LTE: Gold Standard

Regarding "The sad joke about bits and barbarism" (Thursday Editorials), liberal economist Paul Krugman once again derides all who fail to appreciate the Keynesian principle that paper money is as good as - and arguably better than - a medium like gold.  His faith in this notion is at the core of his often-repeated claim that governments can spend us into prosperity simply by printing and spending more money.

 

In Krugman's world, there is no scenario where gold is better than greenbacks, but for more than 5000 years, people of all nations have valued gold, not just for its beauty and scarcity, but because it will be valued a year from now, and 1000 years from now.  Ask any American if they would prefer to hold $1,000 in gold or $1,000 in, say, Zlotys, the national currency of Poland, and they will invariably pick gold.  Ask a Pole if they would prefer to own gold as opposed to Pesos, and they will pick the gold every time.  This is true because everybody - except Krugman - understands that gold has intrinsic value, while paper money is only as good as the promises of the issuing country.

 

I don't expect Krugman will ever get why people and governments value gold, but they all do, which taints not just his unreasonable faith in greenbacks, but most of his arguments as to what actually drives an economy.

 

Pete Smith
Cypress, TX

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Monday-letters-Solid-gold-Brian-Cushing-5097092.php

Neonics

OffHisMeds has written extensively about the unnecessary alarm surrounding GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) as they relate to agriculture.  As you may recall from prior posts, for more than a decade activists have targeted GMOs, blaming them for everything from agricultural devastation to birth defects to Explosive Bowel Syndrome.  In the past few years, the same folks have embraced a new cause: the supposed threat of a class of pesticides – neonicotinoids – they claim are responsible for a variety of ills, including neurological damage in children and a decimation of bee populations worldwide.  It's the standard "Agribusiness Is Evil" diatribe, long on declarative statements and short on documentation, with arguments as fluid as those provided by the Global Warmers.

The claims of neurological damage in children are almost laughably disprovable, so the bulk of this piece will focus on the arrival of neonicotinoids and Large scale bee die-off, or CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder).  The current narrative is a conflation of sundry Lefty talking points.  I invite you to click on the links provided and follow a few more of them to understand their argument.  It won't take long. 

The neonicotinoid family of pesticides - or neonics - were first developed in the early 90s largely because they demonstrated far lower toxicity than the things they replaced, such as organophospate and carbamate insecticides, both of which were particularly harmful, ironically, to honey bees.  But reading through the sources that the Organic Consumers Association used to support their contention that neonics are bad, I ran across a number of interesting facts that ran counter to their assertions:

- Even though agribusiness giant Monsanto figures prominently in the narrative, they do not produce neonics.  This ends up being amusing for more reasons than you can imagine.

- Neonics represent less than 25% of all pesticides in use, have a much shorter half-life and are applied in far smaller doses than the chemicals that they replaced. 

- Widespread use of neonics in agriculture did not start until the mid-2000s, far too late to be a source of neurological disorders - including ADHD - among children, which had been documented going back to the 60s. 

- There is virtually no correlation between the geographic distribution of neonics and any of the pathologies attributed to it, particularly the destruction of bee populations.

- There is no chronological correlation between the introduction of neonics and the onset of CCD.

- In the past two years, the incidence of CCD has fallen dramatically, for reasons as little understood as the original causes of the syndrome.

That’s just the short list of glaring inconsistencies between what these authors proclaim in the various links to this article and the known facts, but simple facts never discourage Lefties.  Take this classic instance of stating the obvious and making it sound like something sinister: "Between 2006 and 2011, USDA detected Imidacloprid on roughly 22 percent of the conventionally grown produce samples it tested." 

Beyond the obvious question of why it would ever be a surprise to occasionally find pesticides on the surface of a plant, there is the unacknowledged fact that the USDA did NOT find imidicloprid on 78% of the samples tested.  Were they completely incurious as to why?  They also say nothing about the concentration of the samples, essential in determining toxicity.  

Finally, one is left to wonder how it is that these various critics could fail to appreciate that the most common and compelling brief about the likely toxicity of neonics has nothing to do with their external application, but rather the suffusion of neonics via the root system into the tissues of the plant itself.   

Proving a connection ought to be simple enough.  Show some physical proximity between neonics and, say, CCD, and you have a smoking gun.  So, why haven’t Environmentalists done that?  Perhaps it’s because even a cursory examination not only doesn’t support their theory, but largely disproves it.  Take the geographical spread of neonics and the known instances of CCD.  Neonics are used overwhelmingly on bulk grain crops like corn and soy, the vast majority of which are grown in the “Corn Belt” states of the Midwestern US as represented in the map on the left.

Corn/Soy Production                                                              Incidence of CCD

Bees are used to pollinate primarily fruits, vegetables, nuts and hay crops.  The overwhelming majority of these crops are produced in northern, western and southern states.  Not surprisingly, CCD happens where the bulk of bee-pollinated crops are grown, as represented in the map on the right.

While there is some overlap, the incidence of CCD is far greater outside the Midwest than within it, particularly in Western states and the Deep South.  The lack of overlap in the states of Illinois and Indiana is particularly remarkable, given that they are at the very center of the farm belt region where the most corn and soy are grown.

Most damaging to their arguments about CCD is that it has been documented as a regular occurrence going back to at least the last half of the 19th century, 120 years before the introduction of neonics.  In the modern era, the current epidemic started in 2004, well prior to the widespread use of neonics in 2006.

Neonics were not used soon enough, and their variety and concentrations were too diverse to plausibly explain the systemic pathologies that the Alarmists attributed to them.  So, if the timing of the introduction of Neonics is no Smoking Gun, and the coincidence of their distribution and the onset of CCD is no Smoking Gun, what is a Lefty conspiracy theorist to do?

The default fallback is to look at scientific studies.  There is certainly nothing wrong with this practice, as it provides the best opportunity to uncover problems before they manifest themselves in the real world.  A small number of studies done on neonics speculate that some products in this class of chemicals may contribute to CCD among our bee populations by lowering immunity to mites or fungi that are traditional enemies of bee populations.  A few other studies speculate that neonics can accumulate to disorient harvesting bees. 

Those studies were, at best, inconclusive, while the most compelling evidence for the recurrence of CCD relates to non-pesticide sources.  As stated in a USDA paper published this year: “Declines in honey bee colony health were exacerbated in the 1980s with the arrival of new pathogens and pests. The arrival of Varroa and tracheal mites into the United States during the 1990s created additional stresses on honey bees.”

Talk about an understatement.  Varroa mites – which hadn’t existed in the US prior to the ‘90s – are the number one killer of honey bees, and have been identified as the source of CCD across the world going back to the mid-60s.  So why don’t you ever hear about the Varroa Mite?  The reason might be that there’s no way to blame it on Big Agriculture.  The other reason might be that the mite was spread by the “slovenly” agricultural practices of Europeans going back to 1965. 

