Overseas

Standardized coding is a step in the right direction, but doesn't even come close to simplifying things. As you've said there are a gazillion different plans from any one insurer, and myriad different requirements for determining if something is covered or not, what the copay is, etc. Moreover, most insurers don't even have online systems for providers to query to determine what is or is not covered, and what the copay might be. They have to pick up the phone and call the insurance company and ask a human, and a lot of times they'll get different answers depending on who they talk to. If the insurers do happen to have an online system for this then the interface requirements are different for every company, and usually the information isn't 100% up to date. In this day and age that is inexcusable.

Not to harp on about Australia, but when I go into a health care provider for a service that isn't covered by Medicare (the gov't insurance) - for instance, buying eye glasses, or a therpeutic massage, I hand them my private insurance card, they put in into a machine similar to one used for a credit card, and it automatically pays the provider what my policy will pay, and I just have to pay the difference. All the insurers are on the same IT system, and it is all automated.

So they can automate it all, and make it all interchangeable. I agree it is inexcusable.

This is an interesting conversation, I hear a lot of ideas I like. I'm with the one about the government putting some regulations and oversight on things. The insurance companies just keep increasing costs and being dropped by health providers, it's not getting any better.

I don't know if I would use the UK as any good example - the people I've talked to about it say it's horrible, they still spend a ton on private insurance and their options for care are crap. So many go out of the country to do things, according to the few I've talked to.

Just to clarify - I wasn't necessarily holding the UK out as a good system. On a macro-economic level, it may be - they seem to get more bang for the buck, so to speak, based on a comparison of results (life expectancy, survival rates) etc. versus money spent. But they also have a large number of horror stories, wait lists are a serious problem, and certain areas you definitely don't want to just rely on the NHS (cancer has long been a real weakness).

Such a system is wholly unsuited to the US. But I do think it interesting that the seemingly most efficient health care system in the developed world (based on return on the dollar) is the one that is the most socialized.

what makes Australia any different than what the USA has now......with the exception that people in the USA end up with an unenforceable blemish on their credit record that will not prevent them from getting credit for any consumer good they wish

also as for the tort reform not getting rid of bad doctors.....it seems lil johnny edwards and his lawsuits did not get rid of them either.....it just made insurance more expensive for all the good doctors

We do have something similar in the US - also called Medicare. Everyone over 65 has insurance provided to them. If you want more services, you can get more - if you pay. But if you can't afford extras, you won't be denied health coverage. There is more a focus on cost containment in the Australian Medicare, which is why, if you feel it necessary, it is possible (and in fact encouraged) to also obtain private insurance.

Why should someone who earns $15,000 a year - say, a farm worker - be condemned to die from a disease because they can't afford insurance? So either we as a society think their life isn't worth anything, or we do something about it. Considering we are currently starting to bankrupt ourselves with our current system, and don't even cover everyone, I'd say we have a serious issue that we need to address. Alas, we have a political climate that seems to think dicussing Paris Hilton and moose hunting is a valid way to decide the future of the nation.

I have been reading as much as I can about health insurance/care and came across this article written by the Associate Dean of the Weill Medical College at Cornell University:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/september/fo...t_health_in.php

What are your thoughts on this?

First, let's dismiss the argument that we don't ration health care/have waiting lists in the US- we just do it by how much money you have. We have 45 million people without insurance - that's who are on the wait lists for care in this country. Every system rations health care. It is just that every other modern industrialized nation has made the determination that health care should be rationed on a different - and, to be honest, more equitable basis.

Every other nation has also decided that people should not be bankrupted because they become ill. They also are generally uncomfortable with the determination of whether your care will be paid for being made by a company which has a direct financial interest in not paying for that care. And there is a recognition that with health coverage, you really can't have true competition (e.g., if you don't like the level of service you get, you can't go somewhere else - that would usually entail changing jobs and/or trying to get a new insurance company to cover you at the exact moment when you are ill and need the coverage). These points are really only issues in a health care system where coverage is primarily private.

