Why Are We Buying What Donelon Is Selling?

Louisiana insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon explained last week on Angela Hill's radio show (at about minute 13:00) why our auto insurance is so high.  Auto insurance rates in Jefferson, Orleans, and a couple of other parishes are 40% higher than rates in the rest of the state because of a prolific "soft tissue" market, Mr. Donelon said.  That is, the proclivity of locals, aided by lawyers and doctors, towards seeking compensation for injuries resulting from auto accidents.  It pains me to agree with that characterization of the local citizenry.

It also leaves alot unexplained, in my opinion.  Seven years ago I paid about $74/mo. for a policy in Nashville with $100,000/$300,000 (100/300) limits and about $80/mo. for the same coverage in Chicago.  When I moved back to New Orleans, I had to slash my coverage limits to 50/100 just to barely afford auto insurance here.  Turns out I couldn't even barely afford it.  I just plain could not afford it, not even if I doubled my deductible.

With each passing year, I tacked on 365 more days to my flawless driving record *knock on wood*.  Still, my premiums continued to rise despite my car and me both being six years older and my having aged into an (allegedly) cheaper rating class; and five years into my move back home, I had to drop my coverage to the 25/50 state minimum.  

Commissioner Donelon's explanation does not even come close to explaining why I and every Louisianian shell out 50% more money for about 1/5th of the coverage that we would get in other major cities.  The WDSU report that ran last evening seems to confirm my hunch that the prevalent "soft tissue" industry is not to blame for much of this disparity in auto insurance rates because it only accounts for approximately 10% of the increased premium.  That news story also makes very fuzzy links between a national rise in auto insurance fraud and cell-phone caused driver distraction, but Louisiana's ridiculously high insurance rates long pre-date either of those phenomena.  

Even if auto insurance fraud accounts for 40% of our premiums in metro N.O., that does not satisfactorily explain why it's 40% more for WAY less coverage.  I am, in fact, now paying 40% more than I paid in Chicago and Nashville, but shouldn't I be paying 40% more for 100/300 coverage instead of 40% more for shitty 25/50 coverage?  Maybe there is an actuarial table somewhere that that backs up Mr. Donelon's explanation, but until I see it, I ain't buying it.

Mitt, Big Government, and the Deeply Confused Deep (Red) South

People living on the Gulf Coast, especially Louisianians, should be the last ones complaining about big government programs.  D-SNAP, FEMA, NFIP, USACE, National Guard, Road Home Program, etc.  Need I say more?

No I don't.  But I will.

Many local Republicans decry the amount of federal dollars spent on those no-income-tax-paying leeches living off the government dole, those same leeches who Mitt believes will never support him.  What many local Republicans seem unable to recognize, or at least admit, is that they are those leeches.

Source: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg

Such folks are either misled, uninformed, or disingenuous.  Either way, if they want the rest of us to start taking them seriously, Republican politicians and their local supporters need to walk their talk.  The ones living in St. John the Baptist, Plaquemines, and St. Tammany need to vote for enough new taxes to cover the full cost of the levees they want.

(Well OK, they don't have to hold that vote now.  We can wait until after they get out of the disaster food stamp line.)

I Am So Not Gellin', Magellan!

Louisiana completely privatized mental health services on March 1, 2012.  The behavioral health insurance company Magellan is now the gatekeeper to pretty much ALL mental health services paid for by the state.  

True, there appear to be some advantages.  Services heretofore unavailable to LA Medicaid recipients, such as group therapy and reimbursement for meeting with your child's therapist without the child having to be present, are now available. 

Other than that, it's been HELL.  Where do I even begin?

1. Provider reimbursement rates have been SLASHED by about 30%.  Imagine finding out    

on March 5th that your salary would be cut by 30% -- beginning March 1st.  Yes, March 1st of the same year.  Uncle Bobby Jindal decided to privatize healthcare, or so he says, because the private sector provides the same or better services for lower costs without all the bureaucratic overhead and logjams.  What he didn't mention is that in his kingdom, he would let the private sector insurance company pay psychiatrists and therapists 30% less for services provided to its Medicaid customers than it pays the very same psychiatrists and therapists to see its non-Medicaid customers. 

2.  As of yesterday, zero of my clinic's claims appear to have been processed, so we have no feedback regarding whether Magellan is the type of insurer that will regularly deny 15%, 30% or whatever% of our claims (i.e., payment for services already provided).  You would think the lauded private sector would understand that to keep a business from going under you need to be able to project your revenue.

3. As reported yesterday by Gambit, Clinical Advisor still doesn't work.  

Clinical Advisor is an online records management system intended to streamline inter-clinic communications and the mechanism through which clinics submit Medicaid claims. It's not working. As a result, providers — many of which, like the Guidance Center, serve Medicaid clients — haven't been able to submit Medicaid claims. What's more, they say, the newly formed Louisiana Behavioral Health Partnership (LBHP) between the state and the private contractor is denying certain types of claims that used to be paid. [Gambit, 3/20/2012]

4. Forget about Magellan paying for your child to undergo a formal psychological evaluation.  They are denying ANY test that in ANY way could POSSIBLY be used to diagnose learning or educational problems even if the test has other uses, AND even if the psychologist states s/he wants to use that test for one of its other uses.  Magellan reasons that the federal government already provides that service.  In reality, the federal government mandates that school districts evaluate any child 0-21 years of age suspected of having a learning or emotional disability.   They just don't provide the schools with all the funding needed to accomplish that.  

5. Our insurance specialist has spent most of her time on hold when calling Magellan, one time for 30 minutes before the call was simply disconnected.  I emailed a question to the provider account plastered all over their website and on DHH's site -- 8 days ago.  Still no response, not even a form reply stating they have received my email.

6. We have heard that Magellan is requiring inpatient psychiatric providers to obtain daily authorization for hospitalized patients, a process that colleagues say is taking about 2 hours/day.  This despite what is written on page 15 of their 21-page FAQ document for providers [updated 2/24/2012]:

Q: For our inpatient unit, I was requesting authorizations practically every day, for different patients. I would get multiple authorizations of two days or three days or four days. If a patient comes in to this short-term unit, am I going to have to get an authorization every day?