That notwithstanding, even the USDA is reluctant to simplistically blame the syndrome on a single cause.  The 2012 White Paper “Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report”, neatly summarizes the scope of the challenge in diagnosing CCD: “Although a number of factors continue to be associated with CCD, including parasites and pathogens, poor nutrition, pesticides, bee management practices, habitat fragmentation, and agricultural practices, no single factor or pattern of factors has been proven to be “the cause” of CCD.”

Lest you think the USDA is in the pocket of Big Agriculture – a common theme – pesticides have been identified as a risk for honey bees repeatedly in the past 40 years, most recently in that same white paper: “When pesticides are viewed in aggregate on a national scale, residues of pyrethroids (a large class of man-made pesticides similar to the natural pesticide pyrethrum produced from Chrysanthemum flowers) pose a threefold greater hazard to bee colonies than neonicotinoids, based on mean and frequency of detection in pollen samples and relative acute toxicity.”

Just roll that phrase on your tongue: "mean and frequency of detection in pollen samples and relative acute toxicity”.  These are exactly the things the Lefties could have investigated before hurling accusations, but that's science and science is just too damn unreliable when you're on a mission. 

And no examination of this subject would be complete without contemplating a delicious irony:  Neonics were also developed to replace pyrethroids.  So, to the extent that Environmentalists have prevented the spread of Neonics, it is reasonable to say that they perpetuated the use of pyrethroids and thus actually contributed to the spread of CCD.

Which brings us back to the “blame Monsanto” mantra of the Left: As might be expected, before Environmental Activists focused their guns on neonics, they attempted to blame GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).  Based on the Left Wing's simplistic and predictable methodology, GMOs had to be the problem because a) their use was prevalent, and b) the Environmental community had already declared them a health hazard for humans.  Unfortunately, once the science was done, GMOs were absolved, but it is arguable that the investigation of neonics as a cause was delayed some period of years because of the slash and burn tactics of the Left.

The conflation of GMOs and neonics was intentional, given that the real target of Lefty demagoguery has always been American agribusiness, as represented by Monsanto.  Ironically, the neonics blamed for these disorders are produced by Bayer, a German company.  Beyond the obvious point that the Hysterically Aggrieved blame Monsanto for everything is the delicious reality that most of the blather against this class of chemicals comes from the European Union, of which Germany is the most prominent member.  Funny that the Euros should join hands with radicals in the U.S. to blame an American company for the misdeeds of a German company.

It’s funny as well that the real and documented cause of CCD - Varroa Mites – occurred because of the shoddy agricultural management policies of Europeans, who now stand boldly against neonics so as to demonstrate how responsible they are.

 

The punch-line here is the fact that when Lefties influence public policy without having thought through the consequences of their actions, they frequently create environmental disasters (Ethanol) or make others worse (the decimation of bird populations).  More about that in a future post.  In the meantime, here's hoping that they actually do a little research on industrial farming in the new year.

An Open Letter To Yet Another Obamacare Inflator

Dear Pajama Boy Defender:

 

Cripes, would it kill you to actually do some homework before you blow warm air up our skirts about the wonders of Obamacare?

"Only" $125 per month for a 27 year old to get a policy? Problem is, that $1,500 yearly premium gets our hypothetical Obamacare Subscriber exactly: nothing.   She still pays 100% of the first $6,000 as Deductible, and then only if the Provider is "participating" in Blue's network. If her doctor, drug store and specialist are "non-participating", the 27 year old pays as much as the first $10,000 per year. OOP (Out Of Pocket) can be as much as $12,500. Also, that doesn't include Dental or Routine Eye Care.  Don't take my word for it: http://www.bcbsil.com/PDF/sbc/36096IL0760005a.pdf

For Dental, add $600/yr. for premiums and $700 OOP: https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/#results/&aud=indv&type=dent&state=IL&county=Cook&cov=spouse

If she makes $40,000/yr. she qualifies for ZERO premium subsidy, since Obamacare forces her to spend the first 9.5% of gross income, or $3,800/year: http://tinyurl.com/ll8v26r

She also gets NO subsidy for OOP expenditures: 1) Only the high premium / high deductible "Silver" plan qualifies for OOP subsidies; 2) Even if you have a Silver Plan, only Individuals making less than $28,725 per year qualify for OOP subsidy, and then only on what is referred to as "Essential Health Benefits":  https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/

In conclusion, the 27 year old could spend as much as $15,000 before the insurance companies have to cough up a dime.

 

http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/12/23/pajama-boy-id-of-the-anti-aca-machine/

Fun With Grammar

So I was reading my online Houston Chronicle yesterday morning. One of the headlines read "Tigers' attempt to mate goes horribly wrong" and I thought: now what has he gotten himself into?

Anyway, then I noticed the apostrophe was placed after the "s", and everything was OK.

What Say You Focus On Teaching Somebody Something?

Regarding "Roadway pollution putting 80,000 schoolkids at risk" (Sunday Front Page), while this article supposedly documents the pollution risk for Houston area schoolchildren in schools deemed to be too close to heavy traffic roads, to me it is yet another example of the skewed priorities of bureaucrats.  It's no coincidence that so many articles about our school system seem to deal with everything except whether or not we're improving the school system. 

 

Take the story "HISD weighs mascot changes" (Dec. 7th Front Page), where HISD Superintendent Terry Grier decided his number one priority was to squash the native American themed mascots at four different Houston schools.

 

Or the story "State votes to drop math rule” (Nov. 22 Front Page) about eliminating Algebra II as a requirement for the vast majority of Texas high school students so they could "focus on career and vocational training".  

 

Or the story "HISD scores $30 million federal grant" (Dec. 18 Front Page) about HISD scoring yet another pile of cash courtesy of the nation's taxpayers.  

 

The common theme of these stories is that none of them deal with Educators focusing on programs that actually improve the learning process for our youngsters, as documented in the Chronicle article "U.S. students still trail on global test" (Dec. 4th Nation & World).

 

Since the 70s, our Educators have focused their attention on political correctness, self-esteem, lowering standards to improve graduation rates, and a mind-boggling number of ways to pay themselves more money.  During that same time, you'd be hard-pressed to find even a smattering of articles about initiatives they've taken that actually succeeded in producing more literate, educated, college-worthy students. 

 

It is high time for our Educators to start doing their jobs, and stop distracting us with superficial matters.  As to whether or not HISD has a pollution problem, as recently as the mid-60s, Houston schools had their windows flung wide open because they had no air conditioning, and yet somehow those students managed to thrive.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

Again With The Israel Bashing?

Regarding "Scholars’ group backs boycott of Israel" (Tuesday Nation), one thing is unremarkable about the effort to rule Israeli universities out of polite society because of Israel's alleged suppression of Palestinian academic freedom, and that is the tiresome regularity with which left wing groups in America target Israel - and Jews - in their struggle to survive Islam. 

