The following is contained in a letter from Sen Bernard Sanders to the editor of the Wall Street Journal May 10th.
The Journal ignores the most important reason for the Postal Service’s financial troubles: a .5 billion annual mandate to pre-fund 75 years of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years. This onerous requirement, unmatched by any entity in the private sector or government, is responsible for more than 80% of the Postal Service’s debt. But for this prefunding mandate, the Postal Service would have posted a profit of 0 million from 2007-2010 and a 0 million profit in the first quarter of this fiscal year. The Senate-passed bill effectively resolves that issue. It also addresses the reality that the Postal Service overpaid billion into the Federal Employees Retirement System.
Early retirement looks pretty good.
While this is technically correct in terms of accounting, it misses the point. We should be concerned why there is such a large liability, not how to manipulate or eliminate the funding which is exactly what got many states in trouble. Various bills in Congress want to waive the retiree medical funding requirement. How’s that for solving a problem? The liabilities exist even if they are not funded even as the USPS continues its financial decline.
The USPS lost 6 million in the period ending March 31, 2012 excluding the funding for retiree medical benefits alluded to by Senator Sanders.
Now consider these facts reported on Bloomberg Business Week:
- The postal service wants to reduce payroll by 20%, but union contracts prohibit layoffs.
- 80% of post offices lose money.
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the average hourly compensation for a postal worker is vs in the private sector.
- 80% of the USPS budget goes to employee salaries and benefits compared with 43% for FedEx.
- The last union contract provided for a 3.5% pay increase over the contract period plus seven uncapped cost of living increases.
- Postal workers contribute 21% toward their health benefits versus 28% for most federal workers.
- 79 percent of USPS total costs are the wages and benefits of its employees.
It short, it is the same old story of an unholy alliance between public unions and politicians. Even when postal service management attempts to solve it’s problems their actions are blocked by Members of Congress.
Filed under: Government, Politics 
quinnscommentary
The title of this blog post is taken from a call out statement contained in a report prepared by the Center for American Progress as is the quote below. This type of reporting, propaganda or whatever you want to call it represents the worst of politics. The intent is to further polarize Americans by segmenting this group or that and playing on elements of their self-interest.
A quick reading of the first paragraph below and some would conclude that 45 million women first obtained these services because of Obamacare [note how suddenly the President's supporters have adopted the once pejorative "Obamacare."]. The reality is that the 45 million who had such service, most of whom would have had them in any case, have gotten them for “free” and the “free” part is supposed to be a good thing. There probably is no need, but I can’t help but remind readers these services are not “free” at all and such claims are further evidence of either the naivety of proponents or simply their overwhelming desire to promote their agenda despite the facts.
And of course, we can’t forget the insurance industry abuses against women. Never miss an opportunity to take a shot at the scapegoat of choice.
Denial of coverage for “gender-related pre-existing conditions”… as opposed to non-gender-related conditions? Has anyone ever stopped to ask why all these people women, men or otherwise waited until they had pre-existing conditions to apply for insurance? Has anyone asked why children were prevented from coverage for pre-existing conditions when it was universally possible to enroll a newborn without such restrictions provided such enrollment occurred within a certain period? Employer plans have always required a new child or spouse to be enrolled within a specific number of days or to wait until the next open enrollment period. Is that unreasonable to protect against gaming the system and to protect the employer and fellow workers against adverse selection costs? Oh wait, it does require the exercise of personal responsibility and we all know that is a no, no.
Thanks to Obamacare, more than 45 million women have already taken advantage of recommended preventive services, including mammograms, pap smears, prenatal care, well-baby care, and well-child care with no cost sharing such as co-pays and deductibles. Starting this August, millions more will be able to obtain contraception, annual well-woman care (a visit with a gynecologist), screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding counseling and supplies, and screening for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and the Human papillomavirus—again at no extra cost.
In addition, women will no longer encounter discrimination in the health insurance market in the form of lost maternity coverage, higher premiums due to their gender, and denials of coverage for gender-related pre-existing conditions. Indeed, close to 9 million women will gain coverage for maternity care in the individual market starting in 2014. And provisions in the new health law that protect everyone will especially benefit women, who utilize the health care system the most. In short, Obamacare will increase health insurance coverage for women, lower their health care costs, and end the worst insurance industry abuses against them.
Look past the rhetoric on both sides of the health care debate, look at the unintended consequences of the promises made. Consider the promises of “free.”
Filed under: Healthcare, Politics 
quinnscommentary
Pending legislation in the Bay State would target the growth in health care spending to the growth in the Gross State Product (similar to national gross domestic product) give or take a little. The average currently is 3.6% annually.
This is a worthy goal, but waving a magic legislative wand does not make things happen. The Affordable Care Act attempts something similar using the Medicare Payment Advisory Board and many people are up in arms over what they see as a potential move toward rationing. Keep in mind that the growth in health care costs is not primarily caused by the increase in individual fees, but the growth in utilization and the type of utilization (more, and more complex, expensive tests).
In addition, providers must deal with reduced payments and new constraints from the federal government. This is especially true for hospitals.
So, to meet preset spending targets what has to happen? The most obviuous is that all providers must reach an optimum level of efficiency. However, beyond that the care that is provided must change. In other words, less care and less intensive care must be provided. If that means that patients receive better care, only necessary care and no more that’s great. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that is achieved but gross spending does not reach the target, then what?
We are back to the fundamental question applicable to all political solutions … how?
Filed under: Government, Healthcare 
quinnscommentary
This week on the blog: Global Program Assistant Molly Brister introduces the winners of CIPE’s Fourth Annual Youth Essay Contest. Global Program Officer Anna Nadgrodkiewicz talks about the real meaning of corporate citizenship and how it differs from corporate social responsibility (CSR). Africa Program Office Yana Hongla discusses the issues he saw during his recent visit [...]
