Better stay Healthy

Obamacare (ACA) is dead according to the current administration.  Whereas with the current plan, ACA, insurance companies have withdrawn from markets in order to protect and increase profit, fortunately there is relief in sight.  Relief for corporate profits and CEO's, not for those who are sick and dieing.

Surely you jest, I hear.  I am aware the vast majority of my fellows derive their information regarding the American Health Care Act (AHCA) from sources other than the actual bill.  I note it is especially prevalent to obtain information from sources which support one's preconceptions.

Please, allow me to share what H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017 actually says.
First:  "Subtitle B--Medicaid Program Enhancement ".  When I use the term enhance I generally mean to intensify or increase in quality, value, power, etc; improve; augment.  Here is how the term is used in the ACHA.  "(Sec. 111) The bill amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to limit the state option for a participating-provider hospital to preliminarily determine an individual's Medicaid eligibility for purposes of providing the individual with medical assistance during a presumptive eligibility period. The bill lowers, from 133% to 100% of the official poverty line, the minimum family-income threshold that a state may use to determine the Medicaid eligibility of children between the ages of 6 and 19. In addition, the bill reduces the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid home- and community-based attendant services and supports. "  

Let's flesh that out.  For a single person the federal poverty line is $12,060, for a party of 4 it is $24,600.  Currently, Medicaid eligibility is determined to be a threshold income of 133% of the poverty line, $16.039.80 and $32,718 respectively.  The new threshold for Medicaid eligibility will be 100% of the poverty line.  That act will result in at least a few people losing access to medical care.  Of course, a culling of the herd is occasionally necessary.

"Under current law, any alternative benefit plan offered by a state Medicaid program is required to provide specified essential health benefits. The bill eliminates this requirement beginning in 2020. ("Essential health benefits" include ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, laboratory services, preventative and wellness services, and pediatric services.) "

One would think that services identified as essential would be required.  Let us not be so hasty.   ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, laboratory services, preventative and wellness services, and pediatric services, all "essential" will not be required to be provided.  I am confident that plans which don't provide these essential services will have substantially reduced premiums.  It seems, though, if you don't require any of the services mentioned, you really have no need for medical insurance.

"In addition, the bill eliminates the requirement for up to three months of retroactive coverage under Medicaid. Under current law, a state Medicaid program must provide coverage for up to three months prior to an individual's application for benefits if the individual would have been eligible for benefits during that period."

'Cause let's face it, poor sick people are just a burden.

"Subtitle C--Per Capita Allotment for Medical Assistance
(Sec. 121) Under current law, state Medicaid programs are guaranteed federal matching funds for qualifying expenditures. The bill establishes limits on federal funding for state Medicaid programs beginning in FY2020. Specifically, the bill establishes targeted spending caps for each state, using a formula based on the state's FY2016 medical assistance expenditures in each enrollee category: (1) the elderly, (2) the blind and disabled, (3) children, (4) adults made newly eligible for Medicaid by PPACA, and (5) all other enrollees. With respect to a state that exceeds its targeted spending cap in a given fiscal year, the bill provides for reduced federal funding in the following fiscal year. In addition, the bill: (1) requires additional reporting and auditing of state data on medical assistance expenditures, and (2) temporarily increases the FMAP with respect to certain data reporting expenditures."

Just to clarify, if my state determines to provide care for the elderly, blind and disabled, children, et al., and exceeds a federally mandated maximum, not only will that excess amount not be matched by federal funds (fair enough) but the next year my state will be penalized with a reduction in federal funding.  However, the administrative portion of the program will receive an increase in funding to ensure control of fraud and waste.

"(Sec. 133) Health insurers must increase premiums by 30% for one year for enrollees in the individual market who had a break in coverage of more than 62 days in the previous year. States with programs under this bill to provide financial assistance to high-risk individuals or stabilize health insurance premiums in the individual market and states participating in the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program may apply for a waiver to allow health insurers, for individuals with a break in coverage, to vary premiums based on an individual's health status instead of increasing premiums by 30%."