A: You do not have to obtain an authorization every day, but the authorizations will be for short periods of time. We want to be sure first of all that the person still clinically needs the inpatient level of care and could not be safely returned to services in their community. Secondly, we want to have a discussion at every review about the discharge plan. Discharge planning, in our view, begins at the time of admission. We want to make sure that members have a well-established plan for aftercare services in place when they are discharged. So we are going to be reviewing every two to three days depending on the status of the person’s clinical condition and the plan for discharge.

And those are just the things I care to write about right now. 

Is LA Medicaid Putting Fat Cats' Profits over Patient Health?

No, I don't mean the so-called "fat cat" doctors that people who aren't doctors think get rich off Medicaid payments.  I mean pharmaceutical companies.

I learned today that Medicaid patients need prior authorization for generic ADHD medications.  Name-brand (i.e., more expensive than generic) ADHD medications are on the current Louisiana Medicaid Preferred Drug List, but generic versions of those same medications are not.  This means that LA Medicaid will pay, no questions asked, for Adderall XR, Focalin, Focalin XR, and Concerta; but physicians must submit Prior Authorization forms for the less expensive generic forms of these medications.

That means that providers who prescribe these drugs to Medicaid patients must fill out additional paperwork, and may even have to call the state medicaid office, to justify why the state should pay for the CHEAPER  generic version.    

As if that isn't problematic enough, there is a shortage of stimulant medications used to treat ADHD, and many pharmacies only have generic versions.  They couldn't get the name-brand versions of the drugs if they wanted to.

I find this policy interesting, considering Governor Jindal's push to save healthcare dollars by privatizing Medicaid and his constant hootin' and hollerin' about how much Louisiana pays to fund Medicaid. 

Because That's How Insurance Companies Roll

I don't know what havoc Ms. Irene will have wreaked by the time this weekend is over, but I do know this: If you live anywhere between South Carolina and Maine, and if they have not already, your insurance company will drastically raise premiums for your wind and hail coverage or altogether drop your coverage regardless of whether your home sustains any damage this weekend or not.

Mark my words.

Insurance Companies to Alabama Tornado Victims: SCREW YOU

I sit here this morning left speechless by the scope of destruction left by numerous and massive tornadoes across Alabama and Georgia last night. Watching those scenes naturally triggered thoughts of the long post-Katrina recovery. I'm sure other survivors of that disaster also immediately felt empathy for what the unfortunate folks across the Deep South are about to go through. Once they are able to get past the first waves of shock and grief, the tornado victims will suffer the injustice of having their insurance companies turn their backs on them. For years they paid for a service and a sense of protection that they will not receive.

Like a good con artist, State Farm, Farmers, USAA Insurance, and other insurance companies collected decades' worth of premiums from Gulf Coast residents, and then just 3 months ago, started dropping their windstorm and hail coverage. The timing of those companies' collective decision is eerily prescient in this January 2011 story from Daphne, AL, in which a customer is told her wind and hailstorm coverage would be dropped in March 2011 - a little over a month before many Alabama residents would need that coverage.


WKRG.com News

God help the tornado victims and grant them the strength and resolve to obtain the compensation they are justly owed.

Jim Donelon Can Kiss My Ass on Canal Street!

State Farm will raise rates for mom-and-pop landlords, drop their wind and hail coverage

While the statewide average rate increase is 18 percent, actual increases in South Louisiana can be much higher.

In Orleans, Jefferson and protected parts of St. Bernard and Plaquemines, the average increase will be 59.2 percent, according to State Farm; in areas outside of levees in Plaquemines it will be 93.8 percent; and in areas outside of levees in St. Bernard, it will be 21.1 percent. In St. Charles Parish, the average increase will be 19.2 percent. In St. James and St. John the Baptist, it will be 22.6 percent... Other coastal parishes will also see increases.

State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk said that part of the rate increase calculation is the value of cutting the wind and hail policy. [Times-Picayune, 1-16-2011]

Can someone explain how you can charge more for less coverage? How did that get past the Louisiana insurance commission, and how much is Insurance Commissioner Donelon profiting from this? What is he getting that's worth throwing us under a bus?

The article talks about how State Farm has also raised rates on other policies, which were so numerous they probably ran out of room to list the auto insurance increases I also received from State Farm over the past year. I was wondering how my rates could increase on an 11-year-old vehicle on which I cut my coverage IN HALF because I couldn't even afford the insurance before the rate increase. It seems the answers to my questions are to be found in them new fangled calculators the State Farm home office sent to Baton Rouge.

The Tebo on CNN. Gotta Lurve the TEBO!!

Would a Real Leader Please Report to the Principal's Office?

At this point, if we could just manage to smuggle a real leader into Louisiana, I'd be satisfied.

First, we've had nearly all of our state and Congressional politicians who themselves make their living off of "big government," say nothing to point out to the paranoid mobs trying to kill healthcare reform that the big scary "socialist" government is entirely run by fellow Americans and is not some strange other-worldly evil force trying to take away our rights. (When you get down to it, the government is run by the same people exerting their democratic right to bad mouth their democratic government. Otherwise, there would be no town hall meetings because what would be the point of trying to influence government policy if we had no control over it?)

Now we have school officials wasting their time -- and our money and our children's education -- trying to figure out how to accommodate parents who don't want the President to tell their children to stay in school and work hard. These are the very same parents, mind you, who send their children to school precisely so they can get an education and in doing so hopefully learn the value of hard work.

My 17-year-old son shared with me Thursday a letter distributed in school from Gayle Sloan, superintendent of St. Tammany Parish Schools. The letter explains that President Barack Obama will address schoolchildren nationwide next week, and that "he will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning."

