Back to Basics

You may have noticed that the mainstream media has virtually dropped “global warming” as a topic worth reporting. That can be traced to “Climategate”, the November 2009 leak of emails that revealed the global hoax perpetrated on us by a small group of scientists who had been generating false information about the non-event that is climate.

Billions of dollars have been wasted on “research” about what amounts to the greatest fraud in the modern era. It is essential to bear in mind that the baseless claim of Earth burning up has been created in the United Nations Environmental Program and is supported by millions of dollars in propaganda from leading environmental organizations.

The public has become increasingly reluctant to be stampeded by specious scientific claims and with good reason; the science cited has often been false. Yet what we saw with global warming is repeating itself, this time with the plastics additive bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used to harden plastic and has been in wide consumer use for more than half a century. It is used to improve the safety and reliability of everything from DVDs and consumer electronics to sports safety equipment and shatterproof bottles.

BPA is among the most tested chemicals in history and not a single study has ever shown any harm to humans under normal consumer use and exposure. Yet junk scientists have generated enough false or misleading data to prompt lawmakers and regulators to propose and pass bad laws based on this bad science.

A current case in point is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who is trying to impose a ban on BPA in applications involving contact with food. The chemical is widely used in the epoxy that lines food cans to improve safety by helping prevent food borne illness, as well as some baby bottles. The problem is her political agenda isn’t supported by sound science. Furthermore, there is no replacement for BPA in can linings and whatever is eventually used will be far less tested for safety, thereby increasing health risks for consumers.

Political pressure has led to BPA ban efforts in New York, Massachusetts and California. Several other states and municipalities have already enacted such bans, all of which were passed on the basis of politics rather than science.

The claim is that BPA poses a health threat, particularly to infants and children up to the age of three. Voting for anything that allegedly “protects” children may be good politics, but in the case of BPA, it is bad science and, worse, risky to human health and bad for the economy when you consider how many containers rely on this chemical to ensure their contents do not spoil.

Is this another monster program in the making?  After hearing so much about Cap and Trade on the news, I decided to take a look at the bill.  I was again amazed at the items in this bill.

This bill contains pages upon pages of regulations for light bulbs.  Energy efficiency is great, but do we really need another piece of legislature to dictate what type of light bulbs can be sold, and another government agency to make sure the regulations are followed.  Has the government even attempted to work with the manufacturing companies making these light bulbs to address energy efficient bulbs without legislation?  How about providing consumer information so the customer can make energy efficient choices?  Anyone concerned about the environment would welcome accurate information on the benefits of choosing an energy efficient bulb.  Government legislation isn’t necessary.  I was wondering why so many pages were dedicated just to light bulbs.  I also found it interesting that California and Nevada have exemptions from some of these regulations.  I guess energy efficiency isn’t necessary in those states.

The bill also creates a government owned, tax exempt, corporation – the Clean Energy Deployment Administration – wholly owned by the government.  The Administrator of this new corporation would be appointed by the President, and board members would include various secretaries of the government and 4 additional members appointed by the President.  Where in the constitution does it allow the government to create a government owned corporation?  I am baffled by the number of businesses the government wants to own and that Congress would actually approve these actions.  Does anyone see a problem here?  Why isn’t someone doing an investigation?

The bill actually admits it will put a great number of people out of work.  Because of this, the taxpayers will get the privilege of paying a large percentage of their salaries for the next three years.  In a time of high unemployment, why would you pass a bill that guarantees an increase in the number of unemployed people?  You can’t collect taxes to pay for any government programs if people aren’t working – they have no income to tax!  Does anyone understand economics!

Estimates are that this bill would increase the cost of energy to each household by $175 a month, quite a substantial amount for most Americans.  That is only the direct cost.  Everything will go up in price because as businesses see their operating costs rise, they will pass those expenses on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.  So in a recession, why would you pass legislation to further deepen a recession?  But that seems to be the theme of this administration.

If the government is truly concerned about the environment and greenhouse gas emissions then they would be encouraging everyone to do their part without concern of the potential loss of income to the electric companies or the loss of tax by the government.  This ploy of environmental concern is just another means to increase profits to utility companies and more tax money for the government to waste.