Let's all say "cha-ching".  Well, maybe not all of us, especially those subject to a 30% premium increase.  One of the largest complaints regarding the ACA is premium increases.  Now, we have insurance companies not only allowed but required to increase premiums.  How would you describe this?  How about usurious, unconscionable, greedy?

"
(Sec. 134) Beginning in 2020, health insurance benefits no longer must conform to actuarial tiers (e.g., silver level benefits).
(Sec. 135) The bill increases the ratio by which health insurance premiums may vary by age, from a three to one ratio to a five to one ratio. This ratio may be preempted by states.
(Sec. 136) States may apply to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for waivers to increase the ratio by which health insurance premiums may vary by age and to waive the requirement for insurance to cover the essential health benefits.
These waivers and the waiver to allow premiums to vary by health status do not apply to health plans offered through the CO-OP program, multi-state plans, plans the federal government makes available to members of Congress and their staff, or plans under PPACA provisions that allow state flexibility. "

Just to make clear, as an insurance provider I am no only constrained to a 3:1 variance in my premiums levied but can now exercise a 5:1 variance.  You have to admire the success of the insurance lobby.  They did fail to make this applicable to plans made available to members of Congress and their staff.

"(Sec. 204) This section repeals the penalties for individuals who are not covered by a health plan that provides at least minimum essential coverage (commonly referred to as the individual mandate). The repeal is effective for months beginning after December 31, 2015"

Who needs penalties when you have mandatory 30% premium increases?

"(Sec. 213) This section repeals the additional Medicare tax that is imposed on certain employees and self-employed individuals with wages or self-employment income above specified thresholds."

Yeah, 'cuz that 0.9% surcharge on wages over $200,000 was a burdensome tax.

"Subtitle B--Repeal of Certain Consumer Taxes
(Sec. 221) This section repeals the annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers.
(Sec. 222) This section repeals the annual fee imposed on certain health insurance providers based on market share."

These were consumer taxes only in the sense the cost was no doubt added to the product I purchased.  By that reasoning, I should recognize a reduction in cost assuming this bill becomes law.  How quickly do you think this will be noticeable?

"Subtitle D--Remuneration From Certain Insurers
(Sec. 241) The section repeals a provision that prohibits certain health insurance providers from deducting remuneration paid to an officer, director, or employee in excess of $500,000. "

Please, someone explain to me how this will have a positive affect on my access to and ability to afford health care.

That concludes my summary of the AHCA.  However, as a bonus, here's some comment from the Congressional Budget Office.  CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law. 03/23/2017
As posted on the website of the House Committee on Rules on March 22, 2017, incorporating manager’s amendments 4, 5, 24, and 25.

No doubt reducing the deficit by any amount is a good thing.  It's just an added benefit when you can do it on the backs of the sick, poor, uneducated, weak, disabled, young, elderly and disenfranchised.  Surely we can find more than 23,000,000 million of them.

Whaduyathink?

The Defeat of ISIS

For more than 2 years, Donald Trump, as a candidate, President-elect and President, has held forth on defeating ISIS.  He advocates an extensive air campaign, the annihilation of ISIS, including the killing of the families of ISIS members, and states he is better informed with regard to ISIS than his Generals.  I will make some comments that are based solely on the direct quotes of the current Commander-in-Chief.  I have not relied upon the opinion of any news agency, pundit, or party hack.  You are just as capable of making yourself mindful of POTUS' actual statements, rather than his lackeys' spin, as am I.

President Trump has stated he possessed a plan to defeat ISIS quickly and effectively.  He has also declared he knows more about ISIS than his Generals.  Subsequently, he has directed those same Generals to provide him with a  Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.  This is not my opinion.  His statements, memorandum, and executive orders are available for your perusal.

With regard to POTUS' espoused methodology allow me to comment.  When you propose to annihilate an opposing force (and their families) you have removed all basis for a negotiated or imposed peace.  The opposing force knows there will be no quarter and therefore will resist by all means available t them.  In the face of annihilation, friendly forces who come under the influence of the opposition, through capture or injury, have no reasonable claim nor expectation to merciful or humane treatment.  Hence, when you develop such a policy you not only provide a propaganda source to those with whom you are in conflict but you also expose your own forces to greater risk.

