Iraq has concluded the bidding for oil-development and production from its largest and most lucrative fields. American oil companies were absent from the field of winners, dominated by oil companies from China, Russia, Angola, Japan, France, Britain, the Netherlands and Malaysia.
[ex]Iraqi officials said this proved their independence from U.S. influence and that their two bidding rounds this year for deals to tap Iraq's vast oil reserves, the world's third largest, were free of foreign political interference.
The Oil Ministry on Saturday ended its second bidding round after awarding seven of the oilfields offered for development, adding to deals from a first auction in June that could together take Iraq up to a capacity to pump 12 million barrels per day.[/ex]
No boon for U.S. firms in Iraq oil deal auction
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BB18Q20091213">http://www.reuters.com/article
Only one U.S. firm bid in the second round. Of the four fields bid on by U.S. firms in the first round, only Exxon Mobil won a major prize, as part of a group awarded a contract for the West Qurna Phase One field. U.S.-based Occidental was able to participate with a minor stake in a group that won a contract for the Zubair field.
[ex]"For us in Iraq, it shows the government is fully free from outside influence. Neither Russia nor America could put pressure on anyone in Iraq -- it is a pure commercial, transparent competition," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh. "No one, even the United States, can steal the oil, whatever people think."
"The results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies," said Philip Frayne, a spokesman at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The results run counter to predictions of some critics of the U.S.' 2003 Iraqi invasion, who envisaged domination of Iraqi oil by U.S. oil majors.
"We haven't really seen U.S. companies, and that is because of intense competition ... The issue is financial and technical and not at all political. This confirms Iraq can manage its oil policy and activities without politicization," said Thamir Ghadhban, a prime ministerial advisor and former oil minister.[/ex]
While American companies continue to develop properties and rights in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and gas fields in Qatar, other nations have been touting their success in the bidding wars for Iraqi oil “Production Sharing Agreement” (PSA) rights, which allow foreigners to participate in development while retaining oil revenue for the Iraqi government and its citizens.
These include Russia:
Lukoil-led group signs deal for prized Iraqi oilfield”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BP10420091229?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=76
China and France:
Iraq initials deal for Halfaya oilfield
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BL02X20091222
Malaysia and Japan:
Petronas group to invest up to $8bln in Iraq field
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BK0NM20091221
and the Dutch and Britain:
Iraq, Shell ink deal on supergiant Majnoon field
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BJ0GO20091220
Can we expect retractions, corrections, apologies? No, the “believers” will ignore facts and continue to harp on the “American war for oil.”
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Obama using Flight 253 to gain control, not prevent or protect
You would expect that the immediate response to the failed bombing of Flight 253 would have been to mobilize intelligence and Homeland Security resources to address failures and assess strengths, right?
Not in this administration!
Instead of facing up to its failure to act against a potential threat from a religious extremist, the Obama administration immediately poured all its resources into trying to divert attention to ... GWB, of course!
On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.
...
"This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue."
The Politics of Incompetence
It seems that vital resources at DHS, FBI, NSA and CIA took a backseat to political operatives, who are still hard at work defending our citizenry from George Bush.
"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."
The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day.
Just as many suspect, Obama's greatest concern in response to the failed terrorist attack was not for identification and prevention of foreign attacks, but was for the preservation of his administration's power and ability to continue with his domestic agenda.
What was the first "big step" the administration took in the aftermath? Buy a controlling interest in GMAC and Allied Bank.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread530709/pg1
I do not believe Barack Obama has the necessary motivation to take ANY substantive actions. He wants the US to have more internal police power. The more threatened and victimized we become, the greater his ability to impose more domestic control.
What better way to impose the ultimate "nanny state" than to assert, "This is for your own good," and back it up with proof of the threats and danger that only Washington can address?
"Swine flu," "global warming." "housing crisis," and "economic collapse," haven't worked so far.
Take it one step farther. Our health, environment, finances and homes weren't enough.
Now, people must die.
Recall that he, Clinton, Emmanuel and others in the administration chant the same mantra:
Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”
(Saw this coming back in March)
I really believe that Obama has absolutely NO motivation to take any concrete FOREIGN action in these regards. The worse things get, the better for his agenda.
His administration needs help. He needs this.
Nov. 18, 2008
Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Mar. 6, 2009
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Mar. 8, 2009
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”
Ever since Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel paraphrased economist Alan Friedman last November, saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” the Obama administration has followed this path to push its agenda into the forefront of the public consciousness.
By turning every issue (climate, health care, banks, housing, the economy, et c.) into a “crisis,” Obama and his administration have preyed upon fear and desperation to push aside reasoned debate.
Using Congress as the scriveners, Obama has crafted blueprints for his socialist plans and turned them over to the Democrats in the House and Senate to solve, or fail.
When, you have to ask, will we become desensitized and deaf to the cries of “crisis” every time Obama wants to move his socialist agenda another step forward?
The majority of Americans are now realizing the results of Obama's agenda.
