Back to Basics

Everyone is aware of the democrats’ bill to take over health care, but there has been little attention given to another government take over – Cap & Trade.

I read some of this massive bill and found hundreds of pages dedicated to dictating what types of light bulbs will be available for use.  Naturally, certain areas would be exempt from these mandates, including Las Vegas and California – I wonder who represents those states!  Not quite understanding what all the fuss was over light bulbs I started speaking with others and was amazed at what I learned.

The new energy efficient light bulbs (CFL’s) contain mercury, which makes them hazardous waste.  Along with this comes special handling when replacing bulbs, disposing of bulbs and if a bulb breaks.  If you do not have recycling options for CFL’s then you will have to seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put them in the outside trash.  I spoke with someone who works for an electric company and he told me that the bulbs cost about $15 each to dispose of.

Beware if you break one of these bulbs, because of the mercury the EPA has issued recommendations for cleanup and disposal.  These recommendations include opening windows, shutting of central heat or air and leaving the room for 15 minutes or more.  All broken pieces need to be scooped up using cardboard and placed in a glass container with a metal lid or sealed plastic bag.  Then use duct tape to pick up any remaining pieces.  If the breakage was on carpet you can vacuum after following the instructions above and then you must remove the vacuum bag and put that in a sealed plastic bag.  If clothing or bedding is affected, they recommend throwing it away because washing the clothing or bedding may contaminate your washing machine and pollute sewage.  This is all because of the mercury in the bulbs.  They also recommend the next several times you vacuum that you shut off the heating or air conditioning and open a window before vacuuming and keep it off for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is complete.

So the bill to “help” the environment and reduce greenhouse gases would mandate that we use hazardous light bulbs that obviously pose a health risk, a contamination problem and a possible pollution problem.

I also discovered the bill will permit government officials to enter your home and evaluate and rate how energy efficient your home is.  The bill requires new buildings to be more energy efficient by 30% by 2012 and 50% more efficient by 2016.  For new construction these new energy guidelines can be included, at an increase cost to the home.  So while the housing industry is already in trouble the government is going to “help” by putting more mandates and controls on the industry.

But, we cannot forget about all the buildings, commercial and housing, already in existence.  They will also have to meet these new standards; otherwise you may not be able to sell your home.  Under these new requirements, a government auditor will be allowed to enter your home and inspect your windows, appliances, air conditioning, furnace and anything else to make sure your house meets these new national building codes.  Not only can they inspect it, but they will be able to mandate that you provide the necessary remedies within a specified amount of time regardless of the cost.  They are going to make funding available to help retrofit these homes in the form of loans, but this funding cannot exceed 50% of the actual costs incurred.

No building is exempt from this, including historic buildings and homes.  It is estimated that many of the older buildings will cost more to retrofit than the value of the property.  Some people are saying that many buildings will just be demolished.  If you don’t allow the auditors access to your home you can be criminally charged.

So, under the guise of the environment, the government will obtain legal access to your home, determine if it meets certain environmental standards, require you to retrofit your home to meet these new standards and they don’t care about the cost to the homeowner.

In these already difficult economic times, the government is going to further burden the people by putting additional demands that they might not be able to afford.  How many people are just trying to get by – just trying to pay their living expenses and feed their families?  What about those people living in very modest, older homes just so they can have a roof over their heads?  If homes are demolished rather than retrofitted how much more waste is dumped into our landfills?

The latest version of the Pelosi/House health care reform is more of the same, and worse.  It includes the same problems of HR3200 including the public option, the health care exchange, mandates requiring everyone to buy insurance, mandates requiring employers to provide insurance, penalties if you don’t purchase insurance, penalties on companies for not providing insurance, government real-time access to your bank accounts…more and more of the same.

I briefly reviewed the 1990 page bill and found some additional measures that were equally disturbing.

The bill is supposed to help those who have pre-existing conditions as well as those with chronic illnesses that may not otherwise be able to obtain affordable health care insurance.  The bill does mandate that insurance companies accept everyone, regardless of their medical history.  However, in a transition period, the government has allocated a specific budget to cover these people and this must not result in a deficit.  If the expenditures are expected to exceed the budget there are three options available to solve this problem:  (1) deny services, (2) increase premiums, and (3) put people on a waiting list.  So those with current insurance issues may find themselves no better off once this plan goes into affect since the bill gives the government the right to ration or deny services and increase the cost of your premiums.

