civilized people. The lobbyists own Congress and the Corporations are working hard to own us. Opt out people. Let's become human again.
------------Emma Goldman
I'm sure the discussions taking place in these comments will turn into an anti-banker backlash, but the financial crisis and chronic unemployment are merely symptoms of a multi-decade rot that's been taking place in America. I'm not sure exactly when, but at some point America decided it no longer 1) needed to save money, 2) needed to invest in infrastructure, and 3) needed to invest in the education and the wellbeing of its citizenry. Sorry, we can sit around and yell about the evils of Wall Street until we are blue in the face, but it won't fix any of the aforementioned root problems and it won't bring any jobs back. Pointing fingers feels good, but that's not fixing anything.
--------------Jim
What many do not understand is that a lot of the unemployed are not young. Some have worked at their careers and often the same job for 20 or 30 years. Then in their 50's they are asked to start over. Taking A new career path means starting at the bottom of the wage scale. Something they spent their lives getting out of. Now with retirement jsut 10 or 15 years away, their 401k down in value or spent to cover expenses they are devistated. No longer seeing that path to retirement they worked for all their lives. Many lose their homes, some will never get another chance at the American dream of owing your own home to retire in. Some will have to work for as long as they can stand on two legs. And even that may not be enough.
I wonder each day. What is our government doing for the people?
---------------------Roger
Laid off in Sept; have applied for about 100 jobs; had 3 interviews, no offers. As a Boomer, wonder what part age discrimination and/or the old "overqualified" saw is playing a part. Retirement is not in my future, so I must work. How much of one's education and experience can one subtract from a resume/application, and is subtracting info considered dishonest? Much more money is needed to help people get retraining. I will start courses at a local community college in Jan to get certified in a new health care related profession, one that is in demand and predicted to stay that way. Altho I have a master's degree, I realize I need to reinvent myself. Paul Krugman suggested a new WPA type program; I would support that. Every time I read that the recession is ending, I and others I know who are unemployed are furious.
------------------Francie
Someone needs to send this article to Joe Lieberman so that he maybe, just maybe can begin to understand the impact of his ego-driven opposition to the health care bill. Then again, maybe his opposition is due to the fact that his wife reaps tons of money from insurance companies. Someone please get this article to him. It might help.
------------------bstannard
From the FDR Memorial: "No Country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order."
It's frightening how true those words ring today
------------------Brian
I have no words about these stories as I know these people. Maybe not these one specifically but definitely friends of mine, myself included, as we face immense pressures to survive in a world and country that seems intent on denial and avoidance. I thought perhaps today of killing Senator Joe Lieberman. Why him? Well why not? Then I am guaranteed three meals a day and roof over my head for life. It couldn't be worse than this. They have work, gyms and I could meet a nice woman companion in which to spend my dotage. Sadly I think I would get off on the idea that I was either insane or that it was "justifiable." When prison is an option you wonder what is next.
I reprint the article below and included some readers comments from the NY Times website. Sometimes their words accurately surmise what many of us feel and cannot express so succininctly.
_______________________________________
Poll Reveals Trauma of Joblessness in U.S.
MICHAEL LUO and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: December 14, 2009
More than half of the nation’s unemployed workers have borrowed money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. An equal number have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments because they are out of work.
Almost half have suffered from depression or anxiety. About 4 in 10 parents have noticed behavioral changes in their children that they attribute to their difficulties in finding work.
Joblessness has wreaked financial and emotional havoc on the lives of many of those out of work, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll of unemployed adults, causing major life changes, mental health issues and trouble maintaining even basic necessities.
The results of the poll, which surveyed 708 unemployed adults from Dec. 5 to Dec. 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, help to lay bare the depth of the trauma experienced by millions across the country who are out of work as the jobless rate hovers at 10 percent and, in particular, as the ranks of the long-term unemployed soar.
Roughly half of the respondents described the recession as a hardship that had caused fundamental changes in their lives. Generally, those who have been out of work longer reported experiencing more acute financial and emotional effects.
“I lost my job in March, and from there on, everything went downhill,” said Vicky Newton, 38, of Mount Pleasant, Mich., a single mother who had been a customer-service representative in an insurance agency.
