Milking Live Algae, No Half-appendectomies w/ Public Insurance, Algae Oxygen Cleans Coal Combustion
Stafford Williamson
June 30, 2009
Thereīs a story that has got me itching with curiosity.
I think it will leave you in the same condition, even though there is a nicely compact and concise version of the story in a segment of the VentureBeat website that focuses on "green startup" companies. The article, written by Camille Ricketts, formerly of Google and the Wall Street Journal. (Maybe as an experienced business writer Camille can explain to me how a professor can create his own company while working for the government funded Ames Research Lab a division of the Department of Energy, and then get government grants to fund the research in which the private company is a partner?) Anyway, the point is that Iowa State University Professor Victor Lin invented a "nanotechnology" method of extracting oil from algae without damaging living cells, and now they have received over US$800,000 from DOE (in addition to US$216,000 contributed by Prof. Linīs company Catilin. Catilin also has a solid nanoparticle (microencapsulated at least, it appears) form of "heterogeneous" catalyst used in the production of biodiesel that they claim is re-useable at least 20 times, and reportedly produces purer biodiesel and purer by product glycerol than other processes, all in a waterless process.
You never know what academics are willing to reveal about their research, but if I find out more about all of this, Iīll tell you (assuming I donīt have to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement to learn more about the "nanofarming" technique).
There Ought To Be a LAW
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind, as he railed against the recently passed House bill on Energy. The same item quotes two sources on their estimates of the economic impact on consumers: "Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher." The bill also specifically creates credits available to low income households, so I just have difficulty working up any feeling of support for the supposed outrage of Republicans on this subject. If the "largest tax increase in American history" amounts to less than one monthīs electric bill for my household this year, then bring on the "little" tax increases. Iīm tougher than that!
IF this is the "big sacrifice" that Americans have to make to "solve" the climate change crisis, then it qualifies as a flea bite compared to the sacrifices it took to get us out of the Depression of the 1930īs. It comes nowhere near close to the massive, rapid, national effort to turn the industrial power of the United States into a juggernaut of manufacturing might as we faced down the enemies in World War II, when it took Chrysler just ONE MONTH to convert a truck factory to produce tanks (according to a documentary I saw this week, sorry, donīt remember the channel or name of the program). Ford, Toyota and Tesla have each received sizeable grants/loans in the past couple of weeks to "stimulate" the development of electric cars (sadly there is now some internal squabbling at Tesla Motors amount the founders), the smallest being $435,000,000 for Tesla, but what I donīt understand is why Chrysler, struggling to emerge from bankruptcy canīt look at their own history and realize that all those factories they just closed could be cranking out GE Wind-powered Turbine generators in a matter of a couple of months. Couldnīt the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers absorb the displaced United Auto Workers and become the glue that holds the community together by striking a deal with Chrysler and GE to make it happen? This "huge" and "hidden" tax increase is less than a stubbed toe to me, and to most American families.
America didnīt become the worldīs largest manufacturer of aircraft for 50 years of more simply because we had the biggest and best bauxite mines. I donīt think there is a single, producing, bauxite mine in the USA today. It became the supplier of the worldīs airplanes because we developed the capacity to produce airplanes by the shovel load to push out into the war effort (our own, but also our allies). The "dividends" of that capability have been flowing to America for over 50 years now, even though there are other competitors in the market.
The same can be true for the new energy economy, or more precisely the new green energy economy. And if my "sacrifice" to get there is twice or three times those "huge" tax increases, it comes nowhere close to the gasoline and food rationing of WW II, of donating your silk stockings to make parachutes, or attending the funerals of friends, neighbors and family members. President Obama and the Democrats still have plenty of "political capital" from last fallīs election. They SHOULD be using it to get the American people into that kind of "giving" mood that so far, they have only been using to raise money for the partyīs political purposes. Iīm getting tired of every "note from the Whitehouse" being nothing more than a thinly (very thinly) veiled solicitation of more funds. I gave during the campaign, I gave after the campaign (somebodyīs got to help bail out Secretary Clintonīs campaign debt), but I would rather see some real action, and thatīs what this energy bill actually does, setting cap and trade numbers and target dates, requiring carbon dioxide and other GHG reductions by certain dates, and "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," according to Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat representing southern California.