According to POTUS' comments he apparently believes the defeat of ISIS is possible by the almost exclusive use of air power.  I agree that in a military conflict the extensive use of air power to degrade the effectiveness of an opposing force and effect the imposition of a national will is an important, even essential, part of a strategy.  However, short of the extensive use of nuclear weapons, which raises another set of issues, there can be no victory solely through the use of  air power.  Here are some examples.  In February of 1945 the allies bombed Dresden, Germany for 3 days.  This resulted in a firestorm which engulfed central Dresden.  The population of Dresden at that time was approximately 350,000.  The generally accepted number of deaths as a result of this bombing action is 25,000.  In August of 1945 the U.S. bombed Hiroshima, Japan with the first nuclear weapon ever employed in combat.  At the time the population of Hiroshima was estimated at 381,000.  The number of deaths attributed to this strike over the first 2-4 months is 90,000-146,000.  In 1991 air power was used to great affect in Desert Storm.  However, is was immediately followed by ground campaign.  There are 2 points here.  The first is, bombing is never the sole means to victory.  The second is, annihilation is not a viable strategy.

On June 21st of this year the President  delegated to the Secretary of Defense the functions and authorities vested in the President by section 10005 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) (the "Act").  This provides Secretary Mattis authorization to designate the purpose and expenditure of $2,476,200,000.  However, these funds will not be available until 15 days after the President provides the appropriate committees a report on the United States strategy for the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham.  Apparently, there is still no plan.

Donald J. Trump is the duly elected President of the United States, and therefore Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  Would you willingly allow him to place in harms' way, based upon the above, your friends and family?

The below are direct quotes of POTUS.  The text highlighted in red are my comments/questions.

May 27, 2015 on Fox News:  Trump said, “I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or, beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly.”  He then added, “And I’m not gonna tell you what it is tonight.” Trump explained:  “I don’t want the enemy to know what I’m doing. Unfortunately, I’ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory.”
What is total victory?  

July 8, 2015 July 8 interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper:   "I would do things that would be so tough that I don't even know if they'd be around to come to the table. … I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields [in Iraq]. I wouldn't send many troops, because you won't need them by the time I got finished."

Aug. 10, 2015 MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Aug. 10:   "I would knock the hell out of them, but I'd put a ring around it and I'd take the oil for our country."
Since, according to your statement on July 8, 2015 you will not send many troops, of what will this ring consist?

November 12, 2015:  Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump elaborated on his strategy to defeat the terrorist group ISIS.  He would go after ISIS-controlled oil fields and "bomb the s--- out of 'em,".  "I would bomb the s--- out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers."

November 13, 2015 CNN Newsroom:  "I know more about ISIS than the Generals do.  Believe me."
This from a man who has never served a day in the military.  He has never "gone in harm's way".  He has never led troops into battle.  He has never attended the United States Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC).  

December 2, 2015 Fox and Friends:  “But we’re fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is, with the terrorists: You have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”
This is a tactic that would likely be considered a war crime.  The purposeful murder of civilians during wartime is widely considered a crime against humanity. Specifically, under the U.S.-signed Hague Conventions, the U.S. has agreed not to intentionally use violence against civilian non-combatants during wartime.

September 6, 2015 Greenville N.C. campaign stop:  “We are going to convey my top generals and give them a simple instruction,”  “They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS.
I'm not really clear on what happened to the secret plan or why he would request a plan from Generals who know less than him.

September 7, 2016 Commander in Chief Forum:  “When I do come up with a plan that I like and that perhaps agrees with mine, or maybe doesn’t, I may love what the generals come back with. I have a plan, but I don’t want to ― look, I have a very substantial chance of winning, make America great again. We’re going to make America great again. I have a substantial chance of winning. If I win, I don’t want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is. Let me tell you, if I like maybe a combination of my plan or the generals’ plan, if I like their plan, I’m not going to call you up and say, we have a great plan."
WTF, over.