 

What is remarkable about this article is the very matter-of-fact way in which the NY Times misrepresents this boycott as the action of a mainstream institution within the American intellectual community.  In point of fact, The ASA (American Studies Association) - like so many institutions which previously had a reputation for scholarship - has in recent years been substantially co-opted by the Far Left, with a political agenda largely replacing an academic one.  Just peruse their website.

 

What is also remarkable is that any educational group supposedly committed to academic freedom and exchange should target Israeli institutions of learning as opposed to their Islamist counterparts.  Israel has an Arab and Islamic intellectual community every bit as robust as their political community; they are largely state-sponsored and voice their opinions without fear of reprisal.  By comparison, Palestine supports nary a single Jewish voice, and to this day continues to offer as part of its core educational curriculum the demonization not just of Israel, but of Jews. 

 

I could go on.  The article fails to point out that of the 5000 members of the ASA, less than 16% voted in favor of the boycott.  The article also fails to point out that eight past presidents of the ASA lobbied against this measure, or that the past two presidents of the ASA lobbying for the boycott are committed Leftists who were repudiated not just by the larger academic community, but by liberal papers such as The Daily Beast and The New Republic, to name but two. 

 

Finally, the Association for Asian American Studies - which also advocates for an educational boycott of Israel - is hardly an "American academic group".  A simple perusal of their website reveals an organization largely committed to the disenfranchisement of Israel, as opposed to academic pursuits. 

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

The Ransom, Mr. Powers, is......ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (give or take)

And.......cue music.

"Understanding Obamacare is so difficult".  We have heard this time and time again from the Talking Heads, but they do a disservice to the public with these proclamations.  Obamacare is not only simple, it's simplistic. 

Case in point: how much more will Obamacare cost than what we currently spend?  The Obamites would have you believe that costs will actually go down, but for virtually every reason, this is nonsense.

There are five - and potentially six - broad means by which Obamacare will drive up the cost of our current government/private health care system, and one rather dubious means by which it is proposed to lower costs.  

Not surprisingly, the single most expensive government expenditure increase will be for the expansion of Medicaid coverage. The Brookings Institute estimates that Medicaid roles will be expanded by 17 million people under Obamacare.  Using Kaiser Foundation numbers on current Medicaid expenditures, this alone will cost over $155 Billion per year.

Second is the expansion of benefits under Medicaid to bring it more in line with private insurance.  Since per capita Medicaid expenditures are already 40% higher than those in the private market, it's hard to imagine how it could require yet more money, but accounting for yearly inflation and a modest rise in incremental costs, it's reasonable to assume that Medicaid per capita will increase by at least 15% in the next year.  This is especially true because in the reform of Medicaid, the federal government has not at all changed the perverse dollar-for-dollar federal match on current-year state Medicaid expenditures.

The third driver of Obamacare inflation is the provision of insurance policies to the workers who do not qualify for Medicaid, along with generous taxpayer subsidies for both the premiums and OOP (out of pocket) expenditures.  Per the Obama administration, some 38 million of the 60 million uninsured will subscribe to policies on the Exchanges.  Since there is no "history" for tracking private insurance policies that originate on Obamacare's newly created Exchanges, for comparative purposes I've base-lined their theoretical 2012 cost at a rate comparable to a 2012 private policy, roughly $5,000 per person.  As you can see, Obamacare policies are hugely more expensive, averaging over $7,000 per person in the first year.  That is why the line item shows 40% inflation in 2013.

The fourth driver will be for dental and comprehensive optical for this same group.  I've broken it out separately for the simple reason that Obamacare's Exchange health insurance policies do not cover dental or anything more than the most basic of optical.

Fifth on the list and by far the most expensive driver of Obamacare's costs is the inflation of our current private health care policies.  Conventional wisdom is that close to 100% of them - mostly employer subsidized - will not be in compliance with Obamacare mandates.  As we have seen with the overnight collapse of the individual private health insurance market, the employer market will either collapse - causing a massive migration into more expensive Exchange policies - or require a massive increase in premiums so as to cover all the additional costs imposed by Obamacare. 

This line item alone comes to almost $1 Trillion.

 Last but not least is the Big Question Mark - the remaining uninsured.  It's absurd to think that nearly twenty years after Hillary Clinton attempted what Barack Obama actually accomplished there will still be some 22 million people without health insurance of any kind, but such is the bizarre consequences of a policy so extreme in its expense and so byzantine it it's complexity that it could not afford to provide universal health coverage.  And even assuming that the vast majority are Illegal Immigrants, the enfranchisement of "more benefits" for virtually everybody else under Obamacare will certainly add momentum for the extension of similar benefits to those "left behind".

So there you have it folks: left to its own devices - and with a functioning website - Obamacare will have siphoned well more than $1 Trillion from the rest of the economy and into health care once fully implemented.  Thanks to the monumental incompetence of the Democrat Party and their bureaucratic minions, it will take longer than that, but left unchecked, the outcome is near inevitable.



Obama To Workers: Enjoy Bankruptcy

As I've documented in prior posts on Obamacare, while it's nearly impossible to catalogue all of the things that are wrong with this plan, the particular outrage that ought to be getting everybody's dander up is the sky-high Deductibles and OOP (Out Of Pocket).

As you may recall, the Bronze and Silver Plans advertise OOP up to $6,350 for a Single and $12,700 for families.  That was already twice as high as comparable private sector policies, but even this advertisement is false.  Drilling down into the specific plans, you find that the plans most likely to allow you to keep your doctors, hospitals and specialists have Deductible/OOP of $12,700 for a Single and $25,400 for a family.

We've already documented what a gift this is to the insurance companies: in essence, they don't need to pay out a dime until you have met those obscene OOP levels, so the OOP does insure something: it insures the profits of Barack Obama's new best friends.

Obamites will tell you that the increases are all necessary in order to build into the system enough money to a) cover some portion of the 41 Million uninsured, and b) cover people with pre-existing conditions so they won't go bankrupt. 

Remember, though, that only the Silver Plan - which has high premiums and high deductibles - is eligible for OOP subsidies.  That means that taxpayers will pick up much of the tab for the tens of millions of low income folks enrolling for the first time, while Middle class wage earners will qualify for essentially nothing.  But if you drill down on different income scenarios you find that virtually everybody is on the hook for OOP that will essentially bankrupt them.

And all so that the insurance companies can turn 90% of their income into pure profit.

But what of pre-existing conditions, you say?  How many times did Obamites repeat as a mantra their statistics about health care costs causing 75% of personal bankruptcies in America.  Surely Obamacare protects against that?

Well, no.  No it doesn't.

Pre-existing conditions routinely lead to the huge outlays that insurance is supposed to cover, but Obamacare does not.  Let me offer an example:

Betty Lou is 40 and has the beginnings of heart disease that requires continuing care including frequent doctors' visits, consultations with specialists, regular use of CAT scan or other big ticket diagnostic tools, and a comprehensive regimen of drugs.  Her health care expenses average $10,000 per year.