The letter also adds the following: "If you prefer for your child not to participate, please contact the school principal so that an alternate assignment can be provided outside the classroom." (Times Picayune Letter to the Editor, 9-4-2009)

From Sen. Mary Landrieu, seemingly the last "Democrat" remaining in public office, to St. Tammany Parish Schools Superintendent Gayle Sloan, it seems like no one we've put in charge of looking after our best interests has the leadership ability to do so. They'd rather take the easy way out and kowtow to the ignorant screams of those hellbent on screwing themselves out of what is in their and in their children's own best interests.

When did REAL leadership stop including the very basic role of taking an unpopular stand every now and then? If our public officials aren't willing to point out foolishness, or at the very least, the holes in their constituents' logic, then there is no reason to believe that they possess the desire or even moral conviction to lead us in the right direction at all on any issue. These are not even hard stances to take. Saying there already are people (i.e., the insurances companies) standing between us and our doctors and that Republican presidents have given similar back-to-school addresses have nothing to do with whether you support the Democrats' and the President's policy agenda.

If our leaders cannot, or worse, are unwilling to bring reason and calm to chaos, why do we need them at all?

The First Step to Recovery is Still...

[you guessed it!]
...Admitting You Have a Problem

As expected, I received some pushback from the previous post and would like to respond to the questions and criticism received. Most importantly, I mis-cited the report from which I drew the history of previous hurricane flooding in N.O. That info came from the Independent Levee Investigation Team (not IPET). I greatly appreciate Editilla of New Orleans Ladder for pointing out this huge error! Like the Corps engineers, I am also human and thus fallible.

Let me address the most significant criticisms.

There is no evidence, beyond unverified verbal accounts by Army Corps spokespersons, that local citizens "limited the scope of the first round of levees which failed so catastrophically" during Katrina.

I didn't speak to Army Corps spokespersons. This information, which is the extent of my evidence, was lifted directly from the ILIT report:

In 1960...the Corps plan opted to solve the drainage canal freeboard problem by installing tidal gates and pumps at the drainage canal outfalls along Lake Pontchartrain. This obviated the need for condemning all the homes built along the canal levees. The Corps soon found itself embroiled in a clash of cultures and goals with the levee districts, the S&WB, and the local citizenry, who flatly opposed the Corps' proposal.

...the Corps focus shifted to heightening the drainage canal levees using concrete walls, which was what the opposing groups desired. These walls were to be designed to withstand a Category 3 storm surge with 12 ft tides and 130 mph winds. (ILIT report, pp. 4-22 to 4-23)

We [Levees.org] stand by our assertion that allegations in a 3-page sworn affidavit by NOLA.com Founder Jon Donley thoroughly validate our suspicions of a deception campaign being waged by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps shouldn't be posing as individuals spouting off deceiving and incorrect information in online comment forums, but individual Corps employees should be able to spout off their personal views via any forum they choose. In my opinion, the way this issue about the Nola.com comments is playing out makes Levees.org look like it doesn't know how to handle criticism.

We hope to see both our supporters and critics at Rising Tide IV where we will sponsor the Early Riser Breakfast.

I do support Levees.org, which is why I care if some of the things they say is questionable. Often, the most helpful criticism comes from those who want to support and stand behind you.

[note: comment courtesy of Editilla~]This ILIT study lays a lot of blame in many places, but the cause of 80% of the flooding of New Orleans 8/29/05 is still indisputably the Corps of Engineers failure to get it right the first time --NOT Katrina storm surge. The ILIT study pretty much devastates that misnomer.

Umm, have ya read the ILIT report? The hurricane, of which a defining element is storm surge, is the FIRST in ILIT's list of what caused our levees to fail:

In the end, it is concluded that many things went wrong with the New Orleans flood protection system during Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting catastrophe had its roots in three main causes: (1) a major natural disaster (the Hurricane itself), (2) the poor performance of the flood protection system, due to localized engineering failures, questionable judgments, errors, etc. involved in the detailed design, construction, operation and maintenance of the system, and (3) more global "organizational" and institutional problems associated with the governmental and local organizations responsible for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and funding of the overall flood protection system. (ILIT, p. xix)

There is a reason hurricane storm surges are measured, recorded, studied, and feared: because they matter. If storm surge were not a factor, then levees and floodwalls would not be built according to how much storm surge and wave overtopping they could handle. Just because our floodwalls failed with 7ft as opposed to 14ft of storm surge does not mean surge was not a factor.

I mean, really, where exactly do people think all that fucking water that the levees did not hold back came from?

[by Editilla~] Other perimeters of influence do not factor into the basic successful engineering of those flood walls and levees.

Basic successful engineering includes selection of types of structures as well as placement and maintenance of structures, both of which local government and citizens had some degree of control over:

The three drainage canals should not have been accessible to the storm surge. The USACE had tried for many years to obtain authorization to install floodgates at the north ends of the three drainage canals that could be closed to prevent storm surges from raising the water levels within the canals. That would have been the superior technical solution. Dysfunctional interaction between the local Levee Board (who were responsible for levees and floodwalls, etc.) and the local Water and Sewerage Board (who were responsible for pumping water from the city via the drainage canals) prevented the installation of these gates, however, and as a result many miles of the sides of these three canals had instead to be lined with levees and floodwalls. (ILIT, p. xxiii)

New Orleans officials were the ones who funded and built the outfall drainage canals despite being warned in the 1870's that they would direct storm surge right into the heart of the city, much like MRGO did. Until the 1950s, before the Corps became involved, it was the Orleans Levee Board who opted to raise these outfall canal levees again and again following each of the many overtoppings and breaches (listed in my previous post) that occurred during hurricanes. It was New Orleans officials who allowed homes to be built so close to those drainage canals, and once that occurred, do you really think the Corps faced any chance of constructing the wide, sturdy levees like the ones that have protected us from the Mississippi river since the 1850s? I understand that people don't want to have their homes torn down and forced to move. Hell, I wouldn't, but I also understand that we need to understand how we got to where we are today.