September 19, 2016 Fox News:  “we have to get tough.”  "We're going to have to do something extremely tough over there".

January 28, 2017:  Presidential Memorandum Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

SUBJECT: Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

Sec. 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States that ISIS be defeated.

(i)    Development of a new plan to defeat ISIS (the Plan) shall commence immediately. (ii)   Within 30 days, a preliminary draft of the Plan to defeat ISIS shall be submitted to the President by the Secretary of Defense.
(iii)  The Plan shall include:
(A)  a comprehensive strategy and plans for the defeat of ISIS;

May 2017:  “President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to ‘annihilate’ the Islamic State group in Syria in a bid to prevent escaped foreign fighters from returning home, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said.  

Whaduyathink?

It's a MESS!

02/16/17  “To be honest, I inherited a mess,”

02/18/17  "I inherited a MESS and am in the process of fixing it."

02/24/17   "I inherited a mess, believe me."

03/16/17   "when I came into this job I inherited a mess..."

04/05/17 “Whether it’s the Middle East, whether it’s North

Korea, whether it’s so many other things, whether it’s in our country, horrible trade deals, I inherited a mess.”

To be sure, there’s no point in fact-checking every individual detail Trump struggles to understand, but it’s worth emphasizing a simple truth: the president doesn’t know how good he has it. Trump took office at a time of low unemployment, steady economic growth, the lowest uninsured rate on record, low crime, low inflation, a modest deficit, a rising stock market, and a country that’s broadly respected around the world. 

That’s not to say the nation isn’t facing real challenges, or that there aren’t many communities in need of assistance, but broadly speaking, these are conditions most new presidents would be thrilled to inherit.

Credit to nytimes, dailycaller.com, Steve Benen, FoxNews

I am Alarmed

Donald J. Trump‏

Verified account 

@realDonaldTrump

At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"

Khan said in a statement that there was no cause for alarm, he was referring specifically to a visible increase in police activity on the streets of London in the wake of the attack. "Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There's no reason to be alarmed," he said.

Mayor Khan was referring to an increased police presence. Apparently, according to POTUS, an increased police presence is something about which one should be alarmed.   Assuming that what POTUS said is what he meant, I am alarmed.

 January 25, 2017  Executive Order Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Sec. 7.  Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers.  The Secretary, through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357).

January 25, 2017 Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements

Sec. 8.  Additional Border Patrol Agents.  Subject to available appropriations, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall take all appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and all appropriate action to ensure that such agents enter on duty and are assigned to duty stations as soon as is practicable.

January 23, 2017 Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Hiring Freeze MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order a freeze on the hiring of Federal civilian employees to be applied across the board in the executive branch. As part of this freeze, no vacant positions existing at noon on January 22, 2017, may be filled and no new positions may be created, except in limited circumstances. This order does not include or apply to military personnel. The head of any executive department or agency may exempt from the hiring freeze any positions that it deems necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities.

If an increased police presence is a basis for alarm then we have been beguiled into a false sense of security.  As you can see, one of the first acts of President Trump was to execute a hiring freeze within the Executive branch of government for anything other than military and police. 

Following that Executive Order by 2 days were President Trump's orders to hire an additional 15,000 personnel to discharge police duties within U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs enforcement. 

This post is not tongue in cheek.  As an U.S. citizen I know Donald Trump is my President according to the process by which we elect the President of the United States of America.  He either meant what he said in his tweet that an increased police presence is cause for alarm or he has chosen to deliberately mock the Mayor of London. 

If he is sincere in his statement regarding an increased police presence then how alarmed should we be with regard to POTUS' actions in increasing our own police forces?  If he has chosen to intentionally impugn an elected office holder of our closest ally how does that reflect upon him as President and us as those he represents on the international stage?

Whaduyathink?