On a macro level, the UK used to spend something like 6% of GDP on health care, and with life expectancies exceeding the US, and survival rates for major illnesses generally comparable to that of the US. On an economic analysis level, they did seem to make the right choice. In comparison, the US spends close to 15% of GDP - and considering a baby born in Cuba has a better statistical chance of living to its first birthday than one born in the US (Cuba, for heaven's sake!) we don't seem to be spending our money perhaps as wisely as we could.

However, the UK was really trying to get health care on the cheap (and as a former resident of London, it was noticeable). While survival rates were generally comparable, they were well behind in certain areas (cancer, especially). They have increased spending up to closer to 9% of GDP, I believe - which is close to the European average to address that.

We also need to differentiate between the provision of health care by the government, and the provision of health insurance by the government (e.g., the actual health care providers are not government run). In the UK, the National Health Service actually runs the hosptials, employs the doctors, etc - it is truly socialized medicine (although since Thatcher started some reforms, a certain level of private health care has developed). I don't believe anywhere else is quite so socialized as the UK, though everywhere obviously has certain degrees of government provided health care (look at Ben Taub and the VA here, for instance).

The UK is pretty unique - few places have the full socialized medicine as they do. Most everywhere else has something something like Medicare here - government provided basic insurance with some private insurance in addition, and a mix of private and government provided health care. I believe that Canada, however, has been quite strict on not allowing too many private insurance providers, and also tries to centrally plan the provision of health care as well.

My sense - and I may be wrong - is that wait lists generally develop not because the coverage won't cover you for your hip replacement surgery or chemotherapy, but because there isn't the capacity to actually provide the services. And when the capacity is solely provided by the government, that seems to be where things really break down.

I think that Australia, where I currently live, has a good balance of goverment and private, and is something the US might want to look for ideas. They have what they call Medicare, which is the government provided insurance that everyone has. You may also have private insurance, which provides for certain extra coverage, and can help you avoid wait lists. If you earn over a certain income, you are actually taxed at a higher rate (and extra 1% of your income) if you do not have private insurance.

Hospitals are a mixture of private and public - although I think the private are mainly non-profit. And the public hospitals have a private "wing" where coverage is provided for those with private insurance. It is a real mix.

There doesn't appear to be the same service delivery issues you do wtih the UK - this is one area where a bit of competition might seems to work, perhaps because you can pick a different hospital or doctor more easily - especially if your insurance will cover anywhere you go. There are still wait lists, but (based on personal stories and media coverage at least), they don't seem to be as problematic as in the UK.

And insurance companies and health care providers do seem to compete on providing better services in Australia - you get private rooms here with insurance, and the insurance companies compete on how many extras they'll provide (which they can do as the main bulk of an expense is picked up by Medicare). Many of the main hospitals are run by the states, but they don't have a complete monopoly.

Australia's system of involving publc and private seems to insure (pardon the pun) that everyone is covered, wait lists don't seem to be huge issue, people who want more or quicker coverage can purchase it, and that the provision of health care isn't caught up in as many bottlenecks.

Apologies for the long reply...

There was an interesting recent study - which I of course can't find now - whose thesis was that the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the US during the 60s didn't result in the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill. Instead society replaced mental institutions with jails. When society stopped locking the mentally ill up in mental institutions (which were often extremely abusive settings for the patients), society (in usual fashion) never followed through with the proper care in the community that was supposed to replace the mental institutions. So the mentally ill who were unable to cope in society inevitably wound up in jail. Until we realize that proper mental health treatment is not only the moral thing to do, but an excellent way to reduce crime, I don't expect this trend to change. More wasted lives (both the mentally ill and the victims of their crimes).

But hey look- Britney got increased visitation rights. Let's pay inordinate amounts of attention to that instead. Sigh.