I'm not trying to reopen old wounds or rehash something that's been put to bed, like one person [i.e., Editilla~] insinuated about my motivations for writing my last post. This has been on my mind precisely because of the decisions we as New Orleanians are being asked to make once again and the coverage every Corps public meeting receives in the press. Also, my original post was not just about the Corps and floodwalls, it was about questioning the reluctance of our City Council to adopt higher elevations for rebuilding in a city that has been flooded 38 times -- THIRTY FRICKIN' EIGHT, people!! -- by Lake Pontchartrain. It was also about some people wanting to place pumps in City Park because they'd look too ugly by their lakefront houses, to hell with physical science and gravity and history which keep trying to tell us that that's just not a good idea no matter how you slice it. It was also about the continued lack of leadership in this City willing to face the hard truths and shepherd its citizens toward facing some tough truths when we need to. How can we expect the Corps and the feds to address their faults when we are insulted whenever asked to address our own community's faults?

By reading some of the dissenting comments, one would think I laid 100% of the blame at the foot of New Orleanians. I clearly said the Corps was to blame for the unacceptable design and failure of our flood protection, and I most certainly don't have a reputation of being a Corps sympathizer. What I would like to think I have a reputation for is pointing out facts, even the ugly ones; and the fact (unless the revered engineer and known Corps critic Robert Bea & his colleagues got it wrong in their ILIT report) is that many local officials and citizens prior to Katrina preferred the very system of outfall canals and floodwalls now in place. This does not mean we're stupid for living here. This does not mean the Corps did an excellent job of overseeing their design, maintenance, and construction because they didn't. It does not mean those walls didn't fail at half their design specifications. They did. It most certainly does not mean that people opting for the floodwalls should have seen the future and fully understood the implications of their decisions at that time. It just means what those words placed in that particular order are supposed to mean: that many people here preferred the Corps to build floodwalls instead of closing or reconfiguring the outfall canals, instead of the tidal gates and pumps at the mouth of the lake, and instead of giving up their homes.

So why even bring all this up? It's not an attempt to retell the Flood story in a manner that benefits the Corps, as one commenter [a.k.a. Editilla~] insinuated. It's an attempt to tell MORE of the story, beginning from the 1800s instead of starting halfway through (or even near the end of) the story at August 29, 2005. Sometimes life gives us the gift of past experience and hindsight, and we'd be doing ourselves and everyone who has to live with our decisions a giant disservice to not use that wisdom when we can. Those who do not understand history, or flat out deny it, are destined to repeat it...or at the very least act surprised when it occurs again.

The First Step to Recovery...

...Is Admitting You Have a Problem.

[I've been planning this one for a while, so set on down, grab a cup of coffee (or the vodka if you prefer to swing that way) 'cuz I gots a lot to say.]

When it comes to flood protection, too many of us haven't admitted this. Everyone in the world knows we have a bit of a drainage & elevation problem, but I'm asking how many of us in the N.O. area have been honest enough to outwardly admit that we have in fact exacerbated and even caused -- Oh yes I did say it -- our own flood protection problems. At the very least we ignore the obvious, even to the point of denial, and you only need to have watched one after-school special to know that people who are in denial are nowhere near to achieving recovery (no matter how blonde and popular you are, nor whether you're prom queen).

Ironically, it's the citizen group working to improve our flood protection system, Levees.org, that has added a lot of the fuel to this fire, first with what I saw on their FAQ and Factsheet pages and then by their founder's allegations that the Corps has been unfairly attacking her and all citizens by saying that we are partly to blame for the 2005 federal flood.

Well, we are. And it's high time we stop running from that sad, uncomfortable truth. I don't believe we are to blame for the shoddy workmanship done on the levees. However, we are not idle, innocent bystanders in all of this.

Let's start with Fact #1 on the levees.org Factsheet: "The flooding of New Orleans and nearby St. Bernard Parish was an engineering disaster, not a natural disaster." Yes, the structures were poorly constructed, but the levee and canal wall failures did not happen on a clear, sunny day. They were overwhelmed by hurricane storm surge -- a.k.a. a natural disaster. Hurricane Katrina was a strong Category 3 storm as it passed New Orleans, true. We were led to believe that our flood protection structures should have withstood such a storm (or roughly, a 100 year storm), true. However, thanks to Katrina, we now know that the five-category Saffir-Simpson scale is an inadequate classification system. While New Orleans received Category 2 winds, perhaps stronger gusts, Katrina brought with her storm surge well beyond that even seen during Camille, the strongest Cat 5 we have ever seen in the U.S. with winds approaching 200 miles per hour.

Fact #2 on levees.org: "Responsibility for the design and construction of the flood protection in metro New Orleans belongs solely to the US Army Corps of Engineers..." Solely? Really? Then why the required public commenting wherein they are pressured to spare volleyball courts at the cost of weakening the better designed plans presented by the Corps? What about when people insisted on putting pumps even further south of the lake (i.e., in City Park) when it is clearly in our best interests to block lake surge from intruding that far into the city?

How are WE at fault? We must shoulder part of the blame because many people here keep failing to acknowledge two key facts of life: 1) we have always been and will continue to be vulnerable to the destruction wrought by hurricanes; and 2) man can never, and I mean NEVER, guarantee that anything he builds can withstand whatever Mother Nature may send our way. Yet, just this summer the news featured coverage of people relying on updated flood maps, which are already outdated by the way, to decide whether or not to raise their homes. Let's review. Many people whose homes flooded had no flood insurance before Katrina not because they couldn't afford it but because based on the presence of a flood protection system federal maps zoned their homes as being outside of a 100 year floodplain (i.e., insurance guy told you you don't need flood insurance). OK, fine, many people didn't really understand the statistics behind 100- and 500-year storms and the variables involved, but you should now. However, many people understood back then that their neighborhoods existed only because the levee system was extended to incorporate that area of the city. Levees.org even acknowledges this fact:

("...the water table was drastically lowered by the city’s drainage system and some areas settled several feet due to the consolidation of the underlying organic soils. After 1965, the US Army Corps built a system around a much larger geographic footprint that included previous marshland and swamp.")

