Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Castonguay has realized — a little late — that socializing medicine creates a shortage-management system. It limits the resources available, which drives down the level and the quality of service. Without free-market competition and under a burdensome regulatory scheme, there are no incentives for investment, and not even “massive” amounts of government spending can solve those core problems.

What does Castonguay suggest for Canada? He wants the immediate legalization of private insurance. Since the government now owns all caregiving facilities, Castonguay recommends that they lease space to entrepeneurial physicians and care-giving companies to get more services available to Canadians. Right now, the Canadians actually pay Americans to see their citizens, those whose urgent needs cannot be addressed in a timely manner. Not only is that a gigantic hypocrisy — the state system paying private-sector providers in another country — but it also sends money outside of Canada that would remain in Canada if they had private sector health-care options.

IBD walks through a couple of the horror stories that Castonguay has seen his brainchild produce, but the bottom line is that the Canadian experiment has failed so badly that even its creator recognizes it. Castonguay’s epiphany should serve as a warning to America, and those who oppose the nationalization of health care should make themselves familiar with his new efforts to reform the Canadian system while nationalization advocates hail it as a shining example.

The off shore areas are being explored but if seismic surveys do not show huge reserves, it is best to look elsewhere, rather than spend $80 million drilling a ‘dry hole.’

Also discovering vast deposits today, drilling and bringing the oil to the market in the future will buy more time for the transition to alternative fuels.

According to the NYT:

“Only about 20 percent of the continental shelf is open for drilling, providing about 27 percent of domestic oil production and 14 percent of natural gas production. Republicans say that modern seismic work and drilling in deep waters in the central Gulf of Mexico have meant a sixfold increase in estimates of the oil there, and they believe that would happen again if exploration were expanded.

Representative John E. Peterson, Republican of Pennsylvania, is leading the House forces in favor of offshore drilling. He said opening more areas would cut down on fear and speculation in the oil markets.

Most oil companies support the Republican position and are particularly eager for access to the eastern gulf, noting that the water in some parts of it is shallow and drilling would be easy.

“These areas have potential, and we really need to find out what is out there,” said Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, a major gulf producer. “We’re encouraged the dialogue is now occurring, and people are asking the hard questions as to why this is off limits.”

Supporters of the Republican position put estimates for potential oil production from new areas at 1 million barrels a day or more. That would be a notable improvement in domestic production, of about 5 million barrels a day. The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, importing most of it.”

You still haven’t answered why the already leased 40 million acres off shore aren’t being explored? 10 yrs minimum…why not invest in windmills offshore, alternative energy offshore…? Hmmmm I wonder if Halliburton, Exxon, etc have windmill factories..lol

Guess what….didn’t happen.

If we announced tomorrow morning that we were opening up as much land and offshore areas as possible to oil exploration, the price of a barrel of oil would drop, driving down the price of gas. Now, it would creep back up since, admittedly, it would take a while for the supply to hit the markets. But once it did, wouldn’t the drop in prices be worth it?

Yes, it won’t help now. But it would be a damn good start.

That’s not WHY it’s being thrown around though. They are using it as a political tool…even McCain admitted it probably won’t do anything, but it will be good psychologically for the American people…, huh? As Chaz answered better than I…energy companies are not even drilling or exploring the millions of acres currently open to them..so why the need to open more? Then saying in speeches it’s gonna help the poor people with the $4 a gallon gas….give me a break.

Democrats complain that millions of acres of OCS leases have hardly been touched by the oil companies, but the industry disputes that characterization as a deception. They have to do a number of surveys, which can take years, to determine whether to drill even test holes — and where to put the drill if they do. The technology has vastly improved over the last two decades, but even then the cost of a dry hole is still $80 million. Oil companies want to get it right as often as possible. Here’s the key: If there isn’t any oil, the oil companies won’t drill for what’s not there.

But if there are vast deposits off-shore, bringing it to market buys more time for the transition to alternative fuels, and any discoveries would bring down the price at the pump.

A bipartisan commitment to use the oil at our disposal would send a sharp and clear signal to futures markets, but the Democrats don’t want to do that. The big divide between McCain and the GOP and Obama and the Democrats is that the Democrats have long favored high gas prices as a instrument of no-growth environmentalism.

Obama and the Democrats could work with the GOP to bring down gas prices. They just don’t want to.

-Only 3% of the United States’ 1.76 billion acre outer continental shelf is leased for oil and gas exploration and development. (Minerals Management Service).

That represents a 20% increase in domestic production.
That’s equivalent to what the entire state of Texas produces daily.
That’s equivalent to 30 years worth of imports from Hugo Chavez.

Even a tiny effect is better than no effect at all, which is what the dhimmicrats have given us. Wait: there has been an effect-gas prices have actually gone up (gasp!).

And if it’s gonna take years…..I say we get started.

We already drill off our coast. There are already leases in the gulf that are unexplored. My initial point was that we don’t need more areas open to drilling when current leases are not being developed.

Second, I think off shore oil drilling is environmentally problematic. But we do it.

Also, to be exact China is not drilling in American waters. And we’re doing it. I just don’t think there is a viable solution in us drilling more when we consume so much. The problem is supply but our demand is just to high and our ability to add to supply too limited. The idea that we can really change global supply and demand is laughable, our own department of energy’s projections display this.

If Republicans could introduce an idea that wasn’t so weak and obviously a land grab by special interest I’d listen, but the facts aren’t there. Because if I’m wrong about the supply side the one thing that is true is that energy companies are not drilling or exploring the millions of acres currently open to them so I don’t buy this sudden “need” to open up even more land to them.

The worldwide demand for fossil fuels is increasing and the US is the only country not searching for new sources. Hopefully, Congress has turned a corner on opposition to drilling, as I noted earlier.

McCain is out in front of Obama on domestic drilling while seeking to preserve ANWR. Obama may be a little too cozy with Illinois corn-ethanol producer ADM and the environmental lobby to alter his position on domestic drilling even though the public clearly now supports it.

I don’t think this type of Supreme Court will sit too well with gun owners.

Cuba & Energy: A news chronology

More specifically, in 2005:

January 31: Cuba and China signed a contract in Havana providing for the Asian giant’s participation in extracting oil from a deposit off the island’s north shore, the press reported. The deal is between Cubapetroleos and the Chinese oil company Sinopec, said the official daily newspapaer Granma. In December, Fidel Castro announced discovery of oil at a site offshore from Santa Cruz del Norte, some 55 kilometers (33 miles) east of Havana. The deposit is believed to hold some 100 million barrels of “light” crude, or the equivalent of 14 million tons. (EFE, Prensa Latina, 31/1/05)

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1421167#

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwl7MBs14OAtZbu1YJe8l-X7O8vAD91906B80

“d.”
“China and other countries are drilling on our coasts, really? Where you getting that from?”

-Dick Cheney.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html

He also warned that the next flip-flop will probably be on Iraq. Brownback notes that he himself didn’t support the surge, but acknowledged his error and John McCain’s wisdom when it succeeded. Why can’t the Democrats do that? Obama talks bipartisanship, but his actions don’t match his words.

Obama didn’t sign the amicus brief despite several of his Democratic colleagues joining McCain. He has supported gun bans in the past that resembled the DC version. Obama, Scheunemann says, has established that he holds no position that he won’t change for political opportunism. NAFTA, FISA, Jerusalem, and many other positions have changed, and sometimes rather rapidly. Obama was wrong on the surge and wanted firm timetables for withdrawal, and the McCain campaign figures that another flip-flop may be coming.

And good for them. Obama included.