I spent my entire childhood in that area (I can still remember the wooden bridge that took Dairy Ashford over the bayou), and family still live there. I think it is a good area - and good value, especially for the Energy Corridor. I wouldn't say it is having a rebirth - it has just gotten more developed with Eldridge finally getting filled in.

Lots of people move into the neighborhoods and stay for years. Several people on my mother's street have been there for over 30 years. Strong community associations as well. Close to the very active little league fields. If you are working out west, I think it is a good place to live.

But you do need to be aware of exactly where you buy as there are a lot of apartment complexes in the area, which affects property values, for better or worse. There are apartment complexes all along Briar Forest next to many nice neighborhoods, so it isn't a major issue, but something to be aware of. You aren't going to find many places in Houston that aren't near apartments, though.

One of them in particular (on Enclave) is, as the locals like to say in slightly hushed tones in order to disguise the implications of the statement, very "Katrina". That being said, we had a family friend fall on hard times and who had to live in the "Katrina" complex. She got along well with her new neighbors, the more shady of whom who would even go so far to try to hide their joints behind their backs when she walked by, and has noticed an improvment over the past year. Most of the neighborhoods now pay to have constables patrolling, so whatever risk there was (imagined or otherwise) seems to have been addressed.

I think that the Ashford neighborhoods closer to the bayou and/or east of Dairy Ashford would be where I would focus. They aren't close to the complexes - which, for better or worse, will improve resale value. Those east of D.A. also are (at the moment) zoned to an elementary school which doesn't take in those complexes, which also would, I imagine, affect values. All areas would still be West Briar MS and Westside. I think to get Barbara Bush Elementary you now need to be west of Eldridge.

My point is that homosexuals want the same equality rights afforded to them that are set for those who can not change their condition. You have no scientific way to prove that you are born gay, and anyone can decide at anytime to be or not be gay. Saying that you are born gay is like saying you were born Muslim and you can't help it. Your sexuality is a choice. Your emotions may lead you in a certain direction, but ultimately you have to choose whether you're going to act on those emotions.

You can't choose to act a certain skin color and your skin turn that color. Just look at white teenage boys who act like the thug black rappers they listen to and emulate. There are some things you can't choose. Sexuality isn't one of them. To say that you can't is to insult those who have been discriminated for the things they can't change: color, age, gender, disablity.

In addition to religion, the federal government prohibits discrimination for pregnancy. It is also common for certain jurisdictions to prohibit discrimination based on marital status, political beliefs, or family status (i.e., having one). So even if you think homosexuality is a choice - and it isn't (and that is a whole other conversation) that is really irrelevant. Either gay people shouldn't be fired from their jobs simply for being gay, or they should. Seems like a simple call to me.

Grady will no longer be an option for people in Pilgrim ES attendance zone.

That means Briargrove/St. George Place/Tanglewood folks will have Grady to themselves!

Guys, tell KatieDid right away and tell her to get a bottle of champagne!

I wonder if this is also designed to make Grady an outlet for the Walnut Bend/Briargrove Park kids rather than going to Paul Revere, since that school hit the skids once West Briar MS opened up.

"The Titan"?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...ff/5137314.html

I'm not overly fond of the name - though in part because I will always associate Titan with this ship's name...

Interesting. Have you been there? Like most Americans I know virtually nothing about the place.

Yeah, I spent about 2 weeks there in November 2005 as part of a tour through eastern and southern Africa. My partner is also from that part of the world. In my opinion, it, along with Sotuh Africa and Botswana, are the best ways to start to see Africa as they are all countries that work (you can drink the water, good roads, electricity, etc), you can easily travel on your own, but it is still Africa.