“After struggling and struggling and not being able to pay my house payments or my other bills, I finally sucked up my pride,” she said in an interview after the poll was conducted. “I got food stamps just to help feed my daughter.”
Over the summer, she abandoned her home in Flint, Mich., after she started receiving foreclosure notices. She now lives 90 minutes away, in a rental house owned by her father.
With unemployment driving foreclosures nationwide, a quarter of those polled said they had either lost their home or been threatened with foreclosure or eviction for not paying their mortgage or rent. About a quarter, like Ms. Newton, have received food stamps. More than half said they had cut back on both luxuries and necessities in their spending. Seven in 10 rated their family’s financial situation as fairly bad or very bad.
But the impact on their lives was not limited to the difficulty in paying bills. Almost half said unemployment had led to more conflicts or arguments with family members and friends; 55 percent have suffered from insomnia.
“Everything gets touched,” said Colleen Klemm, 51, of North Lake, Wis., who lost her job as a manager at a landscaping company last November. “All your relationships are touched by it. You’re never your normal happy-go-lucky person. Your countenance, your self-esteem goes. You think, ‘I’m not employable.’ ”
A quarter of those who experienced anxiety or depression said they had gone to see a mental health professional. Women were significantly more likely than men to acknowledge emotional issues.
Tammy Linville, 29, of Louisville, Ky., said she lost her job as a clerical worker for the Census Bureau a year and a half ago. She began seeing a therapist for depression every week through Medicaid but recently has not been able to go because her car broke down and she cannot afford to fix it.
Her partner works at the Ford plant in the area, but his schedule has been sporadic. They have two small children and at this point, she said, they are “saving quarters for diapers.”
“Every time I think about money, I shut down because there is none,” Ms. Linville said. “I get major panic attacks. I just don’t know what we’re going to do.”
Nearly half of the adults surveyed admitted to feeling embarrassed or ashamed most of the time or sometimes as a result of being out of work. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the traditional image of men as breadwinners, men were significantly more likely than women to report feeling ashamed most of the time.
There was a pervasive sense from the poll that the American dream had been upended for many. Nearly half of those polled said they felt in danger of falling out of their social class, with those out of work six months or more feeling especially vulnerable. Working-class respondents felt at risk in the greatest numbers.
Nearly half of respondents said they did not have health insurance, with the vast majority citing job loss as a reason, a notable finding given the tug of war in Congress over a health care overhaul. The poll offered a glimpse of the potential ripple effect of having no coverage. More than half characterized the cost of basic medical care as a hardship.
Many in the ranks of the unemployed appear to be rethinking their career and life choices. Just over 40 percent said they had moved or considered moving to another part of the state or country where there were more jobs. More than two-thirds of respondents had considered changing their career or field, and 44 percent of those surveyed had pursued job retraining or other educational opportunities.
Joe Whitlow, 31, of Nashville, worked as a mechanic until a repair shop he was running with a friend finally petered out in August. He had contemplated going back to school before, but the potential loss in income always deterred him. Now he is enrolled at a local community college, planning to study accounting.
“When everything went bad, not that I didn’t have a choice, but it made the choice easier,” Mr. Whitlow said.
The poll also shed light on the formal and informal safety nets that the jobless have relied upon. More than half said they were receiving or had received unemployment benefits. But 61 percent of those receiving benefits said the amount was not enough to cover basic necessities.
Meanwhile, a fifth said they had received food from a nonprofit organization or religious institution. Among those with a working spouse, half said their spouse had taken on additional hours or another job to help make ends meet.
Even those who have stayed employed have not escaped the recession’s bite. According to a New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll conducted at the same time as the poll of unemployed adults, about 3 in 10 people said that in the past year, as a result of bad economic conditions, their pay had been cut.
In terms of casting blame for the high unemployment rate, 26 percent of unemployed adults cited former President George W. Bush; 12 percent pointed the finger at banks; 8 percent highlighted jobs going overseas and the same number blamed politicians. Only 3 percent blamed President Obama.
Those out of work were split, however, on the president’s handling of job creation, with 47 percent expressing approval and 44 percent disapproval.