$10,000, by the way, is wayyyy low as the norm for this kind of patient, but bear with me.  Betty Lou and her husband have a household income of $50,000 per year, and have enrolled in the Silver Plan so as to qualify for OOP subsidies paid for by the taxpayers.   they also qualify for premium subsidies because of their income level.  Their yearly premiums are $6,000 for the typical Silver Plan, and their OOP is $12,700.  The Kaiser Foundation calculator incorrectly estimates their premiums at $5,070 when the reality is $6,000, but that's irrelevant because of the subsidy, which shows that they qualify to pay no more than 9.5% of the gross income for premiums, or $4,750.  So, on the surface, they appear to get about a 20% discount on their premiums:

Because they enrolled in the Silver Plan, they also qualify for OOP subsidies.  This is a little trickier.  Neither healthcare.gov or Kaiser Foundation will tell you what OOP subsidies are until you completely enroll online and subscribe to a plan.  As we've documented in the past, this bit of subterfuge is necessary in order for Obamites to get you into the system and ahold of you by the short hairs.  That said, anecdotal evidence suggests that OOP subsidies are comparable to premium subsidies.  That would mean that Betty Lou and her husband would be on the hook for 80% of the $10,700 OOP, or $8,560, bringing their total yearly outlay for health insurance to $13,310 per year.

After FICA and income taxes, Betty Lou and her husband have a disposable income of $42,500 per year.  Obamacare has doubled their health insurance costs compared to their private policy, siphoning an extra $6,655 out of their pockets yearly.

Betty Lou and her husband qualify for no further benefits because they have equity in a house, a savings account and an IRA worth $150,000.  Thanks for effing nothing, Barack. 

This scenario was as forgiving towards Obamacare as circumstances possibly could be.  Despite that, Obamacare Hoovers up every last dime and essentially puts this family on the path to bankruptcy.  Only when they have disposed of all of their assets and become poor will they qualify for better subsidies under Medicaid.

It's not any better for a low income family.  Say you're making only $35,000 as a couple, you still only qualify for subsidies of 50% on premiums.  Comparable OOP subsidies means that this couple would pay $3,000 premiums + $6,300 OOP = $9,300 before the insurance companies had to pay a dime.  That also means bankruptcy for these folks, who would be confronted with these outlays year after year after year.

And let us not forget that under both these scenarios this couple would fork over another $1,000 per year for dental and comprehensive optical.  There is also zero likelihood that their doctors and specialists would be on their plan unless they picked a plan with OOP double of this example.

So, what to do?  Get yourself on Medicaid.

Medicaid outlays average well over $8,000 per patient, almost 40% more than the $5,000 average for the health care industry as a whole.  So, if you've got a pre-existing condition and you want to qualify for comprehensive health care with no worries and somebody else picking up 98% of the tab, you need to quit your job, sell your house, dispose of your assets and go on Medicaid.

Under Obamacare, your only other option is bankruptcy.   

Hi Yo Silver, and Other Tales of Obamacare Iniquity

So the other day I posted a laundry list of nefarious things I'd discovered on the healthcare.gov website, including the berserk premiums, out of control Deductibles and Co-pays and the mind-numbing complexity of a plan that reveals that what the Democrats have concocted really is the worst of all worlds.  I was going to just take little slices of it and give it a closer look, but, damn, we really need to fast forward to the important stuff, and then work our way back.  Y'all are just going to have to trust me on some of the particulars or visit the website yourself.

So today's meditation is on what I consider to be THE key element of the plan to make Obamacare a wealth-transfer system that enslaves citizens to the Democrat Party, as so many have accused: the Silver Plan.  As you probably know, the insurance plans on the "Exchanges" are Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum.  At the Bronze end they are low deductible/high premium.  At the Platinum end, the reverse.  The Silver Plan, contrarily, is bizarre in that it is high premium AND high Deductible.

That was not an accident.

The Silver Plan is key to understanding the intent of the Obamacare strategy, which is to steal trillions from taxpayers, and transfer this money to Democrats, the insurance companies and the health care cartels.  First, take a look at the Silver Plan reality:



Plan Comparison For Family of Three

 

There's little difference between Gold and Platinum, so I left Gold out.  Still, the Bronze, Gold and Platinum plans all make sense: the higher you go up the Plan ladder, the higher the premiums and the lower the Out Of Pocket.  The plans also progress with the Bronze being the most expensive in terms of total Yearly Expense (because of the humungous OOP), and Platinum the least expensive.  And yet, there, like a gigantic carbuncle on the backside of Obamacare is the Silver Plan: high premiums, high OOP, and significantly higher total Yearly Expense than all other plans.

 

As I mentioned earlier, this is no accident.  As stated on the Kaiser Foundation website, subscribers can qualify for taxpayer-funded subsidies on premiums for all plans, but for OOP (Out Of Pocket) subsidies, it is mandatory that they use the Silver Plan, and only the Silver Plan.  That forces virtually all of the 41 Million uninsured Americans onto the Silver Plan, since they are by definition lower income and thus will qualify for the subsidies.  It will also be the default option for the likely 100 Million lower and middle class working Americans with employer insurance that will be purged from the employer-insured roles once the Obamacare mandates invalidate the vast majority of private employer plans.  If they are not purged, they will go willingly to the Exchanges, since taxpayer subsidies will substantially pay for their OOP as well as premiums.

 

And needless to say, their employers will be more than willing to let them go. 

If you stop and consider that Obamacare was designed primarily as a means to gift the insurance companies, the higher premiums and sky high OOP compared to private plans - along with taxpayer subsidies for both - suddenly make sense.  Insurance carriers will pay nothing until OOP thresholds are met, with OOP ranging from $8,000 for Singles and $7,000 per family member across the broad spectrum of policies from Bronze to Platinum. 

Critical to this entire venture is whether health care providers can be brought on board, instead of fighting the insurance companies for every penny, which was the status quo ante.  Unless there is a pot big enough for everybody to benefit, the whole thing falls apart, and the key is whether taxpayers are on the hook for OOP as well as premiums.  Through the OOP subsidies, they are.  So the particulars of this scam are:

1) Insurance company's premiums under Obamacare that start out at least 50% higher than policies on the private market;

2) The humungous OOP elements of all plans protect insurance company profits by forcing everybody to pay for 90% of their actual health care expenses before insurance payments kick in.

2) The vast majority of private sector plans covering 250 million people are not compliant with Obamacare, which will allow the insurance companies to throw out the vast majority of those, as they did the 15 million people covered by private policies last month.  The result will be insurance company premiums comparable to the inflated Exchange policies;

3) All of those formerly on private plans will then automatically qualify for premium and OOP subsidies;

4) Without any meaningful cost controls on the consumption of health care services, poor people will flood the market with demand, vastly expanding the quantity of services delivered, which will bring the health care Cartels on board to support the program.