The "problem" of passing a compatible/comparable bill in the Senate is one of an almost entirely manufactured variety, hyped up by the media to "sell newspapers" (as they used to say). From my point of view the īproblemī with the bill in the Senate is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says heīd "like" to take it up "in the fall", which means they really arenīt going to be doing much of anything but trying to fend off the Republican attacks on Judge Sotomayorīs nomination to the Supreme Court. That too is largely a trumped up "battle" because there is little if any doubt that she will be confirmed, barring some skeleton pulled from the closet, which would only really embarrass much of the Senate themselves for having twice previously confirmed her for the federal bench. The last bill I tried to read, I may have already confessed here, was so long, dry and filled with boring references to a word or two that was changed in a sub-clause cited in a prior yearīs incarnation of legislation covering the same subject that it was nearly impossible to read. Actually, it was impossible to read more than about 50 pages at a stretch without falling asleep. I guess thatīs how "junior aides" to Senators make a reputation for themselves, being younger and more energetic than us old folks, so they can dash out, grab a copy of the other bill or bills and cross reference back and forth, but frankly Iīm grateful that there are younger, vibrant and more energetic people than me to take on that kind of task. I might still be able to do it, if I had to, and Iīd be more likely to succeed than if I were auditioning for a position as a logger or a mud-wrestler, but as I said, better someone else for those drudgery tasks.
Whoīs Interested in Whose Health is the Bottom Line
Oh, yes, and then thereīs that little matter of "Healthcare Reform" that the President feels is so urgent and important. Something that is both "urgent" and "important", I was taught, should pop that thing to the top of your priority lists, and get it done forthwith. According to someone, (honestly I donīt recall for certain who it was, but I think it might have been David Axelrod, the Presidentīs chief strategist) on This Week with George Stephanopolous said that both the Senate and the House are "pretty far down that road already" toward crafting Healthcare Reform legislation. The good news appears to be that, according to George Stephanopolous, the President can be fairly sure that whether Al Franken is there or not by the time the voting takes place, that he can probably count on support from both Senators from Maine to see that his insistence on a "public option" among the choices Americans will have for a health insurance plan really is necessary for the whole healthcare system to be transformed from one that makes insurance company investors wealthy while policy holders die during the appeal of the denial of their claims, to a healthcare system in which the real objective is to try to keep people healthy, not merely a "treat the symptoms" kind of medicine that is practiced too often in the present day. Do you realize that doctors donīt get paid any more if you get well?
Doctors actually do make more money if they run more tests. They get paid for that. They donīt get paid to find you a cure. They get paid if you take the medicine that makes you FEEL less bad, and come back and see them again (that they can bill you for another office visit and your insurance) in a couple of weeks or months. Surgeons and hospitals are held to a somewhat higher standard. They usually canīt take out half your appendix or half of your tonsils and tell you to come back in six months to see if they "need" to take out the other half. On the other hand even that doesnīt seem to be an absolute rule. I have known other people who "had their tonsils out" when they were children, and had to go back as adults to have it done again. Indeed, I have had a uvulectomy, tonsillectomy, pharyngectomy for apnea and I have an appointment this week to see an ENT (thatīs receptionist speak for Otorhinolaryngologist).