There are over 360 pages in the bill that directly relate to medical treatment in the Native American populations.  This amounts to additional studies, addressing alcoholism issues and a number of other issues.  However, the bill also allows the government to take Indian reservation lands for the purpose of medicine.  The government will make those decisions and it did not appear as if the Native American population would have any control over what lands they chose to take, or if the medical facilities is even necessary for this population.  How far does this abuse of power run?

I recently read articles on the Pelosi/House reform and found that it creates 111 new bureaucratic departments and/or programs…more expansion of government.  The cost of this bill is estimated at approximately $1.2 trillion for 10 years.

Likewise, just as disturbing is those people who truly believe that this type of government takeover of the insurance industry is the only way they will be able to obtain health insurance.  They don’t want to even consider any other options that may allow them to be covered but not destroy the health care coverage 83% of the population currently has and likes.  They further expect this coverage, because of the public option, to be FREE; they are not expecting to contribute anything to their health insurance costs.  Nothing is free – you will be paying for insurance premiums, co-sharing costs as well as an increase in your income taxes.  If you don’t wake up now you could find yourself facing a huge medical/insurance bill you will be required to pay.

Behind the scenes in the real world anticipation over the new bills has already made an impact on the insurance industry.  A health insurance agent was at a recent party we attended and she is all for this new mandate, her mouth watering at the prospect of making lots of money from all the policies she will be selling.  As long as the private market can compete with the public option she will make a fortune, as she gets a commission not only when she sells a policy, but will continue receiving that commission as long as you renew your policy – and she may not have to do a thing.  This bill will make her a rich woman.  On the other hand, her ex voiced his opinion at her enthusiasm and stated that all this was at what expense to us.  He understood the consequences.

Another tip of the hand came when it was open enrollment time for my daughter.  Her options had been greatly diminished in health insurance coverage.  Option A would give her a set office visit cost of $30/visit, a $750 deductible and she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  Option B would have given her a set office visit cost of $35/visit, a $1500 deductible and again she would be responsible for 40% of her medical bills.  For this reduction in coverage she would enjoy a minor increase in premiums.  Yes, she can say she is “covered” by health insurance but with the deductibles and cost-sharing responsibilities she cannot afford medical care or treatment!  This is from a very large insurance company, so one has to ask if this is the direction we can expect the government plans to be heading.  Is this the type of coverage that may be offered in a basic insurance plan?  If so, then although the government could claim more people would be insured, it would not necessarily mean people would be able to obtain medical care or treatment because they may not be able to afford it.

While the House healthcare bill does little or nothing to decrease medical costs and is anticipated to actually increase insurance premiums, one has to wonder what the real motives are behind the bill.  Is this just a bill to grant the government more control over our lives and denying us personal freedoms…with more government expansion?  With insurance agents waiting in the wings to jump at the vast money making opportunities, whose interests – or special interests – were really in mind?  Does being insured actually make medical care and treatment affordable…or will the cost of the insurance policy and cost-sharing expenses make it even more unaffordable?

Time is running out.  The House is expected to start debate on this issue this week.  The people spoke this summer at Town Hall meetings.  Did Congress get the messages?  It is time we remind them.  Call, write, fax and email your representatives before it’s too late.  The life you save may not only be yours but the country.

John Shadegg pic

So Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are adamant that Congress pass their health care bill.  They’ve dismissed the August protesters and are pushing for passage as soon as possible.  But, what does this mean for the average American, we’ll call her Mary Smith, a single mother of two struggling to get by in a down economy.

She hears terms like “individual mandate,” “employer mandate,” and “CBO score.”  But none of this helps her understand what health care reform means for her.

Mary wants to help the uninsured, but why is Congress talking about changing her plan?  And, why does every report now indicate her premiums and her taxes will go up–and her employer could be fined or forced out of business?  President Obama said his plan would control cost.  She worries about losing the health plan she has and the doctors her children know.  And, what about her job?  What if her employer can’t continue to afford coverage?  Will decisions about her family’s coverage and medical care be made by her or someone in Washington?  Will it be a radical change that rations care?

Unfortunately, Washington politicians are ignoring the concerns of average Americans.  Her family’s health care is about to change dramatically.

Mary gets her insurance through her employer.  She has a plan that suits her needs, and has a great relationship with her doctors.  She’d like more personal say in her plan, but like 83% of Americans, she’s basically happy with her care.  Why don’t the politicians just fix what’s broken—cover those without care and people with pre-existing conditions?  Instead, they are forcing her to change her plan.  H.R. 3200, the House bill, changes every plan in America.  Some are outlawed sooner, but virtually all are disqualified in five years.