The end result can not help but be a $1 Trillion yearly gift to the insurance companies and the Cartels.

So in conclusion, and contrary to Obamite public statements, the Exchange insurance plans are heavily skewed towards not just preserving the profits of insurance companies, but expanding them.

Obamacare does not just enfranchise the already insanely overpriced private insurance plans, it drives them higher.

Obama To The Middle Class: Grab Your Ankles

So, any of you that have followed my previous posts have noticed how much I've been harping on Deductibles and OOP (Out Of Pocket) expenditures under Obamacare Plans, specifically how insanely high they are.

Still, the sheer uniformity of the Deductibles and OOP represented on the healthcare.gov website made no sense to me, so I decided to take a deep dive on some specific plans and what do you know: the Obamacare website is lying to you - again.

Regardless of the plan you choose or your family's size, when using their health care calculator, OOP is represented as being a maximum of $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family.  Turns out, that is only true for coverage "On Network".  If your services are "Out-of-Network" those charges exactly double to $12,700 for an Individual and $25,400 for a Family.  Read it and weep:

The daily revelations of the Exchange plans show that virtually none of them will allow you to keep the combination of doctors, hospitals, clinics and specialists that you currently employ, so in reality, to retain quality health care, you will be forced "Out-of-Network" for at least half of your healthcare expenditures.  Obamites will claim that taxpayer funded subsidies for OOP will ease the pain, but the point is that the insanely high OOP and deductibles will become the new baseline for the entire industry.

So in conclusion:

1) Insurance company profits will soar, since only a tiny percentage of individuals or families will exceed these OOP thresholds. 

2) Insurance company revenues and profits will soar yet further, since they will be able to sell taxpayer subsidized insurance policies to the uninsured lower income pool that does not qualify for Medicaid.  That group is estimated to be 41 Million people. 

3) Insurance company revenues and profits will soar yet further, since Obamacare subsidies - unavailable to the private market - will incent employers to dump their employees into the Exchanges. 

And all of this, of course, will be taxpayer subsidized.

Obamacare has been portrayed as a vast wealth transfer mechanism from the Middle Class to the poor, and that is undeniably true.  What has not been contemplated prior to this is that Obamacare is also a vast weath transfer mechanism from the Middle Class to the Health Insurance Moguls.

Hey, and just for fun, check out page 6 of this policy for the services not covered.  As I've documented previously, none of the health plans you subscribe to include Dental, and only the most basic of Optical, if at all:

So plan on adding at least another $500 yearly per family member out of your pocket for uncovered services, and remember, as the disclaimer above says "This isn't a complete list..."

Democrat-Speak For "Give Me More Money"

Regarding "Still Serving" (Letters, 12-9-13), Former U.S. Rep. Charlie Stenholm repeats a curious statistic that I have read and heard from other politicians regarding our national debt.  Speaking of our national debt, he states that "by 2035 it will exceed the size of our economy".  That's curious, since the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that our current GDP is $16.9 Trillion, while our national debt is widely reported to exceed $17 Trillion.

 

Unfortunately, that 22 year gap is not the only flaw in Mr. Stenholm's vision.  He also urges "members of Congress to take steps that will put the debt on a downward path as a share of the economy".  For decades this has been standard Democrat-speak for more taxes, and only modest, if any, spending reform.  

 

Since the end of World War II, America's debt problem has never been about inadequate revenues or debt as a percentage of GDP, it has been about berserk government spending.  The minute that anybody in a position of power within the Democrat Party is willing to say that, I will have some hope that the problem can finally be brought under control.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

Trigger Happy Cops

Regarding "Scores attend vigil for student shot by officer" (Sunday B2), the article documents that University of the Incarnate Word honors student Robert Cameron Redus was pursued and gunned down by campus police corporal Christopher Carter during an off campus traffic stop.  The facts of the story detail any number of actions by the officer that were curious and provocative.  First and foremost was Cpl Carter's decision to pursue Mr. Redus even though they were both off campus.  What was a campus cop doing trying to enforce traffic laws outside of his jurisdiction?

 

The second was the fact that he provoked the conflict by confronting Mr. Redus and drawing his gun for something as inconsequential as a traffic stop.  Third and most damning was the fact that the officer apparently made no effort to de-escalate the situation, and did not contact the local police whose responsibility it was to enforce laws in the area.  

 

It's ironic that this murder should take place just two weeks after an article in the Chronicle on police shootings in the Houston area titled: "Bulletproof: A special report, Civilians caught in the line of fire" (Page A1, Nov. 24).  The article documents the near perfect immunity of local cops in the past decade against indictment for shootings, despite the questionable nature of several of those shootings.  

 

It will be interesting to see whether a local cop is finally held responsible for gunning down an unarmed citizen.  I am also curious to see whether there's any accountability for putting a gun in the hands of an officer whose work record is as bad as Cpl Carter's.  If holding nine jobs at eight agencies in eight years isn't a red flag, nothing is.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX 

Obama To Young People: Grab Your Ankles

Know your audience.  That's what they tell you in the media consulting business.  Today, my audience is young adults, so y'all get a lecture (which you hate) and graphics (which you love).  But fear not, it's all for the cause, which is to explain how the guy that you entrusted with 65% of your votes enacted health care legislation that puts so much of the burden for financing it on your shoulders.

Disclaimer: I am 59 years old.  I am in the absolute sweet spot as far as taking advantage of Obamacare's perks.  I can't do it.  If I did I'd never be able to look another young person in the eye, ever.

First off, it's important to understand that Obamacare affects everybody, whether you have insurance or not.  Revelations of the past two weeks show that virtually ALL private insurance plans in effect - employer subsidized or individual - are not compliant with Obamacare mandates, which means that they will all change radically by this time next year.  So, if you as a young person don't have insurance, you're going to be forced into Obamacare.  If you do have insurance, the rates you pay are going through the roof in order to become compliant with Obamacare.

Now, on to the figures.  The chart below shows insurance plan options lifted straight from the healthcare.gov website for a Single Person.  Being something of a spreadsheet geek, I filtered them down to show you the Bronze Plan, which is low premium/high OOP (Out Of Pocket), and the Platinum Plan, which is high premium/low OOP.  For good measure I threw in a Bronze Plan with a taxpayer subsidy of 35% on premiums based on a $40,000 yearly income.  This is the result:

The first thing that catches one's eye are the rates.  Overall, they are around 40% more expensive across all age groups than private insurance, and double or triple the rates available to young people.  See, unlike the federal government, the private insurance industry actually takes your age and good health into account and bases their premiums on that reality. 

The second thing you notice is the OOP (Out of pocket) levels.  OOP is the amount of money you spend before the insurance company has to kick in a dime.  OOP under Obamacare is insanely high for all age groups compared to private insurance plans.  What that means for young people is that absent a catastrophe, they will essentially end up paying all of their health care expenses and thus never benefit from the policy.