The fact of the matter is that we donīt have a healthcare system, we have a "degree of illness" system. If drug companies made "cures" instead of drugs they would only have one sale per disease per patient. They discovered a long time ago (almost 20 years now) that most stomach ulcers are caused not just by stress, but by a "germ" called a "Helicobacter pylori", which can be cured by "Amoxicillin + Metronidazole + Pantoprazole (a Proton Pump Inhibitor)". And since that covers 80% of cases youīd think we would see a lot less stomach troubles now that 20 years ago, right? Not exactly. Now all the emphasis, all the medicine, and attention is focused on "acid reflux" which is also known as "GERD" (GastroEsophageal Reflux Disease). I didnīt mean to turn this column into a medical report, but with my wife is covered by Medicare (a whole complicated discussion in itself), while I have over $6000 a year in health insurance costs for a single male in his 50īs with no dependents, and with all these pre-existing conditions, I am lucky at this point that it does not cost more. I strongly favor that "public option".
So let me illustrate from my ENT example. Originally this condition was diagnosed about 12 years ago. My doctor and I wanted to choose a surgical "cure" but my insurance company at that time (though my employer) said, "Whoa, wait a minute, not until you have this test." Okay, so the test might be prudent, but clearly the medical underwiter did not want her/his company to have to pay for the surgery. So I had the test which cost about ž as much at the surgery would have. The test confirmed theproblem,but still the insurance company said, "Not so fast, we wonīt approve paying for the surgery until you have tried this alternative non-surgical ītreatmentī for a at least 3 months." So the insurance company orders up this rental machine that is supposed to reduce the risk of death from this problem, and they proceed to pay for the rental on the machine. Now, if this machine works, the company will theoretically have to pay for the renatl of this machine for the rest of my life. That sounds more expensive thana surgery,doesnīt it? Well, it would have been, but you see, most insurance companies are actually run by accountants, not doctors or nurses. So the accountants look at the likelihood that I may die, factor in the likelihood that my surviving spouse might sue them (not much chance of winning such a suit, they were, after all, providing a medically approved treatment) and finally they figure out that my health plan is through my employer, that Iīm unlikely to get healthcare insurance anywhere else now that I have this "pre-existing" condition, and they figure one way or the other, I will be "gone" in less than 36 months, based on labor statistics. They therefore conclude, based on the likely cost to the insurance company that this treatment, and paying for the machine rental is much more likely in the long run to save the companyīs money (as compared to approving the surgery which would be without any significant follow up, and over after the moderately more expensive treatment). What was best for the patient was never really a major contender in the choices the insurance company made. That was not the objective. If I die, they owe no more. If I live, but I change jobs, I move to new health insurance, under their group plan with excludes "pre-existing conditions" as a grounds for rejection, or in the worst case, they might have to offer me continuing benefits as an individual but they get to adjust the rates because this is a new policy, not the companyīs old group policy, but a policy for one person, and they can charge pretty much whatever they want, including raising premiums enough to pay for the cost of the ongoing treatments. They play the odds, and in any of these outcomes, they pay out less and pay shareholders more.
Now, in fact, my doctor and I eventually persuaded them to pay for the surgery (actually for "their" 80% of the surgery), which was very nice. On the other hand, as I said that was 12 years ago (approximately), and that also means I was at least 12 pounds lighter at the time. Now the problem has re-occurred due mostly, if not exclusively, to my weight gain. As predicted, I am insured under a different (and individual) insurance plan, and they are likely to want to go through the same procedures, to "save money", which, of course, is nonsense, since I have already had the test and proved not to be a good candidate for use of the machine.
What President Obama and his government has done (and is doing, even if they havenīt accomplished it yet) is to modernize record-keeping for healthcare. Now, actually because insurance companies always include a clause in their policy that you have signed a waiver allowing them to search for relevant information wherever and however they can find it, they circumvent the privacy laws related to medical information, and they can not only see that I have had this condition before, but also what dates, what test and all of that. Since I have long since forgotten what doctor did the operation (it was a quick out-patient surgery at his own clinic), those records are lost to me, and my ("for profit") insurance company will very likely want to have me do the tests and the alternate treatment before approving any other surgical or more invasive procedure. When healthcare records are digitized and saved electronically, the public (and our doctors, not just our insurance companies) will have access to prior health information. With a "public option" (pardon me, but Iīm going to call it that thing no one who hasnīt seen one in action dreads), a government run health insurance plan, while cost containment will be one goal, hopefully we can avoid the stupidity of duplications of tests, and focus the healthcare decisions on how to achieve the very best outcome for the patient. There is hope, at least, that the patientīs health will be the primary reason for any healthcare insurance decision when there are no "shareholders" worrying about what will be most profitable for the insurance company.