Unemployed Americans are divided over what the future holds for the job market: 39 percent anticipate improvement, 36 percent expect it will stay the same, and 22 percent say it will get worse.
_________________________________________________
I was laid off in Sept. 09. No health insurance (I live in MA and can't afford the state mandated insurance - $320/month, COBRA is ~$450 with discount) and on food stamps. Working about 15 hrs a week doing some writing/consulting work. Fortunately, no kids, only dogs to feed. Just today had to put $400 into my car so it passes inspection next month.
I'm single and not tied down, so I am packing up and moving back to CA where I grew up. Moving near my sister, and can live for much less in her small town and help with her family needs (bro-in-law disabled from old mining accident). Fortunately also I can take my consulting work with me, and there are more hours in the new year.
I'm looking forward to it: not being defined by a stupid job, getting out of the rat race, no cable tv, lots of nature, family.
I agree with others who speculate that we will have a very different country in 5-7 years. We'll either go corporate fascist or Euro progressive. Personally, I'm hoping for a revolution where everyone turns off their tv, stops buying Chinese junk, starts to talk and listen to their neighbors and then hits the streets to begin real nation-building here at home.
We have to stop waiting for the politicians and government to "do something". The truth is, it's in their best interest to NOT do anything. We the People have to do something, however small, to reclaim our humanity: divest from the multi-national banks, er, investment houses; shop your local businesses and farms and support your neighbors; turn off the tv/video games and go outside with your kids to play; watch your neighbors kids as they play (remember those days when the adults would take responsibility for all the kids outside?); invite your friends and neighbors in for potluck supper - it's cheaper, healthy and fun!
Our government, electoral system and economic system have become irrelevant and no longer serve our needs as civilized people. The lobbyists own Congress and the Corporations are working hard to own us. Opt out people. Let's become human again.
------------Emma Goldman
I'm sure the discussions taking place in these comments will turn into an anti-banker backlash, but the financial crisis and chronic unemployment are merely symptoms of a multi-decade rot that's been taking place in America. I'm not sure exactly when, but at some point America decided it no longer 1) needed to save money, 2) needed to invest in infrastructure, and 3) needed to invest in the education and the wellbeing of its citizenry. Sorry, we can sit around and yell about the evils of Wall Street until we are blue in the face, but it won't fix any of the aforementioned root problems and it won't bring any jobs back. Pointing fingers feels good, but that's not fixing anything.
--------------Jim
What many do not understand is that a lot of the unemployed are not young. Some have worked at their careers and often the same job for 20 or 30 years. Then in their 50's they are asked to start over. Taking A new career path means starting at the bottom of the wage scale. Something they spent their lives getting out of. Now with retirement jsut 10 or 15 years away, their 401k down in value or spent to cover expenses they are devistated. No longer seeing that path to retirement they worked for all their lives. Many lose their homes, some will never get another chance at the American dream of owing your own home to retire in. Some will have to work for as long as they can stand on two legs. And even that may not be enough.
I wonder each day. What is our government doing for the people?
---------------------Roger
Laid off in Sept; have applied for about 100 jobs; had 3 interviews, no offers. As a Boomer, wonder what part age discrimination and/or the old "overqualified" saw is playing a part. Retirement is not in my future, so I must work. How much of one's education and experience can one subtract from a resume/application, and is subtracting info considered dishonest? Much more money is needed to help people get retraining. I will start courses at a local community college in Jan to get certified in a new health care related profession, one that is in demand and predicted to stay that way. Altho I have a master's degree, I realize I need to reinvent myself. Paul Krugman suggested a new WPA type program; I would support that. Every time I read that the recession is ending, I and others I know who are unemployed are furious.
------------------Francie
Someone needs to send this article to Joe Lieberman so that he maybe, just maybe can begin to understand the impact of his ego-driven opposition to the health care bill. Then again, maybe his opposition is due to the fact that his wife reaps tons of money from insurance companies. Someone please get this article to him. It might help.
------------------bstannard
From the FDR Memorial: "No Country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources. Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order."
It's frightening how true those words ring today
------------------Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