The third thing you notice is that OOP for youngsters is essentially the same as it is for older folks.  How is that fair?  Simple: it's not.  $6000 for the 27 year old, who has very little if any yearly expenditures for health care, and $6000 for me, who has a lot.  This is one method by which Obamacare essentially dumps the bulk of health care spending on the young, but by no means the only one.

But wait, you say, don't the premium subsidies help the young afford a more robust plan like a Silver, Gold or Platinum that is not so front-loaded with OOP?  The Obamites would have you believe so, and would point to the premium subsidies as an inducement to step up to a more comprehensive policy.  As it turns out, premium subsidies don't do a damn thing for the vast majority of working young people.  Using the calculator available on the Kaiser Family Foundation website, a Single Person earning $40K yearly income gets 35% off on premiums, which is a piddling savings regardless.  Grow your income beyond that - which is exactly what will happen for young folks - and the subsidy quickly dwindles to zero.  Older people, by comparison, routinely see their incomes level off or drop as they approach retirement, so the premium subsidies for them actually grow. 

The next thing to draw one's attention are the things that are not included in the policies, including Dental care and Optical care.  Dental care has a separate calculator that screws young people every bit as much as the health care plans do.  Optical is not available to calculate anywhere on the website.  Also not included are the premium upcharge if you are a Smoker.  Finally, the healthcare.gov website claims time and again that the figures they quote you are only estimates: you're just not going to know for sure what you will pay until you completely enroll on the website and commit to a plan.

Also on the list of information not included on the website is any meaningful detail as to what the plans cover, particularly whether your preferred doctors, specialists, hospitals and clinics are accessible via the plan you've chosen.  And for the most part, doctor participation is something you're unlikely to be able to discern until after you've contracted for a policy and then gone out and researched it yourself.

Of the laundry list of things not included for your scrutiny, the last "Gotcha" for young people is the most interesting: OOP subsidies.  Like Optical and coverage for Smokers, healthcare.gov won't let you see what you're entitled to on OOP subsidies until after you submit all your personal information and subscribe to a plan.  There are two reasons the Obamites are doing this:

1) The subsidy structure for OOPs - just like everything else in the plan - is engineered as a gigantic wealth transfer mechanism from people who are working to those who are not.  That means young people in particular get the shaft, given that they are largely Single and at the beginning of their work life.  And, if the Obamites structured OOP subsidies similar to premium subsidies - which is likely - this would mean that young people would get no relief on precisely the element of Obamacare that is most punitive: Out of Pocket expenses.

2) The other very sneaky and underhanded reason Obamacare goes to such lengths to force everybody to enroll is that the entire plan is unenforceable unless everybody - particularly young people - enroll.  If you don't enroll, the IRS has absolutely no means to come after you for the Individual Mandate.  This is true because they have no means of knowing whether or not you have already enrolled for insurance outside of the healthcare.gov website.

Finally, we come to the Individual Mandate.  Don't believe the crap you hear that this is only $95 per year.  The law clearly states that it is $95 per person or a percentage of gross income, whichever is greater.  That starts out at 1% of yearly income, and will grow to 2.5% by 2016.   That's $1,000 plucked from the wallet of somebody struggling by on a $40k salary every year, and in return, you get: nothing. 

So in conclusion, let us review the sundry ways that Obamacare is bad for the health of America's young folks:

- It offers insurance policies to young people double or triple the cost of those available on the open market.

- It will invalidate ALL employer subsidized insurance plans, since none of them are compliant with Obamacare.  This will cause employee premiums and OOP to skyrocket. 

- With the exception of a catastrophic illness, young adults end up paying all of their own health care costs while still being forced to pay for a policy.

And last but not least, since the entire program is destined to crash and burn due to the berserk overspending, corruption and waste that is inevitable, young adults will be forced to pick up that tab as well, just as we are all now paying for Social Security and Medicare; or, your children will. 

Bottom line, stay the hell away from healthcare.gov. 

THINGS I LEARNED WHILST BROWSING HEALTHCARE.GOV

We are here to help....

It's amazing what you can find out about Obamacare once you can get into the web site.  Here's what I've found in eight hours of browsing over two days:

On the main page of Healthcare.gov, using the utility called “See plans before I apply”, you have absolutely no ability to research anything but the most basic information on health plans, and the website has numerous disclaimers that you must enroll before you can determine the true cost of a plan.  That means you have to provide all of your private information before you can determine if Obamacare is any good.

There are explicit disclaimers on the website that you have no reasonable expectation that your personal information will be secure.   

With rare exceptions, the health care plans offered under Obamacare do not cover Optical or Dental, and you pay a massive upcharge for any Smokers.  According to the customer service representative I spoke with, “most of the plans do not include Optical or Dental”. 

Healthcare.gov cannot show you the plans that have optical.  You need to research them one at a time until you find one that does.

If you research Dental as a standalone plan, the average yearly premium for 1 person is $300 with $700 OOP (Out Of Pocket) expenses before any insurance benefits kick in.  Family plans averaged an $850 premium with a $1,400 OOP.

The website is incapable of allowing you to calculate a family Dental plan other than a generic template that assumes that you have two kids ages 3 and 5, and that you and your spouse are age 30.

There doesn’t seem to be any difference in the cost of health plans whether your children are 5 or 26.

There was only one Platinum plan offered for any and all combinations of family size and age.

The average of premiums, Deductibles and OOP (Out Of Pocket) expenditures across all Health Care plans works out to $8,000 per person for coverage for one or two persons.  Above three persons the costs add about $1,500 per family member, with the average Family plan costing $19,000. 

Making even reasonable assumptions about the incremental costs for Dental, Optical and Smokers premium, that makes Obamacare individual plans more than twice as expensive as employer sponsored health insurance plans, and Family plans about 40% more expensive.

By comparison, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in 2013 employer plans averaged $4,700 per individual and $16,351 per family.  Those plans included Smokers as well as Dental and Optical.  Keep in mind that the Kaiser Foundation is Obamacare's Fluffer, so for them to reveal statistics that make it look bad is a big deal. 

All Bronze plans are nothing but hugely overpriced catastrophic health plans.  Premiums for individuals average $3,000 per year with Deductibles and OOP of $6,000.  Family Plan premiums average $6,400 Premiums with Deductible/OOP of $12,700.

“Silver” plans are the biggest rip-off in the system, with very high premiums along with huge Deductibles and OOP.  A typical plan for a family of three was for a $7,188 premium, $9,200 Deductible and $12,600 OOP.  And that did not include Optical, Dental or Smokers premium. 

There’s a reason they are pushing Silver plans.  You can only qualify for government subsidies on your OOP expenditures based on your income level if you sign up for a “Silver” Plan.  And of course, you can’t find out what those subsidies might be without enrolling in the system, but it is safe to assume that the same income-based subsidies provided on premiums will apply on OOP as well.  That means if you are in the lower middle class and above, you get nothing. 