The scenary and wildlife are amazing - very dry compared to the Africa of Kenya or even Kruger in South Africa. Quite conducive to cheetahs. The Namib desert with the red dunes macbro mentioned are really unique. I'll try to post some pictures I have to the place. And the history/people add that extra level - as well as the different African groups (including the San or Bushman), it was also a colony of South Africa up until 1990, and the Germans originally colonized it. In Swakopmund people would often try speak to me in German, Afrikaans or English as they don't know where you are from.

There are only about 2 million people there, and the size of Texas, which is part of its charm. But as result, it isn't easy to get there. Going via Jo'burg has perhaps the greatest options (more flights, and you don't have to go into Windhoek, but Walvis Bay/Swakopmund), though I think you can get some flights straight from London -depends on you comfort level flying smaller airlines (I think only Namibian Airways is scheduled - BA and Lufthansa did at one point). You might be able to go via Cape Town too, which would be a great trip- Namibia and Cape Town would be hard to beat.

I could babble on for hours about it (and the rest of Africa) so I'll stop there.

According to the Houston Business Journal, Namibia has become Houston's 87th consulate! It is the 9th African nation to be represented in the Bayou City with a consular office.

If it can promote Namibia as a destination, that would be great- a stunningly beautiful place.

Do you know what the plan is on this route in terms of alignment with traffic lanes? Is it going to be Main St-like, or are they actually going to do something different this time around? Seems like it'd take up less space to have both sets of tracks on the same side...not that I'm a rail guru, but I think you could then have the trains just curve off into a station here and there instead of wasting a lane of space in between tracks. There's got to be a better solution than the Main St line....if they pull that again, it'll do more harm than good IMHO

My understanding is that the Richmond design is based on maintaining 4 lanes of traffic by using the medians and some land to widen the road in places.

Rails on the outside of the road would probably cause problems with the numerous side streets entering the road. Rail down the middle would seem to minimize the opportunities for cars to cross the rails.

It's a square park ;-)

It's part of the City of Houston PARKS department. They seem to think it is a PARK: "The PARK at Market Square is a sylvan oasis near the busy Harris County Courthouse complex and the Theater District."

Market Square

There have been suggestions to improve Market Square by making it more lively. The idea that it is a park seems to be the reason why it wasn't. At least according to these guys:

http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/decembe...erperforming_us

"Several years ago, PPS developed recommendations to locate an actual public market in Market Square. But we were told that Market Square was a "park," and as such, no commercial activity could take place there. Decision makers chose a silly design that did nothing but continue to keep people away. "

I think I remember reading that a market was tried here in recently but it didn't catch on, though, so who knows, maybe the city allowed commercial activity eventually.

Isn't Emirates going to be one of the first airliners to get the A380? That would be sweet to see in Houston. Is IAH ready for an A380?

It is one of the big buyers of the A380, though apparently it hasn't been thrilled with the delays and might cancel some orders. However I don't think the A380 is capable of flying nonstop from Dubai to Houston (and I wouldn't expect the route would support the number of passengers).

A Wal-Mart connection isn't necessary. One of the competitive advantages that Costco has tried to nurture is the perception among the public that it is socially progressive...it is a mixed truth, but that is irrelevant. If you hit them hard with bad PR and threaten to label them as bad corporate citizens, they might compromise on the issue just to maintain that aspect of the brand within the Houston market.

Actually, there is a bit of a Wal-Mart connection here to be played off of. As Niche said, Costco's whole image and marketing strategy is that it is the anti-Wal-Mart (or Sam's Club, to be precise). It is supposed to be progressive, socially aware, pays its employees well and gives them benefits, more upmarket etc. This development is the antithesis of their image, and should be pointed out to them. With Wal-Mart starting to try to embrace "green" and more responsible developments (or at least marketing themselves as such), pointing out to Costco that this sort of development is not in keeping with their image and is actually trailing behind where Wal-Mart is (sort of) going. A whole slew of emails hitting Costco might have some effect. Couldn't hurt.

i live on one of those narrow streets with open ditches and have 2 points to make..

1.we have come to love our narrow street since there is very little drive thru traffic...