In the weeks after the storm, I remember pissed off residents blaming "the feds" who told us we were safe behind levees. Yet here we are, going right back to where we started, with the City Council (not the Corps) not approving flood maps because doing so would require people to elevate their homes several feet...Unless they wait a couple years for the levee system to be rebuilt and the next round of flood maps putting them outside 100-year floodplains once again so they can build their houses at or very near ground level.

For some, particularly in neighborhoods such as Lakeview, the maps show their risk has abated and if the city would adopt the FEMA maps, huge savings on flood-insurance premiums would follow. But those residents will have to wait. The City Council didn't want to adopt the maps and force others in areas where flood risk has increased, like the Lower 9th Ward and parts of Gentilly, to elevate now when adequate protection should be in place in a couple of years. (T-P, 6-18-09)

Levees.org FAQ: Haven't N.O. residents known for years that this could happen? "No, because the Corps assured the city’s residents that they were safe from a Standard Project Hurricane (roughly equivalent to a Cat 3 Storm). New Orleans residents did not know that the flood walls could rupture 4 feet below design specs or that the floodwalls were designed to collapse if water briefly overtopped them."

[The initial post incorrectly cited IPET as the reference document from which the following info was drawn. It was actually drawn from the ILIT report. Associated hyperlinks have also been corrected.]

Our collective sin is our repeated failure to learn from the sins of our fathers and from our own disaster ridden history. The Independent Levee Investigation Team (ILIT) issued a report on July 31, 2006, did a very good job of retelling this history as part of a nearly 700-page report on the failure of our flood protection system:

Floods Inundating "Backatown" via Lake Pontchartrain
(the following lifted directly from the ILIT report [except for my commentary in brackets; bold emphases are mine]

Hurricanes strike the Louisiana Coast with a mean frequency of two every three years (Kolb and Saucier, 1982). Since 1759, 172 hurricanes have struck southern Louisiana (Shallat, 2000). Of these, 38 have caused flooding in New Orleans, usually via Lake Pontchartrain. Some of the more notable events have included: 1812, 1831, 1860, 1893, 1915, 1940, 1947, 1965, 1969, and 2005. [ILIT report, pp. 4-9 to 4-11]

1. "The Great Louisiana Hurricane" of August 9, 1812. It rolled over the barrier islands and drowned Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes and the area around Barataria Bay [pay attention too, Westbankers] under 15 feet of water. The parade ground at Fort St. Phillip was inundated by 8 feet of water and the shoreline along Lake Pontchartrain was similarly inundated, though this was far enough below the French Quarter to spare any flooding of the City.
2. In June 1821 easterly winds surged off Lake Pontchartrain and pushed up Bayou St. John, flooding fishing villages and spilling into North Rampart Street until the winds abated and allowed the water to drain back into the lake. It was an ominous portent of things to come.
3. On August 16, 1831 "The Great Barbados Hurricane" careened across the Caribbean, striking the Louisiana coast west of New Orleans. The area south of town was again inundated by storm surge, while a three foot surge entered the city from Lake Pontchartrain.
4. Southeastern Louisiana suffered through three hurricanes during the summer and fall of 1860. On August 8th a fast moving hurricane swept 20 feet of water into Plaquemines Parish. The third hurricane struck on October 2nd making landfall west of New Orleans. It inundated Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and Barataria, causing a significant storm surge in Lake Pontchartrain which destroyed 20 lakeside settlements, washing out a portion of the New Orleans and Jackson Great Northern Railroad. Surge from this storm overtopped the banks along the Old and New Basin drainage canals and a levee along Bayou St. John gave way, allowing the onrushing water to flood a broad area extending across the back side of New Orleans.
   
5. In 1871 three hurricanes caused localized flooding, which proved difficult to drain. Flooding emanating from storm surges on Lake Pontchartrain during these storms overtopped the Hagen Avenue drainage canal between Bayou St. John and New Basin Canal [present day Lafitte Avenue] spilling flood waters into the Mid-City area. City Engineer W. H. Bell warned the city officials about the potential dangers posed by the drainage canals leading to Lake Pontchartrain, because the Mid-City area lay slightly below sea level.
6. The record hurricane of October 2, 1893 passed south of New Orleans and generated winds of 100 mph and a storm surge of 13 feet, which drowned more than 2,000 people in Jefferson Parish, completely destroying the settlements on the barrier island of Cheniere Caminada. This represented the greatest loss of life ascribable to any natural disaster in the United States up until that time.
7. In August 1900, a hurricane passed directly over Galveston, TX, demolishing that city and killing between 6,000 and 8,000 people, which remains the deadliest natural disaster in American history. Prior to impacting Galveston, that hurricane tracked westerly parallel to the Gulf Coast about 150 miles south of New Orleans. Its flood surges were noted along the Gulf Coast, including Lake Pontchartrain's south shore (Cline, 1926) [sounds kinda like Rita and Ike, don't it? We're vulnerable even if a storm just passes south of us on the way to Texas! Still hard for me to wrap my mind around this phenomenon.]
8. Prior to Katrina's landfall in 2005, the most damaging hurricane to impact New Orleans was the Grand Isle Hurricane of September 29, 1915, a Category 4 event which produced winds as great as 140 miles per hour at Grand Isle. It slowed as it made landfall and eventually passed over Audubon Park, seriously damaging structures across New Orleans. Electrical power was knocked out, preventing the City's new pumps from functioning [sound familiar?]. The wave crest height on Lake Pontchartrain rose to 13 ft, easily overtopping 6-foot high shoreline levee, destroying the lakefront villages of Bucktown (at the end of 17th Street Canal), West End, Spanish Fort, and Lakeview (these lakeside settlements were swallowed up by the infilling of the Lake Pontchartrain shoreline in 1928-31). The drainage canals were also overtopped, flooding the city behind Claiborne, leaving Mid-City and Canal Street under several feet of water. This storm overwhelmed the City's defenses so quickly that 275 people were killed, mostly in the Lake Pontchartrain shoreline zone.
9. On September 19, 1947 an unnamed hurricane made landfall near the Chandeleur Islands [remember those?]
   A storm surge of 9.8ft reached Shell Beach on Lake Borgne. The runways at Moisant Airport were covered by 2 ft of water while Jefferson Parish was flooded to depths of 3+ ft. Sewage from an overwhelmed S&WB treatment plant stagnated in some of the drainage canals, producing sulfuric acid fumes that caused staining of lead-based paint on some of the homes in the Lakeview area, leaving them with unsightly black blotches [I've never heard this before]. 51 people drowned and New Orleans suffered more than $100 million in damages. City officials were unable to clear floodwaters through the drainage canals in the Lakeview, Gentilly, and Metairie neighborhoods for nearly two weeks. [hmm, I have this strange feeling of deja vu, like this has happened before]. This was the first significant hurricane to strike New Orleans which generated a large body of reliable storm surge data, which was subsequently used in design of flood protection works by the Corps of Engineers. The New Orleans Times-Picayune prepared a map that showed reported depths and locations of flooding in the 1947 hurricane.