I did want to mention that Solazyme has proudly announced that their total capitalization, to date, amounts of over US$76,000,000.00. It is gratifying to see that someone with good science behind them can find money fairly easily.
And Dow Chemical is turning to alcohol, not in celebration of the July 4th holiday, but as a potential replacement for "natural gas" (methane) as a key source ingredient from which to make plastics. Dow has allied itself with start-up Algenol Biofuels to grow algae to produce alcohol, according to an article in the New York Times. In a burst of optimism they also talk about getting the carbon dioxide from some significant combustion source, like a coal fired electric generating facility, but then sending oxygen produced as part of the photosynthesis process in the algae back to the power station to create a high oxygen concentration environment for the combustion of coal that makes coal burning even cleaner than current technology for natural gas combustion. Of course, it could work for natural gas fired plants too, making them even cleaner as well. That is, IF the oxygen can be captured and shipped in the opposite direction to the COē without making the whole process prohibitively expensive. I certainly want to wish them luck.
To end on a happy note, at least one that amuses me a little, is that I have two new followers on Twitter who are both "futurists". I have long thought of myself as a futurist, though I never have thought of an effective way to get more people to hire me in those kinds of consulting contracts. However, Dr. Patrick Dickson is a pretty dynamic speaker. I watched most of a video of an hour long speech he gave to a convention of convention organizers. His main point there was that because we absorb far more information with our eyes than with our ears, that the "future" of conferences will be closely tied to more effective video presentations.
Dr. Dicksonīs own presentation had some nice video tricks, not the least of which was a wall 20 feet tall and at least 60 feet wide of video screens behind him on the stage. In an example of being late for an appointment, the video consisted of a still photo of a set of elevator doors, while the video effects made Dr. Dickson appear in that picture (chromakeyīd in) from his live position on stage. It also made him some 15 feet tall, and in the large hall made it far easier for the huge audience to see him. The point he was making, however (in the presentation, since the video of the presentation was about how to have more effective presentations) was that in an emotionally stressful situations, even the very rational among us, tend to act and react in a very emotional and often irrational way (like hitting the "Call" button on the elevator a dozen times to try to hasten its arrival). There is actually an old but rational reason to do that. At one time some of the "better" elevator control systems used a device not unlike the ladder switches that routed telephone calls, so that each press of the call button on a particular floor added to an "accumulator" on the theory that more people must be waiting, and therefore attention to that floor needed a higher priority (along with other calculations for distance and weight of the passenger load and so on). It is my understanding that such a system did not last long because people waiting for such elevators quickly learned from experience that the more times they button was pressed the faster the elevator came, regardless of how many people actually stood waiting for it. The irrational part of pressing the button multiple times now, is that it is a fairly irrational and illogical hope that any elevator uses this outdated and much deprecated method of determining where and when to send the elevator(s) that are available. Most of us know that there is no connection between button presses and the cycle time (same for pedestrian crosswalks), but in times of stress we throw rational thinking out the window and behave based on emotions. Dr. Dickson had another supporting citation.
He said he was speaking to a large room of airline pilots when telling the above story about elevators, and asked them to raise their hands if they also "talked" to the elevator. He says 98% of them admitted that they did, saying things like, "Come on, hurry up and get here." Similarly when stressed the pilots admitted that they also spoke to their aircraft too.
So the next time you find yourself talking to your car, your computer, or other inanimate objects, you should remember that you are not more crazy than the average airline pilot.
