Why are gas prices going up again?

[OUDoc]

Seems like $0.20-$0.25 over the last week or so. Did I miss another world tragedy that the oil execs claim raise prices?

[Dio]

Spring break, dude.

[OUinFLA]

You got any extra change in your pocket?

they want it.

[OUDoc]

Spring break, dude.
Ahhh. Probably so.

[Pieces Hit]

Ski Dubai and you'll know why.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/indoorski.asp

[King Crimson]

it's Bill Clinton's fault.

[mdklatt]

Spring break, dude.

F'in college students.

[slickdawg]

They do it because they can.

[royalfan5]

It's refinainery maintance and switch over season. Prices jump at this time every year. Plus oil prices have been pushed by instability in Nigeria over the past week.

[yermom]

Ski Dubai and you'll know why.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/indoorski.asp

those guys have too much money :eek:

[Hatfield]

they probably realized they weren't going to make 2 billion in profits this quarter

[IronSooner]

Yep, total BS. Went up 20 cents here in one week. Naturally, I found myself gasing up the 2nd week when it was 2.50...guess I'll just keep walking and taking the bus. Can't wait till bike season.

[Hamhock]

I think it has something to do with Don Knotts' death.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm figuring the speculators are speculating again...

[Frozen Sooner]

Surprised this hasn't made more national news:

Prudhoe Bay production has been cut by 20% over the last week. A line ruptured and spilled an assload of oil on the snow. They just now got the break isolated underneath the Caribou Culvert and should be back online soon.

Prudhoe Bay production is a significant fraction of overall US production.

[OUDoc]

Surprised this hasn't made more national news:

Prudhoe Bay production has been cut by 20% over the last week. A line ruptured and spilled an assload of oil on the snow. They just now got the break isolated underneath the Caribou Culvert and should be back online soon.

Prudhoe Bay production is a significant fraction of overall US production.
Can you get that cleaned up for us, if you're not too busy? Thanks. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. Where do you think I've been the last week.

It's all cleaned up, I think, but we won't know until late spring when the snow all melts. They think they got it all.

[OUinFLA]

what's snow?

[JohnnyMack]

I blame whitey.

[chriscappel]

I blame whitey.

power to the people! :D

[SeattleOUstudent]

Ski Dubai and you'll know why.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/indoorski.asp


Damn, they spent that port money a little too fast.

[soonernation]

Speaking as an oil industry employee. We need to improve our profits because of the rise in medical cost.

[OUDoc]

Speaking as an oil industry employee. We need to improve our profits because of the rise in medical cost.
Speaking as a doctor. We need to improve our profits because of the rise in gas costs.

None of our prices have gone up in years. Friggin' insurance companies.

[Norm In Norman]

2 days ago: $2.18
Yesterday morning: $2.28
Yesterday evening: $2:19

Bastards.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Surprised this hasn't made more national news:

Prudhoe Bay production has been cut by 20% over the last week. A line ruptured and spilled an assload of oil on the snow. They just now got the break isolated underneath the Caribou Culvert and should be back online soon.

Prudhoe Bay production is a significant fraction of overall US production.

I read about that. From the story, I couldn't tell if it spilled to ground or within a bermed area.

[OUDoc]

2 days ago: $2.18
Yesterday morning: $2.28
Yesterday evening: $2:19

Bastards.
A week ago gas was about $2.05. I saw $1.99 a few weeks ago.

[soonernation]

None of our prices have gone up in years. Friggin' insurance companies.


What Are the Real Medical Costs?
Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men
Tuesday, March 1, 2005

"Numbers," as every investor knows when considering a stock, must be questioned. By themselves, they tell you little. Here's how to think about the numbers presented in a recent L.A. Times story - an exercise in "Yes, but what would the numbers be if ...?"

The February 9, 2005 edition of the L.A. Times has a story on U.S. health-care costs derived from a new study by researchers at Boston University School of Public Health. Major points include:


Story Continues Below
/images/banners/SubnewsmaxO250x250.gif (https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/currentoffer.cfm)