A couple more important nuggets of history which some of us seem hellbent on repeating:

[In the 1870s!] New Orleans City Surveyor W.H. Bell warned of the potential dangers posed by the big outfall drainage canals. He told city officials to place pumping stations on the lakeshore, otherwise “heavy storms would result in water backup within the canals, culminating in overflow into the city.” This prophetic warning was ignored with catastrophic results during Hurricane Katrina. (p. 4-16)

By the time the Corps got involved [between 1955 & 1960], a dense network of single family residences abutted the drainage canals along their entire courses (the canals are 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 miles long). The encroachment of these homes adjacent to the canal embankments circumvented any possibility of using conventional methods to heighten the levees, which is usually accomplished by adding compacted earth on the land-side of the levees (Figure 4.23, which would require the condemnation and removal of hundreds of residences, which would be costly and time-consuming (not to mention unprecedented). (p. 4-22)

As far as I'm concerned, the previous point merits the most reflection. The feds and Corps did not build our homes right alongside outfall drainage canals. Those drained marshland pioneers may not have comprehended fully the implication of building their homes where they did. But now, we do. And we have to really think about what it means, not just to us personally but to the rest of the citizens who will be flooded from a breach of the floodwall in our backyards, when we object to the Corps appropriating 6 feet of our backyards to widen levee foundations or secure them from tree roots and whatnots that compromise the levees. WE are the ones with the power to tell the Corps how much land we are willing to cede to protect this great City, just like WE were the ones who limited the scope of the first round of levees which failed so catastrophically -- under the force of the Category 5 storm surge of a naturally occurring hurricane.

Let the hate mail begin!!

Idiots!

2 doctors weigh in on health reform

From a T-P article on the two new physician congressmen from Louisiana:

Both hope to hear from the president-elect, or his top health aides, so they can advocate for measures that put more emphasis on patient responsibility and free market solutions to Obama's campaign promise to provide coverage to more than 40 million uninsured Americans.

Because that has been working so well for the American people? Honestly, do you know ANYONE who is pleased with the cost and quality of their health insurance or who isn't hassled by her health insurance provider when it really counts (i.e., other than a quick well visit to the doctor)? Do we really need to advocate for more emphasis on free market solutions? Isn't that what we already have? It sounds a lot like Nagin's repopulation plan.

Oh wait. That wasn't a plan at all. Just like this isn't a fucking plan either!!

As for patient responsibility, last I heard, the patients' responsibility to pay for medical treatments not covered by their expensive health insurance is a main cause of personal bankruptcy filings. But Congressmen, you're right. The American people need more bills. It's not like there's a mortgage crisis or rising unemployment or a financial market meltdown or anything!

Now for the piece de resistance:

But Cassidy also spoke about working across party lines to get affordable homeowners insurance to south Louisiana residents ...

"If our workers can't afford to live near the refineries, pipelines and shipyards that serve the entire nation, then our whole national economy suffers, " Cassidy said.

So, healthcare insurance...leave to the market forces. Homeowners insurance...too important to leave to the market forces? Huh? People not being able to afford healthcare insurance...no threat to the economy, but people not being able to afford homeowners insurance in Louisiana...threat to the whole national economy?

What the...?

Idiots, I tell you. Fucking idiots.

We're watching you, Congressmen. We're watching.

OMG! Obama Said "Spread the Wealth"!

Yes, at first I cringed too when Obama told Joe the Plumber he intends to "spread the wealth." However, by using my brain [dammit, I already lost 1/3 of the Republicans reading this], I realized that my reaction was nothing more than the knee-jerk response Americans have been indoctrinated to have towards anything remotely socialist-sounding. After a few more minutes of thinking, and without the help of Limbaugh or Hannity, I realized that spreading the wealth is as American as...well, as Obama.

In case you missed the last couple of weeks trying to decipher the transcript of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric, you may have heard tidbits about some sort of $700 billion bail out for Wall Street. You see, that's where the American people's wealth was spread to billion-dollar corporations who fell short of their original goal of spreading our personal wealth to themselves using bad mortgages as their drive-thru-bank-cannister-vacuum-chute-like-thingy vehicle of choice. My fellow Americans, you may have also noticed that you've been spreading a bit more of your wealth to oil companies and then to credit card companies in the form of higher interest rates & late charges when you couldn't afford to pay them on account of having spent your bill money on gas for your automobile.

If you live along the coast, you'll definitely recall spreading pretty much all of your wealth to insurance companies that were already quite wealthy:

When insurers sharply boost premiums on the coasts, increase deductibles, refuse to renew policies or otherwise cut back coverage, policymakers often accept these steps as necessary to help the property/casualty insurance business meet the huge challenges it faces in a risky world filled with dangers that it cannot adequately measure...