Much Love and warm feelings,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
I think it will leave you in the same condition, even though there is a nicely compact and concise version of the story in a segment of the VentureBeat website that focuses on "green startup" companies. The article, written by Camille Ricketts, formerly of Google and the Wall Street Journal. (Maybe as an experienced business writer Camille can explain to me how a professor can create his own company while working for the government funded Ames Research Lab a division of the Department of Energy, and then get government grants to fund the research in which the private company is a partner?) Anyway, the point is that Iowa State University Professor Victor Lin invented a "nanotechnology" method of extracting oil from algae without damaging living cells, and now they have received over US$800,000 from DOE (in addition to US$216,000 contributed by Prof. Linīs company Catilin. Catilin also has a solid nanoparticle (microencapsulated at least, it appears) form of "heterogeneous" catalyst used in the production of biodiesel that they claim is re-useable at least 20 times, and reportedly produces purer biodiesel and purer by product glycerol than other processes, all in a waterless process.
You never know what academics are willing to reveal about their research, but if I find out more about all of this, Iīll tell you (assuming I donīt have to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement to learn more about the "nanofarming" technique).
There Ought To Be a LAW
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind, as he railed against the recently passed House bill on Energy. The same item quotes two sources on their estimates of the economic impact on consumers: "Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher." The bill also specifically creates credits available to low income households, so I just have difficulty working up any feeling of support for the supposed outrage of Republicans on this subject. If the "largest tax increase in American history" amounts to less than one monthīs electric bill for my household this year, then bring on the "little" tax increases. Iīm tougher than that!
IF this is the "big sacrifice" that Americans have to make to "solve" the climate change crisis, then it qualifies as a flea bite compared to the sacrifices it took to get us out of the Depression of the 1930īs. It comes nowhere near close to the massive, rapid, national effort to turn the industrial power of the United States into a juggernaut of manufacturing might as we faced down the enemies in World War II, when it took Chrysler just ONE MONTH to convert a truck factory to produce tanks (according to a documentary I saw this week, sorry, donīt remember the channel or name of the program). Ford, Toyota and Tesla have each received sizeable grants/loans in the past couple of weeks to "stimulate" the development of electric cars (sadly there is now some internal squabbling at Tesla Motors amount the founders), the smallest being $435,000,000 for Tesla, but what I donīt understand is why Chrysler, struggling to emerge from bankruptcy canīt look at their own history and realize that all those factories they just closed could be cranking out GE Wind-powered Turbine generators in a matter of a couple of months. Couldnīt the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers absorb the displaced United Auto Workers and become the glue that holds the community together by striking a deal with Chrysler and GE to make it happen? This "huge" and "hidden" tax increase is less than a stubbed toe to me, and to most American families.
America didnīt become the worldīs largest manufacturer of aircraft for 50 years of more simply because we had the biggest and best bauxite mines. I donīt think there is a single, producing, bauxite mine in the USA today. It became the supplier of the worldīs airplanes because we developed the capacity to produce airplanes by the shovel load to push out into the war effort (our own, but also our allies). The "dividends" of that capability have been flowing to America for over 50 years now, even though there are other competitors in the market.
The same can be true for the new energy economy, or more precisely the new green energy economy. And if my "sacrifice" to get there is twice or three times those "huge" tax increases, it comes nowhere close to the gasoline and food rationing of WW II, of donating your silk stockings to make parachutes, or attending the funerals of friends, neighbors and family members. President Obama and the Democrats still have plenty of "political capital" from last fallīs election. They SHOULD be using it to get the American people into that kind of "giving" mood that so far, they have only been using to raise money for the partyīs political purposes. Iīm getting tired of every "note from the Whitehouse" being nothing more than a thinly (very thinly) veiled solicitation of more funds. I gave during the campaign, I gave after the campaign (somebodyīs got to help bail out Secretary Clintonīs campaign debt), but I would rather see some real action, and thatīs what this energy bill actually does, setting cap and trade numbers and target dates, requiring carbon dioxide and other GHG reductions by certain dates, and "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," according to Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat representing southern California.