Terra Damnatus or (Doomed Land)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Donald J. Trump spoke by telephone today with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Emmanuel Macron of France, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, and Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom. The President personally explained his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. He thanked all four leaders for holding frank, substantive discussions on this issue during his first months in office. He also reassured the leaders that America remains committed to the Transatlantic alliance and to robust efforts to protect the environment. He noted America’s strong record in reducing emissions(1) and leading the development of clean energy technology(2), and he reiterated that the United States under the Trump Administration, will be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth(3). The leaders all agreed to continue dialogue and strengthen cooperation on environmental and other issues going forward.

Boldface and Notations (1), (2), and (3) added.

(1)World Resources Institute Apr. 5, 2016

The Roads to Decoupling: 21 Countries Are Reducing Carbon Emissions While Growing GDP

Change in CO2 emissions 2000-2014

Denmark -30%, Ukraine -29%, Hungary -24%, Portugal -23%, Romania -22%, Slovakia -22%, United Kingdom -20%, France -19%, Finland -18%, Ireland -16%, Czech Republic -14%, Spain -14%, Belgium -12%, Germany -12%, Switzerland -10%, Netherlands -8%, Sweden -8%, USA -6%, Bulgaria -5%, Austria -3, Uzbekistan -2%.  Ok, maybe we're not really leading the way in reducing emissions but at least we're in the top 19.

(2)cleantechnica.com Feb. 4, 2016.  ­

How 11 Countries Are Leading The Shift To Renewable Energy

Sweden, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Scotland, Germany, Uruguay, Denmark, China, Morocco, USA, Kenya.  Hey, at least we're ahead of Kenya. 

(3)No doubt a key to achieving this admirable goal is to begin by debilitating the EPA.  Here's what POTUS has suggested for FY2018. 

REDUCTION: CATEGORICAL GRANTS Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides categorical grants to help fund State environmental program offices and activities.  Many States have been delegated authority to implement and enforce Federal environmental laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act.  The Budget proposes to reduce many of these grants and eliminate others to better focus and prioritize environmental activities on core functions required by Federal environmental laws.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -482

ELIMINATION: ENERGY STAR AND VOLUNTARY CLIMATE PROGRAMS Environmental Protection Agency

The Budget eliminates funding for Energy Star and several other voluntary partnership programs related to energy and climate change.  These programs are not essential to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) core mission and can be implemented by the private sector.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -66

REDUCTION: ENFORCEMENT Environmental Protection Agency

The Budget proposes to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) environmental enforcement activities.  The reduction to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance programs will allow the agency to re-focus enforcement priorities on programs that are not delegated to States and avoid duplication of effort in States with delegated enforcement authority.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -129

ELIMINATION: GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS Environmental Protection Agency

Geographic Programs fund a variety of ecosystem protection activities within specific watersheds, including the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and others.  These activities are primarily local efforts and the responsibility for coordinating and funding these efforts generally belongs with States and local partnerships.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -427

REDUCTION: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Environmental Protection Agency

The Budget reconfigures and restructures the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) activities in research and development to focus on research objectives that support statutory requirements. Extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants will not receive funding.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -234

REDUCTION: SUPERFUND Environmental Protection Agency

The Budget proposes to reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Hazardous Substance Superfund Account, focusing on reining in Superfund administrative costs and promoting efficiencies.  The Budget proposes that EPA would optimize the use of existing settlement funds for sites where those funds exist and will look for ways to remove some of the barriers that have delayed the program's ability to return sites to the community.

Funding Summary (In millions of dollars) -330

No doubt this $1,668,000,00 will make a significant difference in the budget deficit and promote the creation of many, many jobs.  I find the reductions in enforcement and the Superfund to be particularly poignant.  Note the multiple references to the EPA's mission and core functions.  Here's the mission statement of the EPA, "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mission Statement: EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment air, water, and land upon which life depends."  I would think enforcing environmental regulations and being able to remediate sites where those regulations are violated would be pertinent to the performance of core functions.  Obviously we no longer need be concerned about  risks to our health or environment.  Things like Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant where the groundwater was contaminated with methylene chloride and trichloroethene. Perchlorate, lead, and mercury were also found on the site and in nearby streams are a thing of the past.  Oops, my bad, that one is an ongoing concern.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

According to researchers from MIT, if every nation that signed the Paris Climate Accord met all of their commitments until the end of the century, the impact on the climate would be negligible.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology officials said U.S. President Donald Trump badly misunderstood their research when he cited it on Thursday to justify withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. 