CIPE Development Blog
Geometry of Constructed Cover -
May 15, 2012 by
zeldalegacy
Filed under: Photography Tagged: aiken, Asphalt, Concrete, constructed, Contrast, Green, LID, low impact development, Parking, Pavement, pervious, Photography, SC, stormwater treatment, white 
FreshlyPressed
The following is from a recent article in Health Affairs.
Abstract
The pending Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act and the fall presidential election raise concerns about what would happen if the insurance expansion promised by the landmark health reform law were to be curtailed. This paper’s analysis of national survey estimates found that access to health care and use of health services for adults ages 19–64—the primary targets of the Affordable Care Act—deteriorated between 2000 and 2010, particularly among those who were uninsured. More than half of uninsured US adults did not see a doctor in 2010, and only slightly more than a quarter of these adults were seen by a dentist. We also found that children—many of whom qualify for public coverage through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program—generally maintained or improved their access to care during the same period. This provides a reason for optimism about the ability of the coverage expansion in the Affordable Care Act to improve access for adults, but it suggests that eliminating the law or curtailing the coverage expansion could result in continued erosion of adults’ access to care.
While I do not make light of the problems many people face who do not have health insurance, nor do I deny the need for expanded coverage, I find the basic assumption that virtually nobody can afford even modest health care intriguing. Look at the above abstract, could it be that half of the people in the group did not need to see a doctor or that they chose not to see a doctor or dentist for reason unrelated to their coverage status? Could it be that children received more care because much of the care was free or that children naturally use services more than twenty somethings?
I have written on this concept many times before, but I still find it fascinating and one of the reasons we may never truly solve the health care problem even if we evolve to a single payer system.
I am convinced the average person does not see any health care expense as something they should be responsible to pay. Consider all the goods and services a person buys in a year beyond the very necessities of food, clothing and shelter and then tell me where paying for a doctors office visit lies in the list of priorities.
The fact is when we decide what we cannot afford, health care is near the top of any list ahead of real necessities like going out to eat, a trip to Disney for the family or even a weekly trip to the nail salon (think “The Pill” unaffordable co-pay).
Of course I am not talking about catastrophic level expenses for which we all need insurance, but that is a long way from buying supplemental coverage to pay our 20% coinsurance or mandating an array of services to be “free”. Heck, seniors routinely buy Medi-gap coverage to pay for things they paid for themselves before they had Medicare without any cost-benefit rationale.
Does anyone seriously think that those now free services are not actually affordable to most people if they chose to spend their discretionary dollars that way? Rather, we need to make them free because we know people will always choose to spend their money otherwise even when it is in their best interest to receive the health care.
Think how different and more affordable health care would be if the only coverage available was for hospitalization, medical and surgical care inpatient and fixed dollar benefits for laboratory, x-rays and the like … exactly the way it was when I started working in the health benefits field in 1961.
Filed under: Healthcare 
quinnscommentary
Looking Back at Alcatraz -
May 12, 2012 by
zeldalegacy
Some of these I’ve already posted on here when I blogged about my SF trip (Linked here) in 2010, others are newly edited. I’m slowly going through my pictures and organizing/tagging them in a more efficient manner, so I’ve decided to edit more of the old pics and share about some of the places in [...]
FreshlyPressed
Long time Senator Richard Lugar was defeated in a recent primary in favor of a candidate supported by the Tea Party. Rush Limbaugh is beside himself with joy. Granted Sen. Lugar is 80 years old and has been on the job for thrifty five years and since I strongly favor term limits and not congressional careers, he should have retired long ago, but that’s not the point.
Lugar is known for taking a bi-partisan approach in dealing with issues. It seems to me that the last thing this Country needs now is a Congress with its members at the extreme ends of a tug if war with the American people on the abyss of the mud pit in the center of the rope.
I don’t think we are getting anywhere!
During the health care reform debate, Republicans moaned (and rightly so) about the Democratic-controlled Congress doing pretty much what it wanted and ignoring or belittling any opposing ideas. However, by throwing out middle of the roaders seeking compromise and results in favor of the far right and their singular point of view, aren’t Republicans hoping to do the same thing for which they attacked Democrats? Just askin…
If all we have is the extreme left and the extreme right banging heads or worse if we elect a great majority of either party, we are going nowhere. Well, in fact, we are going somewhere and I doubt we will like it when we arrive.
Filed under: Politics 
quinnscommentary
The Obama campaign has introduced a cartoon character named Julia to convince Americans of all the government goodies in place and on the way for this young lady (and by implication, you). Of course paying for them and meeting the already created long-term liabilities are not mentioned in Julia’s story.
Here is an excerpt from an opinion piece in the New York Times and the full articles is here.
Her name is Julia, and she has the lead role in an Obama 2012 slide show that follows what’s supposed to be an American everywoman from childhood into retirement, tracking everything the Obama White House’s policies would do for her and everything the “Romney/Ryan” Republicans would not. The list of Obama-bestowed benefits includes Head Start when Julia’s a tyke, tax credits and Pell grants to carry her through college and low-interest loan repayment afterward, guaranteed birth control when she’s a 20-something and government-sponsored loans when she wants to start a business, all of it culminating in a stress-free retirement underwritten by Medicare and Social Security.
There is more at stake than Julia’s promised benefits. The fundamental role of government in our lives and the dependency we place on government provided programs is what really matters. Oh yes, one other little thing also matters … How (and who) will we pay for all these programs?
If you think it’s the other guy who will pay for Julia’s contraceptives, subsidize her loans or child care, I think you are wrong.
Filed under: Observations on life 
quinnscommentary
« old Posts