The "problem" of passing a compatible/comparable bill in the Senate is one of an almost entirely manufactured variety, hyped up by the media to "sell newspapers" (as they used to say). From my point of view the īproblemī with the bill in the Senate is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says heīd "like" to take it up "in the fall", which means they really arenīt going to be doing much of anything but trying to fend off the Republican attacks on Judge Sotomayorīs nomination to the Supreme Court. That too is largely a trumped up "battle" because there is little if any doubt that she will be confirmed, barring some skeleton pulled from the closet, which would only really embarrass much of the Senate themselves for having twice previously confirmed her for the federal bench. The last bill I tried to read, I may have already confessed here, was so long, dry and filled with boring references to a word or two that was changed in a sub-clause cited in a prior yearīs incarnation of legislation covering the same subject that it was nearly impossible to read. Actually, it was impossible to read more than about 50 pages at a stretch without falling asleep. I guess thatīs how "junior aides" to Senators make a reputation for themselves, being younger and more energetic than us old folks, so they can dash out, grab a copy of the other bill or bills and cross reference back and forth, but frankly Iīm grateful that there are younger, vibrant and more energetic people than me to take on that kind of task. I might still be able to do it, if I had to, and Iīd be more likely to succeed than if I were auditioning for a position as a logger or a mud-wrestler, but as I said, better someone else for those drudgery tasks.
Whoīs Interested in Whose Health is the Bottom Line
Oh, yes, and then thereīs that little matter of "Healthcare Reform" that the President feels is so urgent and important. Something that is both "urgent" and "important", I was taught, should pop that thing to the top of your priority lists, and get it done forthwith. According to someone, (honestly I donīt recall for certain who it was, but I think it might have been David Axelrod, the Presidentīs chief strategist) on This Week with George Stephanopolous said that both the Senate and the House are "pretty far down that road already" toward crafting Healthcare Reform legislation. The good news appears to be that, according to George Stephanopolous, the President can be fairly sure that whether Al Franken is there or not by the time the voting takes place, that he can probably count on support from both Senators from Maine to see that his insistence on a "public option" among the choices Americans will have for a health insurance plan really is necessary for the whole healthcare system to be transformed from one that makes insurance company investors wealthy while policy holders die during the appeal of the denial of their claims, to a healthcare system in which the real objective is to try to keep people healthy, not merely a "treat the symptoms" kind of medicine that is practiced too often in the present day. Do you realize that doctors donīt get paid any more if you get well?
Doctors actually do make more money if they run more tests. They get paid for that. They donīt get paid to find you a cure. They get paid if you take the medicine that makes you FEEL less bad, and come back and see them again (that they can bill you for another office visit and your insurance) in a couple of weeks or months. Surgeons and hospitals are held to a somewhat higher standard. They usually canīt take out half your appendix or half of your tonsils and tell you to come back in six months to see if they "need" to take out the other half. On the other hand even that doesnīt seem to be an absolute rule. I have known other people who "had their tonsils out" when they were children, and had to go back as adults to have it done again. Indeed, I have had a uvulectomy, tonsillectomy, pharyngectomy for apnea and I have an appointment this week to see an ENT (thatīs receptionist speak for Otorhinolaryngologist).