...The financial reality of the property/casualty insurance industry couldn’t be more different than the carefully cultivated perception fostered by insurers. Insurers are paying out lower claims, charging higher premiums, reaping greater profits, and are more financially solid than at almost any time in history.

[p. 3, Property/Casualty Insurance in 2007: Overpriced Insurance, Underpaid Claims, Declining Losses and Unjustified Profits]

And remember when you made the decision to allocate your wealth for the worthy, moral cause of helping your countrymen and countrywomen rebuild their hurricane shattered lives? Well, our Republican leaders faithfully doled your wealth out in a heartily fashion -- to their already superwealthy pals.

So you see, America is all about spreading the wealth! I mean we love us some fuckin' wealth distribution!! Politicians love to talk about "sharing in the American dream." Remember to remind them -- and most importantly, remind yourselves -- that sharing in that dream requires sharing some of your own damn wealth back to you.

Insurance is a Fraud

SUCH A FREAKIN' FRAUD! I'd call it a "joke" if it weren't so immoral, or if it didn't make me want to cry from utter hopelessness everytime I think about it. So what the hell am I rambling about, you ask? The following is written VERBATIM in State Farm's Louisiana renter's insurance policy under the section titled "Losses Insured":

"1. Fire or lightning"

OK, simple enough. Right? One would think -- until one turns to the very next page titled "Losses Not Insured" and reads the following regarding "nuclear hazards":

"Loss caused by the nuclear hazard shall not be considered loss caused by fire, explosion or smoke.

However, we do insure for any direct loss by fire resulting from the nuclear hazard, provided the resulting fire loss is itself a Loss Insured."

My initial involuntary reaction was: "huh?", followed by the quickly growing realization of "WHAT THE F*-K IS THIS?!?"

What it is is a shameless, unconscionable, blatant tactic that allows the company to "rightfully" decide that they don't feel like compensating you for a particular loss.

Like a Good (and Drunk) Neighbor at Your Daughter's Wedding Reception, We'll Ruin Your Dreams

Maybe this should be State Farm's new slogan since the cost of 2-4 years of homeowners' insurance now rivals the average cost of American weddings.

The average wedding in America, according to Bride's Magazine, costs $19,000.

Stationery, $374.

Bouquets and other flowers, $775.

Photography, videography, $1,253.

Wedding favors, $240.

The music, $745.

Clergy and church, $248.

Limo rental, $427.

Attendant's gifts, $299.

Wedding rings, $1,000.

Engagement ring, $2,982.

Rehearsal dinner, $762.

Bride's wedding dress, $790.

Bride's headpiece and veil, $150.

Bride's attendant's apparel (if you have 5), $720.

Mother of the bride apparel, $198.

Groom's formal wear (rented), $100.

Formal wear for ushers and best man (if you have 5) rented, $400.

Reception for 186 guests (which is the average attendance at a wedding), $7,246.

This comes to a grand total of $18,874.

I wonder what else price-gouging insurance premiums are robbing us of. For the many families who can't afford $19,000 weddings, I imagine they're having to choose between shelter and much more basic provisions.

Jill on S-CHIP Reauthorization

This is a historic day for the N.O. - It's Just Me blog. For the first time, I present a guest blogger! I received an email from a dear college friend of yore, Jill of the Bay Area (i.e., San Francisco for the non-caffeinated folks & those educated in the Gret Stet of Loo-ziana) regarding President Bush's vow to veto a bill passed with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress to provide health insurance for uninsured children. I couldn't have written it more eloquently myself, and she has kindly allowed me to share her sentiments (her words in this reddish brown'range hue).

-------------------
Fratto said Bush might be amenable to increasing the funding level above his suggested $5 billion over five years if the expansion of eligibility was limited. Fratto said, "This should not be an issue where you decide what the funding is, and then (set) the policy," adding, "We should decide what the policy is and let the funding land where it lands." However, Fratto said that once a government program subsidizes children in families with annual incomes above 300% of the federal poverty level, "you are talking about people who are solidly within the middle class of America, and you are extending another unfunded entitlement to the middle class" (Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times, 9/28).
--------------------------------

Okay, the reauthorization and expansion is good news. The vote tallies below put a veto override vote barely within reach in the Senate and slightly out of reach in the House, if my math is correct. Promising attainability; however, it is REALLY disheartening that there should be any scramble for veto override votes, or support of any kind for this measure!

What's really got my blood boiling is the highlighted text, though. The words "unfunded entitlement to the middle class" make me want to shake somebody! Even if the allegation that this compromise measure would provide some unintended support for "middle class" families by extending coverage to families earning 300% above the federal poverty level, SO WHAT?! First, consider that the 2007 federal poverty guideline for the "American Dream" family (2 parents, 2.5 kids) is right around $24,000. That's right a family of FIVE is not considered poor within the federal guidelines until there income rock bottoms to $24,130. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml.) Three-hundred percent of $24,000 is $72,000 for a FIVE-PERSON HOUSEHOLD! That family needs some help!

Next, consider that one of the leading causes of bankruptcies in the United States is non-covered medical expenses. Finally, consider that the bankrutpcy code amendments that took effect in 2005 make it more difficult to fully discharge debts in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. One of the considerations used to determine eligibility for Chapter 7 discharge is a "means" test, whereby if a family's income is above the median income level for their particular state (based on family size / # earners, I believe), then guess what? That family might not be able to fully discharge their debts in Chapter 7 bankruptcy! Sure, sure, other provisions apply, and I'm no bankruptcy lawyer, but dangit, common sense says that that puts full discharge out of reach for a greater number of "middle class" families -- particularly if earnings of 300% over the federal poverty level puts you "solidly within the middle class."

"Unfunded entitlement to the middle class," indeed! The only spot-on word in that phrase is "entitlement." We are entitled to have kids that are healthy without worrying about whether we're going to have to sell our blood, organs, houses, etc. in order to pay for care that ensures their health.

Grrrrr.... I'll stop seething and get back to work so that I won't be staring down that poverty level income figure in my personal economy, but it's gonna be a while before I stop cursing in my head about this one!