"How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?" showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. 

"If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord -- (applause) -- thank you, thank you -- but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.

President Emmanuel Macron told U.S. President Donald Trump that the Paris climate deal could not be renegotiated and that while France would continue to work with Washington, it would no longer discuss climate issues with the United States, a French source said.

"The president spoke with President Trump in a five-minute phone call. The exchange was direct," a source close to Macron said.

"The president said that they could continue to talk, but indicated that nothing was renegotiable with regard to the Paris accords. The United States and France will continue to work together, but not on the subject of climate," the source added.

From <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-france-idUSKBN18S6H3>

Well, so much for that idea.

Whaduyathink?

A Scary Story

On May 9th of this year at the Hanford Nuclear reservation, a tunnel collapsed.  In the interest of full disclosure, according to the Department of Energy, it was only a partial collapse.  This tunnel was built in 1956 and sealed closed in 1965. 

Considering the state of U.S. infrastructure there is no particular cause for surprise.  Bridges, buildings, and towers collapse.  Occasionally there is some loss of life accompanying these events.  With few exceptions the only people who remember these events are the ones fortunate enough to survive and the friends and families of the deceased.  Therefore, allow me to refresh your memory. 

In Minneapolis, Minnesota on August 1st, 2007 the I35-W bridge over the Mississippi river collapsed.  There were 13 killed and 145 injured.  The NTSB said that undersized gusset plates, increased concrete surfacing load, and weight of construction supplies/equipment caused this collapse.  On October 27th, 2009 on the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge  two tension rods and a crossbeam from a recently installed repair collapsed during the evening commute, causing the bridge to be closed temporarily.  This time there were no fatalities "only" 1 was person was injured and there was of course the attendant economic loss precipitated by any major thoroughfare closure.  In South Boston in 2006 the ceiling of the Big Dig collapsed killing 1 and injuring 1.  On July 19th, 2015 a bridge on I-10 in California collapsed resulting in 1 injury.  The Delhi Dam failed in Iowa and 8,000 people had to be evacuated.  The Big Bay Dam in Mississippi failed and 104 buildings were damaged or destroyed.  This list is merely representative of the types of failures of infrastructure within the U.S. it should by no means be considered to be comprehensive.

The events listed in the preceding paragraph have myriad causes, structural failure, meteorological, operator error.  They also are, hopefully, singular events which except for the loss of life can be corrected and prevented in the future.

The collapse of the tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear reservation is a much more significant event.  Within the tunnel there is about 780 cubic yards of radioactive waste.  This is a result of the extraction of plutonium for nuclear weapons.  The Energy Department, the party responsible for oversight, has been aware of the susceptibility of the waste storage areas to failure.  You may determine this in their own reports. 

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Enforcement issued a Consent Order (NCO-2015-02) to Bechtel National, Inc., the management and operating contractor for DOE’s Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), for deficiencies in nuclear safety associated with misalignment between design documents and facility authorization bases; welds in vessels fabricated for and accepted at the plant; and implementation of WTP quality assurance and corrective action management programs.  The contractor agreed to the Consent Order.

On April 25, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Enforcement and Oversight issued an Enforcement Letter (NEL-2014-01) to CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company relating to the discovery of a sealed radioactive source found outside its shielded assembly, resulting in unexpected radiological doses to four individuals at the Plutonium Finishing Plant at DOE's Hanford Site.

On September 13, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security’s Office of Enforcement and Oversight issued an Enforcement Letter (NEL-2012-02) to CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company related to a series of radiological work deficiencies at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and 105 K-East Reactor Facility at DOE's Hanford Site.