The fact of the matter is that we donīt have a healthcare system, we have a "degree of illness" system. If drug companies made "cures" instead of drugs they would only have one sale per disease per patient. They discovered a long time ago (almost 20 years now) that most stomach ulcers are caused not just by stress, but by a "germ" called a "Helicobacter pylori", which can be cured by "Amoxicillin + Metronidazole + Pantoprazole (a Proton Pump Inhibitor)". And since that covers 80% of cases youīd think we would see a lot less stomach troubles now that 20 years ago, right? Not exactly. Now all the emphasis, all the medicine, and attention is focused on "acid reflux" which is also known as "GERD" (GastroEsophageal Reflux Disease). I didnīt mean to turn this column into a medical report, but with my wife is covered by Medicare (a whole complicated discussion in itself), while I have over $6000 a year in health insurance costs for a single male in his 50īs with no dependents, and with all these pre-existing conditions, I am lucky at this point that it does not cost more. I strongly favor that "public option".
So let me illustrate from my ENT example. Originally this condition was diagnosed about 12 years ago. My doctor and I wanted to choose a surgical "cure" but my insurance company at that time (though my employer) said, "Whoa, wait a minute, not until you have this test." Okay, so the test might be prudent, but clearly the medical underwiter did not want her/his company to have to pay for the surgery. So I had the test which cost about ž as much at the surgery would have. The test confirmed theproblem,but still the insurance company said, "Not so fast, we wonīt approve paying for the surgery until you have tried this alternative non-surgical ītreatmentī for a at least 3 months." So the insurance company orders up this rental machine that is supposed to reduce the risk of death from this problem, and they proceed to pay for the rental on the machine. Now, if this machine works, the company will theoretically have to pay for the renatl of this machine for the rest of my life. That sounds more expensive thana surgery,doesnīt it? Well, it would have been, but you see, most insurance companies are actually run by accountants, not doctors or nurses. So the accountants look at the likelihood that I may die, factor in the likelihood that my surviving spouse might sue them (not much chance of winning such a suit, they were, after all, providing a medically approved treatment) and finally they figure out that my health plan is through my employer, that Iīm unlikely to get healthcare insurance anywhere else now that I have this "pre-existing" condition, and they figure one way or the other, I will be "gone" in less than 36 months, based on labor statistics. They therefore conclude, based on the likely cost to the insurance company that this treatment, and paying for the machine rental is much more likely in the long run to save the companyīs money (as compared to approving the surgery which would be without any significant follow up, and over after the moderately more expensive treatment). What was best for the patient was never really a major contender in the choices the insurance company made. That was not the objective. If I die, they owe no more. If I live, but I change jobs, I move to new health insurance, under their group plan with excludes "pre-existing conditions" as a grounds for rejection, or in the worst case, they might have to offer me continuing benefits as an individual but they get to adjust the rates because this is a new policy, not the companyīs old group policy, but a policy for one person, and they can charge pretty much whatever they want, including raising premiums enough to pay for the cost of the ongoing treatments. They play the odds, and in any of these outcomes, they pay out less and pay shareholders more.
Now, in fact, my doctor and I eventually persuaded them to pay for the surgery (actually for "their" 80% of the surgery), which was very nice. On the other hand, as I said that was 12 years ago (approximately), and that also means I was at least 12 pounds lighter at the time. Now the problem has re-occurred due mostly, if not exclusively, to my weight gain. As predicted, I am insured under a different (and individual) insurance plan, and they are likely to want to go through the same procedures, to "save money", which, of course, is nonsense, since I have already had the test and proved not to be a good candidate for use of the machine.
What President Obama and his government has done (and is doing, even if they havenīt accomplished it yet) is to modernize record-keeping for healthcare. Now, actually because insurance companies always include a clause in their policy that you have signed a waiver allowing them to search for relevant information wherever and however they can find it, they circumvent the privacy laws related to medical information, and they can not only see that I have had this condition before, but also what dates, what test and all of that. Since I have long since forgotten what doctor did the operation (it was a quick out-patient surgery at his own clinic), those records are lost to me, and my ("for profit") insurance company will very likely want to have me do the tests and the alternate treatment before approving any other surgical or more invasive procedure. When healthcare records are digitized and saved electronically, the public (and our doctors, not just our insurance companies) will have access to prior health information. With a "public option" (pardon me, but Iīm going to call it that thing no one who hasnīt seen one in action dreads), a government run health insurance plan, while cost containment will be one goal, hopefully we can avoid the stupidity of duplications of tests, and focus the healthcare decisions on how to achieve the very best outcome for the patient. There is hope, at least, that the patientīs health will be the primary reason for any healthcare insurance decision when there are no "shareholders" worrying about what will be most profitable for the insurance company.