Rising health-care costs are absorbing nearly one-fourth of all economic growth. The statistics cited to support this fact are that spending for health care this year will be $1.7 trillion, which is up $621 billion from 2000. That $621 billion increase represents 24 percent of the total GDP growth between 2000 and 2005.
By contrast, increased spending for military defense during that same period accounted for only 10 percent of GDP growth. The growth in medical spending during this period was three times the growth rate in educational spending.
U.S. health-care spending per person in the U.S. is double that in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Britain. The study researchers argue that the $1.7 trillion annual cost of health care in the U.S. would be adequate to provide coverage for everyone if proper controls on medical costs were in place.
Doctors receive or control 87 percent of all health-care spending. This is broken down as 21 percent in doctors' fees and 66 percent in doctors' orders for drugs, diagnostic tests, hospitalization and other prescribed services such as physical therapy.
The L.A. Times story offers no explanation for what the remaining 13 percent of medical costs are. Presumably, a large part of it is administrative costs.
The researchers conclude that the only way to manage health-care costs is to force everyone into a socialized medicine scheme.
"Yes, BUT WHAT WOULD THE NUMBERS BE IF ...?"
The story fails to reach the level of detail required to understand what's really going on. For instance:
If doctor fees represent 21 percent of total costs ($357 billion annually), what percentage of those fees represent the cost of purchasing medical malpractice insurance, and is that insurance cost rising faster or slower than the aggregate rate of growth in medical costs?
What percentage of total medical costs result from the practice of defensive medicine, which incurs unnecessary medical costs for the sole purpose of reducing vulnerability to unjustified or frivolous malpractice claims?
Is it the assumption of the researchers that a socialized medicine solution in the U.S. would somehow magically eliminate all medical malpractice suits?
What percentage of total medical costs is prescription drugs, and are those costs rising faster or slower than the aggregate rate of growth in medical costs?
What percentage of total medical costs is incurred for acute hospital care, and are those costs rising faster or slower than the aggregate rate of growth in medical costs?
What percentage of total medical costs is incurred in nursing home care, and are those costs rising faster or slower than the aggregate rate of growth in medical costs?
Is the rate of growth in Medicare costs rising faster or slower than the rate of increase in the number of covered persons after factoring out the new prescription drug benefit?
Medicare is a form of socialized medicine, somewhat comparable to that which exists in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Britain. However, Medicare, unlike those European plans, does not cover all medical costs.
Also, U.S. retirees pay a monthly Medicare Part B premium of $54.00 (about $650/year, deducted out of their Social Security checks. Consequently, the government-paid Medicare cost per retiree should be substantially less than the cost per retiree in those European nations.
But if the annual Medicare-paid portion of medical coverage (less the $54/month premium) per retiree is comparable to or higher than the government-paid cost in those European nations, doesn't that eviscerate the argument that a socialized medicine approach for everyone would result in substantially reduced medical costs?
The Bush plan for controlling medical costs proposes that many consumers should become managers of their own health care by a combination of tax-sheltered health savings accounts and high-deductible catastrophic health insurance. But the Boston University study argues that the sickest individuals are not competent to make their own decisions about medical treatment, and thus the Bush plan won't work.
The L.A. Times story does not offer any kind of objective proof that a socialized medicine solution, where medical decisions are influenced or dictated by a mindless bureaucracy, would produce superior overall outcomes.
Of the alleged 45 million Americans without health insurance, what percentage of them are:

Those who get assistance from Medicaid and other federal/state/local government medical aid programs?
Those who rely on free clinics?
Those who are wealthy enough to pay for their medical needs without relying upon insurance?
Those (particularly young employed single people) who believe they're bulletproof and reject employer-offered medical insurance plans as unnecessary, even though they can afford it?
Those who rely upon hospital emergency rooms/trauma centers for their medical care, and then skip out on their medical bills?
The estimated 10-20 million people who are in this country illegally.In Parting
The argument for socialized state care assumes that the present mess is the only alternative. These single-solution enthusiasts are trying to limit our choices. President Bush versus socialized medicine versus present disarray is not the whole universe. "Numbers" can help solve the problem, but only if we calculate and interprete them correctly after asking the right questions. Just ask the professors and students at Cal Tech who consult on the new CBS Friday night hit "Numb3rs."



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/28/133425.shtml

[OUDoc]

Doctors receive or control 87 percent of all health-care spending. This is broken down as 21 percent in doctors' fees and 66 percent in doctors' orders for drugs, diagnostic tests, hospitalization and other prescribed services such as physical therapy.
Nothing to do with my bottom line at all. Look to the hospitals, drug companies and people who own the CT's/MRI's (hospitals usually).

Again. My prices haven't changed in years, much less the last 20 minutes.



Highmark yesterday reported net income of $309 million for the year from its health care business alone, and saw its overall profit after investments, taxes and other expenses reach $310.5 million in 2004. In 2003, its net income was $105.8 million.
Highmark's higher returns accompanied higher health costs for many consumers (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05083/476795.stm)


As it happens, Blue Cross left one item off the list of factors affecting Galanter's premiums: profit. A couple of weeks ago, its parent, WellPoint Inc., reported that net income for the fourth quarter of 2005 had tripled to $652 million from a year earlier. Not all the increase was due to higher premiums and lower benefits; some resulted from charges that modestly pared profit a year ago. In any case, for calendar 2005, WellPoint reported a profit of nearly $2.5 billion.

It's fair to note that Blue Cross' premium increases aren't the largest among California health plans. But it's also worth observing that the company — formed by the 2004 acquisition of Thousand Oaks-based WellPoint Health Networks Inc. by Indianapolis-based Anthem Inc. — said it reduced spending on medical benefits in the fourth quarter to 80.1% of premiums, compared with 81.2% a year earlier (based on the combined results of the two companies). That's among the lowest rates in the business.

As WellPoint's chief financial officer, David Colby, told Wall Street analysts, 2005 "will be a tough year to top." But WellPoint will try. Colby said the company would soon repurchase up to $2 billion of its shares, another way to transfer premiums from customers to shareholders.

Now, nobody is more a fan of corporate profits than I, but if an insurance company's coffers are bursting full while it harangues customers about their irksome "demand for high-tech procedures," something's askew.

This occurred to our state health insurance regulators last year, when many of Blue Cross' 7.6-million California customers squealed about an earlier round of rate hikes. The rate hikes were troubling, because the Anthem-WellPoint deal had been briefly stalled by California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi over a planned post-deal payout to WellPoint executives of as much as $385 million, as well as by the prospect that California customers would be stuck with the merger's $4-billion tab. (WellPoint says the executive payout has been less than $250 million so far.)
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden6feb06,1,388565.column?coll=la-utilities-business

How are your companies profits doing?

Nice thread-jack, BTW.

[soonernation]

How are your companies profits doing?



I work for an oilfield submersible pump company. Our Revenue is on pace to break records. The problem is our ROFCE is no where close to where it should be. It's costing everyone in the business more to make a dollar.




Nice thread-jack, BTW.

Thanks!!!!:D

[OUDoc]

Thanks!!!!:D
It took me 30 minutes on the defensive before I realized what a good job you'd done!