There are additional shortcomings and deficiencies that have been noted by the DOE for this same facility.  Now the DOE is faced with a potentially catastrophic event.  Here is their response.  They have contracted with CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company(CH2M) to place a plastic cover over the tunnel and secure it on the sides with heavy concrete blocks.

If the only concern proceeding from this event was to insure no one could be injured by entering the area this is probably a sufficient precaution.  However, this is not the case.  We are discussing a nuclear materials incident.  I will assume the tunnel was lined with concrete for additional protection and security.  It seems practical to assume as well that tons of dirt and debris suddenly being moved to contact with a concrete lining would result in compromise of this containment system. The cover placed by CH2M has a high density polyethylene woven core.  It is resistant to puncture, abrasion, chemicals, ultraviolet rays and oxidation.  According to the agency it will also limit water intrusion to the tunnel. 

I do not find this particularly comforting.  This is an enclosed space that has been subject to alpha and beta emissions for decades.  The materials, containers, and enclosure itself are saturated with radiation.  There is what I would consider a substantial risk of ground water contamination. The Hanford Nuclear reservation is adjacent to the Columbia river.   Furthermore, with the collapse, there is no longer a definitive understanding of the configuration in which these materials exist.  In the world of radioactive materials this is a vital component of safety and security. 

I worry about environmental degradation as a result of petroleum pipeline failures.  I find the idea of invisible plumes of radioactive particles snaking across the country to be scary as hell.

Whaduyathink?

More Potus hilarity

This is hilarious.

Remarks by President Trump at United States Coast Guard Academy Commencement Ceremony.

"I won’t talk about how much I saved you on the F-35 fighter jet. I won’t even talk about it. Or how much we’re about to save you on the Gerald Ford, the aircraft carrier. That had a little bit of an overrun problem before I got here, you know that. Still going to have an overrun problem. We came in when it was finished. But we’re going to save some good money. And when we build the new aircraft carriers they’re going to be built under budget and ahead of schedule, just remember that. (Applause.) That will allow us to build more."

No doubt, if the USCG had any fighter aircraft this would be pertinent. They do not have any. What they do have are 211 aircraft of the flowing types:
C-37A Gulfstream V
HC-144A The Ocean Sentry
HC-130J Super Hercules
HC-130H Hercules
HU-25 Guardian
MH-65 Dolphin
MH-60J/T Jayhawk

Also, ROFLMAF, the USCG has boats and cutters, but no aircraft carriers. So, regardless of budgets and schedules it doesn't matter to the Coast Guard. I'm sure they were touched by your germane comments regarding the capabilities and mission of their service branch.

This was amusing as well: "Look at the way I’ve been treated lately -- (laughter) -- especially by the media. No politician in history -- and I say this with great surety -- has been treated worse or more unfairly."

May want to bone up on some 19th/20th century U.S. history Mr. President. According to WordPress; "Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln were portrayed by contemporary newspapers as backwoods yokels, clever schemers, and evil tyrants. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson suffered widespread attacks both on their policies and on their characters. Franklin Roosevelt was subjected to an unparalleled ten-year campaign of abuse and vilification by a great majority of the nation’s newspapers and magazines. Harry Truman was held up to ridicule and contempt by the press through most of his time in the White House. John Kennedy felt that he was dealt with unfairly by the press—mainly by some of the leading metropolitan newspapers in the East and by the news magazines. And Lyndon Johnson believed that the entire press was so nostalgic for Kennedy and so dominated by snobbish Easterners that it was incapable of appreciating his own accomplishments, or even of treating him decently. All these Presidents resented the attacks on them, despised the press for willfully distorting the truth as they saw it, and felt that the press often had grievously harmful effects on the nation. Still, they knew that nothing could be done to prescribe bounds to the press, because its freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution in order to give the people some independent means of learning what their government was doing, and because it would be impossible to assert what was fair and what was unfair without asserting a dictatorial power over the press."
I would recommend you pay particular attention to the last sentence