2.the open ditches drain better than curbs and gutters do...

I never understood the aversion to ditches. I think they add rural charm to the city, they drain streets better, and help stop the bayous flooding as water doesn't flow in quite so quickly and more water soaks into the ground rather than becoming run off. Ok, they require a bit more effort to maintain, but judging by the number of blocked up and broker gutters around town, curbed drainage isn't maintenance free either.

Seems like the sort of high quality product we've come to expect from Fox News...

I think the argument that we either have a car-friendly environment or a pedestrian-friendly environment really is a false dichotomy. I currently live in Sydney, and Australia is a very car-friendly place. But it also is also has fairly decent (by American standards, though not European ones) urban public transport, and numerous pedestrian-friendly areas.

Many people want their suburban McMansion, shop in malls, and drive here and there, but they are also fighting to have new rail lines and bus route installed more quickly than the government is going to build them, and they like being able to get out of the car and walk about. There is both a huge mall and cute shopping streets in my nearby vicinty. I think numerous cities in Canada also shows there can be a middle-ground on these points. Even in London, where I used to live, supermarkets and Home Depot like stores had big parking lots, but they weren't the only option.

Creating density and pedestrian-friendly areas doesn't have to involve "hurting" people. It just involves doing something differently than we've been doing it for the past 60 years.

KincaidAlum is right - if we keep wasting land like we do, when there are 8 million people never given any other option but to be in a car-only environment, much of what makes Houston such a great place will be lost.

I used to live around the corner from the Texas Embassy, and where'd I go for a hit of Tex Mex. It was ok (about as good as Tex Mex as I found in DC when I lived there), but the ambiance was what sold it. I could almost feel like I was back at home (until you looked up and saw the TVs showing soccer, or the waiter asked if you wanted a margarita in a British accent).

You might try looking at one of Kickerillo's original developments, the area between Memorial and Buffalo Bayou around Dairy Ashford. The trees are stunning, great access to the bayou park, property values are pretty well established, and you'd be a bit closer in to town than Eldridge way. When you get back into the area, there are even some creeks and I think a pond or two. Really lovely area.

Great pics - thanks for taking and posting them. It's nice to see pictures of home.

Certainly when faced with the problems of the world today, it would be quite easy to find another way to spend $175+ million.

The fact that the railroad and these two high traffic streets let alone countless others in this town still intersect is appalling. More projects such as this to minimize the railroads impact on daily life in H-town only adds to the overall quality of life here.

I agree we should minimize the impact of freight trains on traffic and on residential areas. I was just thinking if we were going to be spending that kind of money and winding up with a series of freeway-style overpasses, with all the related noise/blight problems on the surrounding area, perhaps we should be thinking of some other solution. While traffic would improve, exchanging occasional train noise for traffic noise doesn't seem much of an improvement.

And personally, I'd be a lot more concerned about a 6 lane bridge in my neighborhood than a tram.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, and implementation of the Houston Rail Plan may not be likely, but does anyone else think spending $175+ million to build bridges over a railway line might not be the best use of money? We could probably buy and remove the thing for that kind of money, freeing up traffic while sparing the neighborhoods the blight of 6 lane overpasses. Hell, we could even put in a bike way and link up into Memorial Park for that kind of cash.

Hope this works being my first post...

Naming of homes probably derived from Britain, where it is quite common. You have the large estates, which are known solely by a name (Blenheim Palace, Knole, etc). And in many rural areas, a smaller home's name was its address (rather than 15 Oak St, Stanton, Oxfordshire, it would be Oak Cottage, Stanton, Oxfordshire). This is still the case today, but to a lesser extent.

I think the tradition was brought over - look at all the large plantations in the South with names, and estates up north.

And in both the UK and in the US, the middle class used to name their homes to emmulate their "betters" and to seem more upper class, perhaps.

In the UK now, though, naming your house is usually seen as bit naff.