I did want to mention that Solazyme has proudly announced that their total capitalization, to date, amounts of over US$76,000,000.00. It is gratifying to see that someone with good science behind them can find money fairly easily.
And Dow Chemical is turning to alcohol, not in celebration of the July 4th holiday, but as a potential replacement for "natural gas" (methane) as a key source ingredient from which to make plastics. Dow has allied itself with start-up Algenol Biofuels to grow algae to produce alcohol, according to an article in the New York Times. In a burst of optimism they also talk about getting the carbon dioxide from some significant combustion source, like a coal fired electric generating facility, but then sending oxygen produced as part of the photosynthesis process in the algae back to the power station to create a high oxygen concentration environment for the combustion of coal that makes coal burning even cleaner than current technology for natural gas combustion. Of course, it could work for natural gas fired plants too, making them even cleaner as well. That is, IF the oxygen can be captured and shipped in the opposite direction to the COē without making the whole process prohibitively expensive. I certainly want to wish them luck.
To end on a happy note, at least one that amuses me a little, is that I have two new followers on Twitter who are both "futurists". I have long thought of myself as a futurist, though I never have thought of an effective way to get more people to hire me in those kinds of consulting contracts. However, Dr. Patrick Dickson is a pretty dynamic speaker. I watched most of a video of an hour long speech he gave to a convention of convention organizers. His main point there was that because we absorb far more information with our eyes than with our ears, that the "future" of conferences will be closely tied to more effective video presentations.
Dr. Dicksonīs own presentation had some nice video tricks, not the least of which was a wall 20 feet tall and at least 60 feet wide of video screens behind him on the stage. In an example of being late for an appointment, the video consisted of a still photo of a set of elevator doors, while the video effects made Dr. Dickson appear in that picture (chromakeyīd in) from his live position on stage. It also made him some 15 feet tall, and in the large hall made it far easier for the huge audience to see him. The point he was making, however (in the presentation, since the video of the presentation was about how to have more effective presentations) was that in an emotionally stressful situations, even the very rational among us, tend to act and react in a very emotional and often irrational way (like hitting the "Call" button on the elevator a dozen times to try to hasten its arrival). There is actually an old but rational reason to do that. At one time some of the "better" elevator control systems used a device not unlike the ladder switches that routed telephone calls, so that each press of the call button on a particular floor added to an "accumulator" on the theory that more people must be waiting, and therefore attention to that floor needed a higher priority (along with other calculations for distance and weight of the passenger load and so on). It is my understanding that such a system did not last long because people waiting for such elevators quickly learned from experience that the more times they button was pressed the faster the elevator came, regardless of how many people actually stood waiting for it. The irrational part of pressing the button multiple times now, is that it is a fairly irrational and illogical hope that any elevator uses this outdated and much deprecated method of determining where and when to send the elevator(s) that are available. Most of us know that there is no connection between button presses and the cycle time (same for pedestrian crosswalks), but in times of stress we throw rational thinking out the window and behave based on emotions. Dr. Dickson had another supporting citation.
He said he was speaking to a large room of airline pilots when telling the above story about elevators, and asked them to raise their hands if they also "talked" to the elevator. He says 98% of them admitted that they did, saying things like, "Come on, hurry up and get here." Similarly when stressed the pilots admitted that they also spoke to their aircraft too.
So the next time you find yourself talking to your car, your computer, or other inanimate objects, you should remember that you are not more crazy than the average airline pilot.
Much Love and warm feelings,
Sincerely,
Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://daochienergy.com
Print
Email