Premium subsidies are based on your income as well.  They are a whopping good deal if you are in a lower income bracket, but they are a joke if you are not.  For example, a family of three grossing $25,000 gets an 82% premium subsidy. The website states “Households with yearly incomes up to about $46,000 for individuals or $94,000 for a family of four will qualify for lower costs.”  Doesn’t matter.  The meaningful subsidies actually cut off at $46,000 for a family of three.

Healthcare.gov does not have a program to help you calculate what your premium subsidy is.  You need to click on the Kaiser Family Foundation link to calculate your premium subsidy.  It will ask you whether or not you or any family members are smokers, but regardless of how you answer, it shows the same subsidy.  The Kaiser Foundation tool also only shows examples on the assumption that you want a Silver plan.

The Healthcare.gov website also goes to pains to explain that premium subsidies are only available if you get your plan through the “Exchanges”, and that folks with employer provided plans do not qualify.  If this doesn’t mean Obamacare was meant to destroy the private health insurance markets, nothing does.

The plans offered in Obamacare are heavy on PPO (Paid Provider Organization) plans.  PPOs are notorious for forcing you to use a doctor “on network”.  Whether or not your family physician or specialist is part of the PPO is a crap shoot.  There are numerous website disclaimers regardless of plan that make it clear there is no ability to keep your doctors.

There is an awesome subsidy for everyone who lies about their incomes, smoking habits and family size, and absolutely no way for the government to verify if you are telling the truth.  The bureaucracy will have to be expanded by at least 1 million in order to administer Obamacare.

Bottom line, Obamacare is savagely and relentless discriminatory to the Middle Class.  If you have even a modest income, you end up paying premiums and Deductibles much higher than current employer provided insurance, and qualify for minimal to no relief.

In summary, all Obamacare plans are designed to make you pay maximum premiums and maximum Deductible/OOP with little risk to the insurance companies.  With the way they have inflated both premiums and OOP, Obamacare pumps hundreds of billions in additional profits into the insurance companies every year.

So the next time you hear Obama or the Democrats trashing the insurance companies, well, use your imagination.

LTE: Clear talk on healthcare

Finally, An Informed Opinion On The Health Care Mess: http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Thursday-letters-Simple-kindness-clear-talk-5035755.php

Regarding "Most ‘providers’ don’t have the old first name - doctor" (Sunday Outlook), after being forced to listen to the clueless ramblings of a bunch of politicians who have no idea what they're talking about, we finally get a coherent - and scathing - indictment of the health care system in America from somebody that is entitled to an opinion on the subject.  In less than 1000 words, Dr. Leonard Zwelling captures the decades-long failure of the system better than any book on the subject, and provides a clear explanation of why Obamacare is simply more of the same. 

 

Dr. Zwelling has a genius for terminology that allows the subject to finally make sense to laymen.  Phrases like "health care industrial complex", "corporatizing of medicine" and "baristas of bariatrics" perfectly explain the ever-expanding cast of profiteers, politicians, meddlers, hucksters, bureaucrats and opportunists that come between a patient and her doctor, the most prominent among those being the health insurance companies and the federal government. 

 

Analysis of his article ought to be a semester-long course in high school, and nobody should be allowed to graduate until they understand it completely.  For my part, I am going to send the link to everybody I know.  Then, I'm going to print out a hundred copies and hand them to anybody hungering for an explanation; then I'm going to print out another hundred copies.

 

But first, I'm going to stock up on ink cartridges. 

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

The Case For Case, Part Two

Regarding "Keenum’s flash of promise dims" (Monday Sports C3), before we go to writing off Case Keenum, perhaps a little perspective is in order.  First off, there is almost nothing about the Texans' offense that even begins to take advantage of Keenum's talents; Ditto for the blocking schemes, not to mention that the Texans' offensive line checked out weeks before Keenum became quarterback.  Kubiak himself admits these problems when he says that Keenum's number one failure has been his inability to anticipate the failure of his offensive line to stop the blitz.

 

The real culprit here is Kubiak's predictable play calling.  On 3rd and short yardage situations, Kubiak called for a shotgun set six times: four of those failed, as they have all season.  Who in his right mind would intentionally take the run off the table in 3rd and short situations?  On first and goal late in the game, Kubiak called for his usual play set: "run, run, pass, kick field goal", an all too familiar pattern for our red-zone challenged offensive coordinator.  Coach Kubiak avoids throwing the ball into the end zone, avoids throwing downfield on first down, and avoids throwing the ball three times in a row, all things at which Keenum excels.  Ironically, this was largely the strategy Jacksonville employed to dominate the play clock and Houston's defense - on their own turf.

 

I could go on: The Texans have very few "Read" options in their offense; they have no effective hurry-up offense and laughingly call their own version the "muddle huddle"; most disturbing, Kubiak's number one offensive priority as he himself admits is not to score touchdowns quickly, but to control the play clock.  This explained the amazing lack of any sense of urgency throughout the game, and throughout eight agonizing seasons. 

 

Coach Kubiak has pursued his offensive strategy for eight years, and you can count the significant victories on one hand.  Bottom line, no NFL quarterback could succeed under such a retro system, and trying to fit Keenum into this offense is like pounding a square peg into a round hole.  And has nobody taken notice of the fact that, on the most mistake-prone and penalized team in the NFL, Case Keenum has been nearly mistake-free?

 

One last thing: there's little doubt that making this "all about Case" is very tempting for the Texans: it takes attention away from the failures of the general manager, coaching staff, offensive line, receivers and special teams, not to mention the profound collapse of Houston's heretofore well regarded defense. 

 

Everybody needs to resist the impulse to make this all about Case and all about drafting a "savior", or we'll be having this same conversation five years from now.  Let's get rid of the current system, and use the last five games of this season to try something else.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

Let The Punishment For Pimps Fit The Crime

Regarding "Cornyn, Poe file sex trafficking bill" (Wednesday City & State), kudos to a bipartisan group of senators and representatives for confronting a social problem that can only be described as epidemic in numbers and scope.  The tougher punishment for “Johns” in particular will go a long way to reducing demand.

That said, the proposed sentencing guidelines for the pimps and traffickers that kidnap girls and force them into prostitution are timid to say the least: 15 years to Life for trafficking girls under 14; 10 years to Life for victims 14 to 18.  This punishment does not begin to fit the crime. 

Studies show that prostitutes are 40 times more likely to die from their profession than average workers, and that life expectancy from the time they enter “The Life” is around 20 years.  They die from drug addiction, alcoholism, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, a far greater susceptibility to commonplace ailments, and murder.  The vast majority will die young, and all of the causes are directly attributable to the people who enslaved them and profited from them. 