Isn't it funny how time has borne this out?
Obama will say ANYTHING that gains him support, regardless of his intentions.
I've said the same thing since he and Hillary were facing-off in 2008.
Read his books if you want to see what he really intends to accomplish.
(Been saying that, too. Is it too late?)
So, here we are nearly 6 months later and what do we see?
Economic "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Swine flu "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Energy "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Banking "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Automobile "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Housing "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Credit "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Health care "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Media "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Wanna know what's next?
"Civil unrest," "inflammatory speech," "right-wing terror," and anything else that threatens an expanding liberal/progressive/Obama constituency.
I won't say "I told you so."
Deny ignorance!
jw
Not in this administration!
Instead of facing up to its failure to act against a potential threat from a religious extremist, the Obama administration immediately poured all its resources into trying to divert attention to ... GWB, of course!
On December 26, two days after Nigerian Omar Abdulmutallab allegedly attempted to use underwear packed with plastic explosives to blow up the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight he was on, and as it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration.
...
"This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue."
The Politics of Incompetence
It seems that vital resources at DHS, FBI, NSA and CIA took a backseat to political operatives, who are still hard at work defending our citizenry from George Bush.
"The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary."
The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day.
Just as many suspect, Obama's greatest concern in response to the failed terrorist attack was not for identification and prevention of foreign attacks, but was for the preservation of his administration's power and ability to continue with his domestic agenda.
What was the first "big step" the administration took in the aftermath? Buy a controlling interest in GMAC and Allied Bank.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread530709/pg1
I do not believe Barack Obama has the necessary motivation to take ANY substantive actions. He wants the US to have more internal police power. The more threatened and victimized we become, the greater his ability to impose more domestic control.
What better way to impose the ultimate "nanny state" than to assert, "This is for your own good," and back it up with proof of the threats and danger that only Washington can address?
"Swine flu," "global warming." "housing crisis," and "economic collapse," haven't worked so far.
Take it one step farther. Our health, environment, finances and homes weren't enough.
Now, people must die.
Recall that he, Clinton, Emmanuel and others in the administration chant the same mantra:
Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”
(Saw this coming back in March)
I really believe that Obama has absolutely NO motivation to take any concrete FOREIGN action in these regards. The worse things get, the better for his agenda.
His administration needs help. He needs this.
Nov. 18, 2008
Rahm Emmanuel: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Mar. 6, 2009
Hillary Clinton: “Never waste a good crisis.”
Mar. 8, 2009
Obama: “Time of crisis can be 'great opportunity'”
Ever since Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel paraphrased economist Alan Friedman last November, saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” the Obama administration has followed this path to push its agenda into the forefront of the public consciousness.
By turning every issue (climate, health care, banks, housing, the economy, et c.) into a “crisis,” Obama and his administration have preyed upon fear and desperation to push aside reasoned debate.
Using Congress as the scriveners, Obama has crafted blueprints for his socialist plans and turned them over to the Democrats in the House and Senate to solve, or fail.
When, you have to ask, will we become desensitized and deaf to the cries of “crisis” every time Obama wants to move his socialist agenda another step forward?
The majority of Americans are now realizing the results of Obama's agenda.
Isn't it funny how time has borne this out?
Obama will say ANYTHING that gains him support, regardless of his intentions.
I've said the same thing since he and Hillary were facing-off in 2008.
Read his books if you want to see what he really intends to accomplish.
(Been saying that, too. Is it too late?)
So, here we are nearly 6 months later and what do we see?
Economic "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Swine flu "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Energy "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Banking "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Automobile "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Housing "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Credit "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Health care "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Media "crisis" necessitating unprecedented government intervention.
Wanna know what's next?
"Civil unrest," "inflammatory speech," "right-wing terror," and anything else that threatens an expanding liberal/progressive/Obama constituency.
I won't say "I told you so."
Deny ignorance!
jw
Monday, October 12, 2009
Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work, and How to Fix It
Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work, and How to Fix It
Health insurance has failed because it underwrites basic certainties, rather than risks. What risk is there that an average working adult will need medical attention in a 12 month span? Probably 50%; maybe better. Thus, a third party guarantor betting against the attendant expenses must be able to charge an inflated "premium" for his promise to pay the bet if he loses. The amount of his payment does not matter as long as his margin, the difference between the premium and the payment ( and the XX% risk-factor), is carefully maintained.
Since the need for some medical attention by a "fee for service" provider is high, the insured risk is not really a risk at all, but an eventual certainty. Over a 5 year period, the insurer/guarantor/bettor will almost certainly be called upon to pay. And, since the bettor does not barter or receive the services, he is mostly excluded from the base transaction. Attempts to inject himself into the purchase and provision of the services skews the focus of the underlying relationship away from the consumer and toward the guarantor, usually without consideration of the medical necessity or efficacy of the services sought, and more importantly to him, toward the cost/return on investment calculations vital to his success.