You probably got my message a couple of days ago (blank subject line -- sorry -- typing fast): CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD ON THIS!

Be well (evidently you can't afford not to),

Jill

"Whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children I tend to think it's a good idea."

• Email
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Print
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Comment
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

-William Kristol, Compassionate Conservative, Describing his reaction to the President Bush's intent to veto the new Childrens Health Insurance Program, Fox News Sunday, 9/30/07

THIS is a Democrat Party I'd Consider Rejoining

It's about time they grew a pair...

If Bush vetoes the legislation and Congress cannot override the veto, Democrats said that they will reintroduce the bill every six weeks to three months until Bush signs the bill or Republicans vote to override a veto. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, "If the president refuses to sign the bill, if he says, with a veto, 'I forbid 10 million children in America to have health care,' this legislation will haunt him again and again and again" (Washington Post, 9/28). -Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report

I'm Tired, and They're Stupid

My 3 loyal readers have probably been wondering why I dropped off the face of the earth. It started innocently enough. Things picked up at work; I decided to focus on taking care of neglected areas of my life. I got lazy and used to not blogging, and once I'm in a pattern...

Work also started to get busy on top of really starting to suck, and in post-K New Orleans, it doesn't take much for me to give into the urge to say: fuck it. i'm tired. i'm just done! stick a fork in me.

There's been lots I've wanted to say. God knows there's no shortage of absurdity to comment on around here -- just haven't had the time or energy. Fortunately, all my thoughts can be summed up into what may just end up being my mantra: I'M TIRED; AND THEY'RE STUPID!

I'm also real fuckin' tired of "The Stupid." You know, our legislators, leaders, etc... I can't believe some of the shit they've proposed in the legislature, like raising auto insurance rates -- because we're not paying enough insurance. But then again maybe that bill sponsor was on to something; since more and more people will be living in their cars while waiting on Road Home payouts, maybe we should pay more to cover the belongings we'll be hauling around.

The haggling over using Road Home money to pay flood only or wind damage too? If this ain't another cheap stalling tactic, then I'm starting a petition to amend the city charter so Nagin can run again.

A bill to add about 25cents tax per beer to fund building a mental health hospital in St. Tammany? First, why the tax? it's exorbitant AND shouldn't such an emergency need be eligible for coverage under ohh i don't know...emergency funds or part of the $3 bill+ surplus? Second, if the hospital is an urgent need for the New Orleans area since the city lost so many psych beds, has it occurred to anyone to fucking build one in New Orleans?!?

Somebody needs to tell these folks that they're doing a horrible job at hiding how badly they want this city to change.

This pales in comparison to prior posts, but i figured maybe posting any thing might get me back into posting more often.

And So This Is Christmas...

I keep hearing in my head the lyrics to that song "Happy Christmas (War is Over)":
So this is Christmas,
And what have you done?
Another year over
And a new one just begun...

It's Christmas again, for the 2nd time post-K, and what have we done? It was hard putting myself into the Christmas spirit this year with the constant thoughts running through my head that things are not looking good down here, this long after the fact. Even though I was surrounded by family and loved ones, there weren't as many as usual because some of them don't live here anymore. Everyone who was there didn't seem to be in as festive a mood as in past gatherings. Maybe it was just my own perception, but a friend from New Orleans shared that her family gathering felt more subdued, perhaps even a bit depressing, too. After all, Baton Rouge just isn't home to them -- not yet anyway. Last Thanksgiving and Christmas was like this too, but that was to be expected less than 4 months after the fact.

I am certainly not ungrateful for the people and the things I still have and for this Christmas, which was still more than many people will ever have. Still, it's not MY Christmas, and I can't help but wonder how many more Christmases before Katrina doesn't dominate our conversations and our new lives, and when our "new lives" will just feel like regular ole everyday lives.

Hope, however, does spring eternal. Otherwise, why would we still be here? Fortuitously, for the first time since I can recall, I wasn't infuriated or completely disheartened by the news. There were actually developments to be hopeful about. The new Congress will FINALLY look into the fat no-bid disaster contracts that went to already wealthy companies well-connected to the White House. State legislators have wised up to the notion that they should question ICF's contract, and are finding some questionable allocations. Democrats and Repubs from LA and MS may actually unite to take on the insurance companies, now that they've even screwed Trent Lott. The Saints (need I say more?). Hell, who knows? Maybe Nagin will miraculously wake up mute next week!

Whatever the case, or however down I feel today (and I must keep emphasizing that this is how I feel today, right now), I have no choice but to keep going because at this point the alternative is an even less acceptable option. It's not like anyone promised any of us blissful holidays for eternity anyway, and who are we to demand such?

Maybe Travelers' Insurance was right to limit their risk exposure by pulling out of the south Louisiana market. After all, they only netted $3.019 billion in net income from Jan. 2006 to Sept. 2006.

With all the storms last year, they were barely solvent, as 2005 brought in a mere $24.4 billion in revenue and left them with a paltry $113 billion in total assets.

Like they said on page 5 of their annual financial report, these disasters totally caught them off guard:
we believe it is the job of insurers to understand the changing weather cycles – which we have evaluated and assessed for years – and price risks accordingly.


Maybe I was being too hard on them in my previous post. At least they aren't retaliating against angry consumers for filing lawsuits based on this ludicrous notion that insurance companies are supposed to cover hurricane damage just because they paid increased premiums for living in hurricane prone areas. This is an honest industry after all, and there is no way they would engage in unethical behavior...
"we may incur loss and loss adjustment expenses as a result of disclosures by, and investigations of, companies for which we have written directors' and officers' insurance relating to possible accounting irregularities, corporate governance issues and stock option "backdating," "spring loading" and other stock option grant practices; the insurance industry, including us, is the subject of a number of investigations by state and federal authorities in the United States, and we cannot predict the outcome of these investigations or their impact on our business or financial results; our businesses are heavily regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth;"