So instead of simply giving slavers harsher prison terms, why not include the death penalty?  If it is true that the average prostitute is conscripted at age 14, and lives to the age of 34, there is no doubt that forcing girls and women into prostitution is murder.  Use existing kidnap law as a template.  Federal sentencing guidelines for kidnapping permit execution if the kidnap victim dies, and states like Georgia allow it if the victim is ransomed or sustains bodily harm while in captivity. 

The sex slavery trade is a kidnapping for ransom that never ends, with daily rape and torture thrown in for good measure, followed by death.  If we can all agree that this crime is more heinous than kidnapping, we can enact the appropriate sentences and get the problem under control once and for all.

Texas should lead the way.

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

Overpaid Underperforming Crybabies Finger The Real Culprit

Regarding "These are tense times for Schaub" (Thursday Sports), we are now up to at least four Texans' starters who have made quotes explicitly critical of Houston fans for booing at the game this past Sunday vs. Oakland.  Tight End Owen Daniels is quoted as saying he "only wants smart fans in the stands".  In John McClain's Monday article, Andre Johnson said of the fans: "They choose to boo.  I feel it's very unnecessary.  I don't really approve of it."  Left guard Wade Smith complained that he was disappointed "because (the booing) was affecting how we play." 

Really Wade?  Did the fans cause all of your penalties too?

 

And lest there be any doubt about how players felt, Ben Tate said "The fans in Houston are so up and down, and so wishy washy."  He then went on to say he "was shocked, because this organization has come a long way."  Apparently he spoke for the whole team, because not a single player criticized him for his comments, much less his jaw-dropping conclusion that the Texans "have come a long way."

 

Can these players really be that clueless as to why the fans are booing?  They booed Gary Kubiak's decision to take out Case Keenum, who has thrown more TD passes to Andre Johnson in the past four games than Matt Schaub managed in the prior 22.  They booed because they knew that when the game was on the line, Schaub would stare directly at his primary receiver and then throw into triple coverage, losing the game.  They booed because they knew that in the second half, instead of playing to win, the Texans would come out of the locker room and simply go through the motions, as they have for eight games in a row.  Finally, they booed the fumbling, penalty-plagued Texans for being so mistake prone that their CENTER was called for a false start.  How is it even possible for the guy that snaps the ball to forget that he hasn't snapped the ball yet? 

 

And don't even get me started on the fact that these guys decided to tar all fans with the same brush.  They are paid millions to play professional football, not stumble around like a bunch of amateurs.  Rather than blaming the fans they should man up, apologize for their terrible play,  promise to do better, and then deliver.  If they can't do that, they deserve the boos.    

 

Pete Smith

Cypress, TX

Another View On The Dome

From a good friend and longtime Rodeo volunteer:

Pete,

 

In regards to your article on the dome, having a local popular politician, and or local popular business people attach their names to the dome initiative perhaps would have helped the measure pass, but one of the larger issues is the influx of people that have moved to Houston in the last 10 years that have no prior attachment to the Dome. They have no memories of the place, zero, not only sporting events but the Rodeo as well.  Couple that with the fact that the Rodeo waited until the day before the election before they endorsed the measure.   Why county officials waited that long to ensure the Rodeo brass that they would in turn do what they are contractually obligated to do, but currently not doing is beyond me. 

 

I have great memories of the Dome, particularly the Rodeo. The Rodeo, in my opinion, has never been as good as it was when it was still in the Dome and the Astro Hall was still there.   Now in 2013, the Rodeo is out of space: they can not put on the show without an enormous amount of extra work due to the fact that they have to continue to set up and tear down at a pace that is just unimaginable to move events in and out.  Which in turn creates a nightmare situation trying to get livestock in and out as well as the other project shows in conjunction with one another. The Rodeo needs that space the Dome provides, or they are going to need space equivalent.

 

It seems to me that there's no end to the money the county throws away on various other projects. And with the appearance of not properly courting the Rodeo association, we will most likely lose a national icon for no good reason. In the grand scheme of things, relative to a county and city of this size, the $217 million was a pittance to the value that the dome could still produce.

 

And that my friend, is shameful.

Terry Hershey Would Not Approve

Regarding "Sweet Gratitude" (Wednesday letters) and a recent Chronicle article praising Terry Hershey for her decades-long efforts to preserve  bayous and parklands in greater Houston, it's ironic that there are plans afoot to undo a portion of her legacy, and the Harris County Flood Control District is the culprit.

 

At a Commissioners Court meeting Nov. 12th, HCFCD proposed a study that would lead to the destruction of a 25 acre section of woodlands, ironically located in her namesake, Terry Hershey Park, and replace it with a flood basin.  The Commissioners Court approved the study.  This is exactly the thing that Mrs. Hershey fought against: nature forced to give way to evermore commercial development, housing projects and freeway expansion that then mandate flood control expansion that crowds out the surrounding flora and fauna. 

 

Terry Hershey Park is a model for how Houston's unique system of bayous ought to be managed, and given the recent and very well-deserved tributes to Mrs. Hershey, the good citizens of Greater Houston can honor her efforts by getting involved, not just in stopping this flood basin project, but by encouraging our politicians to plan for the preservation of our green spaces before they indiscriminately issue building permits.   

 

Pete Smith, Cypress

LTE - Valuable lessons

Regarding "Officials in no hurry to decide Dome's fate" (Page A1, Tuesday), Harris County voters rejected the $217 million bond proposal to rejuvenate the Astrodome. Since then, various public figures and media types have expressed their disappointment at the rejection and expressed more than a little disdain for the voters' lack of vision. All things considered, I for one wonder why they were surprised.

The Astrodome project had more than a few things in common with another questionable infrastructure project, Houston's $700 million, five mile long North Rail line expansion ("Metro's unmet goals cost big bucks," Page A1, Feb. 22, 2011): Little attempt by the authors to explain the gargantuan cost, purposeful vagueness on their part as to what - if any - value would be realized, and little assurance that the thing would not turn into a perpetual money pit.

There were also important differences between the two:

No. 1: For most of its existence, the Astrodome has been an epic financial and civic success.

No. 2: Unlike MetroRail, there were few politicians willing to lend their names and prestige to the Dome project.

No. 3: MetroRail was funded substantially by federal government transportation grants, while Harris County taxpayers would have been on the hook for all of the Dome project.

Bottom line, with the Dome, Houston's political and business leaders needed to convince area voters to fund a potential boondoggle. They failed. And the only reason they had no such similar challenge when it came to the rolling financial, environmental and operational disaster that is Metro's rail system is because most of it was built with other people's money.

I'm sorry that our political and business leaders couldn't come up with a better plan to save the Dome, but there's an important lesson to be learned here: For responsible funding decisions to be made, voters and their elected representatives must have at least some skin in the game.

Pete Smith, Cypress


http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Saturday-letters-Still-seeking-Dome-solutions-4986369.php

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Saturday-letters-Still-seeking-Dome-solutions-4986369.php