Health care insurance fails because it does not insure against a "risk." Working Americans do not benefit by spending their health care dollars underwriting the insurers' betting system. They would be better served, and their money more carefully spent, if they controlled the purchase of medical services. Insurers are necessary for those medical expenses that truly are risks; accidents, catastrophic and chronic illness, and the results of activities voluntarily engaged in by the consumer (e.g., skydiving, bullfighting, smoking).
If an average working American set aside the "premium" dollars he spent each month, tax free, to spend as needed at market-driven rates, he would have a readily available pool of funds with which to make his choices, much like pre-qualifying for a mortgage or pre-approval for a car loan. But, what about immediate needs before he has accumulated the "pool", and the danger of the unexpected emergency?
A lump sum payment, equal to the employer's share of his health insurance premium premium, would quickly establish the necessary pool of funds available to employees, per capita, or upon any system the company and employee agree upon. The employer's incentive would also be a reduction of his tax liability for any contributions and maintenance costs related to the creation, funding and administration of the fund.
Unexpected expenses could be insured against with individual policies, similar in terms to the "Accidental Death and Dismemberment" coverage so cheaply available that no one takes its costs seriously - or the risks! Which is why such coverage reflects true "insurance" and affordable leverage of risk by individuals and groups, depending upon the nature of the risk covered.
Imagine health care insurance being as cheap as "air travel" or "trip" insurance. Imagine the "Doc-in-a-Box" vying with the branch clinic of the local Community Hospital, or the dentist's office offering "employee discounts" to "Smith Toyota's" employees and preferred customers. This is market-driven health care. Not a no-frills industry, but a competitive marketplace in which special, expensive services are readily available to those who need them, with collective pools of consumer-controlled, and specific-risk-underwritten, dollars set aside for such eventualities.
Average workers with average needs and expenses will control their health care with their own money. Extraordinary expenses would be paid for with employer-contributed funds and insurance, or by a government-funded pool, for accident and catastrophic care expenses. (Careful employers will make "extraordinary expense" coverage a part of the pool contribution scheme.)
Health insurance has failed because it underwrites basic certainties, rather than risks. What risk is there that an average working adult will need medical attention in a 12 month span? Probably 50%; maybe better. Thus, a third party guarantor betting against the attendant expenses must be able to charge an inflated "premium" for his promise to pay the bet if he loses. The amount of his payment does not matter as long as his margin, the difference between the premium and the payment ( and the XX% risk-factor), is carefully maintained.
Since the need for some medical attention by a "fee for service" provider is high, the insured risk is not really a risk at all, but an eventual certainty. Over a 5 year period, the insurer/guarantor/bettor will almost certainly be called upon to pay. And, since the bettor does not barter or receive the services, he is mostly excluded from the base transaction. Attempts to inject himself into the purchase and provision of the services skews the focus of the underlying relationship away from the consumer and toward the guarantor, usually without consideration of the medical necessity or efficacy of the services sought, and more importantly to him, toward the cost/return on investment calculations vital to his success.
Health care insurance fails because it does not insure against a "risk." Working Americans do not benefit by spending their health care dollars underwriting the insurers' betting system. They would be better served, and their money more carefully spent, if they controlled the purchase of medical services. Insurers are necessary for those medical expenses that truly are risks; accidents, catastrophic and chronic illness, and the results of activities voluntarily engaged in by the consumer (e.g., skydiving, bullfighting, smoking).
If an average working American set aside the "premium" dollars he spent each month, tax free, to spend as needed at market-driven rates, he would have a readily available pool of funds with which to make his choices, much like pre-qualifying for a mortgage or pre-approval for a car loan. But, what about immediate needs before he has accumulated the "pool", and the danger of the unexpected emergency?
A lump sum payment, equal to the employer's share of his health insurance premium premium, would quickly establish the necessary pool of funds available to employees, per capita, or upon any system the company and employee agree upon. The employer's incentive would also be a reduction of his tax liability for any contributions and maintenance costs related to the creation, funding and administration of the fund.
Unexpected expenses could be insured against with individual policies, similar in terms to the "Accidental Death and Dismemberment" coverage so cheaply available that no one takes its costs seriously - or the risks! Which is why such coverage reflects true "insurance" and affordable leverage of risk by individuals and groups, depending upon the nature of the risk covered.
Imagine health care insurance being as cheap as "air travel" or "trip" insurance. Imagine the "Doc-in-a-Box" vying with the branch clinic of the local Community Hospital, or the dentist's office offering "employee discounts" to "Smith Toyota's" employees and preferred customers. This is market-driven health care. Not a no-frills industry, but a competitive marketplace in which special, expensive services are readily available to those who need them, with collective pools of consumer-controlled, and specific-risk-underwritten, dollars set aside for such eventualities.
Average workers with average needs and expenses will control their health care with their own money. Extraordinary expenses would be paid for with employer-contributed funds and insurance, or by a government-funded pool, for accident and catastrophic care expenses. (Careful employers will make "extraordinary expense" coverage a part of the pool contribution scheme.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)