People could do so much more.  There are alternative means of producing energy for homes – like solar power or geothermal systems.  Most people have not incorporated these into their homes because the cost is too high.  Whenever there is an incentive program offered, the companies selling the products (liked solar) increase their prices so the consumer doesn’t see the savings; instead these companies reap the benefits.  Those tactics should be stopped and instead efforts should be made so homes can incorporate alternative energy sources.  If the environment is the concern, then the reduction of use from power companies should not be a negative deciding factor.  Homeowner’s associations should not be able to restrict energy saving devises like solar power either.

Under the title of Public Health & Workforce Development are a number of grants, scholarships and other programs, providing training, services and a whole new array of studies relating to health care – a lot of money being spent to support the expansion of government, special interests, illegal immigrants and labor unions, but little to help solve the health care issues.

The first expansion is the establishment of the Public Health Investment Fund, which requires deposits from the revenues of the Treasury in the amount of $88,700,000,000 over 10 years. This money is authorized to be appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate for carrying out the activities under the designated public health provisions. These areas include Community Health Centers, National Health Service Corps Program, National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, Primary Care Loan Funds, Primary Care Education Programs, Nursing Workforce Development, The National Center for Health Statistics and the Agency For Healthcare Research and Quality.

To make these programs even more appealing is the stipulation that “Amounts appropriated under this section, and outlays flowing from such appropriations, shall not be taken into account for purposes of any budget enforcement procedures including allocations under section 302(a) and (b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and budget solutions for fiscal years during which appropriations are made from the fund.” More spending without any concern for balancing the budget or controlling the country’s deficit. We don’t have it, but let’s spend it!

The first program – Community Health Centers – will obtain increased funding in the amount of $38,800,000,000.

The National Health Service Corps is being amended allowing the Secretary to issue waivers to individuals who enter into a contract for obligated service to pay for their education. It further raises the loan repayment amount from $35,000 to $50,000 and will be adjusted thereafter to reflect inflation. Additional appropriated funds for this program are $796,000,000 over the next 10 years. Additional funding is authorized in the amount of $3,171,000,000 over 10 years to cover the National Health Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs.

The Frontline Health Providers Loan Repayment Program will be established to address unmet health care needs in certain areas, populations, or facilities as designated by the Secretary. Individuals participating in this program must agree to serve for a period of 2 years in a health professional needs area specified in the program. This program has a clause that if there are an insufficient number of applicants for the program, then all excess funds from the program will be transferred to the National Health Service Corps to recruit more people to take advantage of this fund.

The Secretary shall establish a primary care training and capacity building program consisting of grants and contracts to plan, develop, operate or participate in accredited professional training in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics or geriatrics. Funds for this program are from the Public Health Investment Fund in the amount of $3,023,000,000 for 10 years and will include the following:

• Capacity Building in Primary Care – grants to specialties of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics or geriatrics, with preference given to entities that train individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Training of Medical Residents in Community-Based Setting – a program established for the training of medical residents in community-based settings, with preferences given to entities that support teaching programs addressing the health care needs of vulnerable populations or are a Federally qualified health center or rural health clinic, as well as preference to those training individuals from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged background.

• Training for General, Pediatric or Public Health Dentists and Dental Hygienists – grants and contracts to plan, develop, operate or participate in an accredited professional training program or oral health professionals, with preference given to individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.

Grants for Health Professionals Education – Advanced Education Nursing Grants is being amended, including increases in dollar amounts for the Nurse Faculty Loan Program. Funding for this program is $1, 450,000,000 over 10 years.

Health Care Reform – Back to the Basics

All this talk and debate over healthcare reform, government taking over – what next?  If we get back to basics it could be simple.

1. Remove all the illegal immigrants from getting free or subsidized services.  If they don’t like it then they can go back to where they came from.  If they need medical treatment they pay for it.

2. Offer affordable healthcare insurance to every legal American.  Make the healthcare packages the same as those offered to large corporations, and at a competitive price so everyone can get the same type of coverage.

3. Put all government employees and elected officials on the same medical plan.  If it is good enough for the general public it should be good enough for them!

4. Give tax incentives to those people who do not have employer paid plans to help offset the cost of purchasing healthcare insurance.  Give incentives to those employers who do offer insurance coverage and pay or help pay the premiums.

5. Do not make it mandatory for everyone to have to purchase insurance, but if an individual does not have insurance they must pay for their medical treatment.