Mary’s parents also lose the coverage they know, understand, and like.  They have Medicare Advantage, which provides benefits they like over and above regular Medicare.  Under Nancy Pelosi’s proposal and the Senate bill, that program will disappear.

What’s worse: when Mary goes shopping for a new plan, it will have been designed by a government bureaucracy, even if the so-called “public plan” isn’t adopted.  These new, “government-approved” plans will make her pay for services she doesn’t need, and can’t afford, like alcohol and drug counseling, even if these aren’t health care concerns for Mary or her family.  She’ll be forced to buy services she doesn’t want because it will be illegal to buy just what she needs.  It’s like being forced to buy a multipack of cereal boxes when you know you’re only going to eat the corn flakes.

The government will dictate coverage requirements, reimbursement rates, prices—even “approved” marketing practices and “free” wellness coverage.  “Free” wellness coverage?  Who’s kidding who?  She knows nothing is free.  Of course costs will go up.

Like it or not, Mary’s family will lose the plan they have and maybe the doctors they like and trust.  And, the government is serious about making that happen.  If Mary doesn’t comply and purchase a “government-approved” plan, she’ll be fined.  If her conduct is willful, she’ll be guilty of a misdemeanor.  When did health care “reform” become about punishing people instead of controlling costs and helping the uninsured?

Did I miss something in the new health care reform proposals?  When did the democrats’ proposals provide free office visits, free medications and free medical procedures to everyone?

I recently had a conversation with a friend that has a pre-existing medical condition and is very concerned about being able to obtain affordable health insurance.  He is currently insured and is paying what I would consider a very reasonable price for his monthly premiums (less than $200/month).  He must also take medications that run about $2000 per year.  Understandably he is concerned about health care issues.  He indicated a friend of his is on some government insurance plan (he didn’t specify which one) and that this friend is able to obtain all of his medical and dental treatments and medications at no cost to him.

It seems that some people in favor of the democrats government run proposals are assuming that this health care is somehow not going to cost them anything, other than maybe a monthly insurance premium.  They assume the cost of office visits, medical treatments, medications and dental services are going to be provided free of charge.

I read H.R. 3200 and have heard the reviews on the Baucus bill.  Nowhere would I interpret these bills as providing free medical and dental treatments for all, with the only obligation being a monthly insurance premium.  People with certain income levels could qualify for government assistance in paying for the monthly premiums and co-pays, but it certainly did not come with a free price tag.  In fact, I read some reviews on the Baucus bill indicating the co-pays and other costs the consumers would have to pay would actually make health care less affordable to middle-class Americans.

Until the health care reform became an issue, I assumed that once someone retired and was on Medicare that those medical premiums would also be free.  I found out otherwise when talking to my parents.  When on Medicare after you retire you pay a monthly insurance premium, which is taken out of your Social Security check to cover your Medicare health insurance.  Further, you continue have out-of-pocket expenses, like cost-sharing, for medical treatments received.  If you are on the government medication system you also continue paying a portion of the medication.  My grandmother was paying out of her own pocket $1200 a year for her medication and she was on Medicare and had a secondary medical insurance policy.

So you have to wonder if those in favor of the government health care actually understand the consequences of the program.  The government program would not be a free system – you will be paying for premiums, co-pays, and cost-sharing.  You will further be paying to supplement those who cannot afford insurance and the cost of medical treatment.  If you think your premiums and cost today are high, they will only go higher with government controlled plans.  As a bonus to the higher costs you will have no choice but purchase these plans because now it becomes a law that you must have insurance.  If you don’t, you will be penalized by the IRS, and may also face imprisonment.

So, before jumping on the government control bandwagon, look at the other proposals being offered.  Every plan wants those with pre-existing conditions to be covered at costs within reasonable limits of a regular policy.  Every plan wants to provide insurance coverage to all that don’t have it.  No plan offers free insurance, free medical, free dental or free medicine to all.  Do you want the government controlling your medical treatment and care, along with mandatory requirements, higher premiums and higher taxes?  Or do you want patient choice?

I urge everyone to really understand the bills being proposed – read them!  The concerns out there are very real.  This is your future – your life!  Nothing the government provides is free, and the health care reform is no exception.

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.

A gentleman in Australia invented a product that could be put on the electrical system of a home and actually double the output to the home.  What a concept!  He envisioned putting these units into homes to reduce the amount of electricity required to operate that home; and the cost was supposed to be affordable.  However, the patent was sold to China.  Big business took over and attempted to use the technology to get twice the output from the electrical companies.  The plan failed and the technology is lost.  Greed has again destroyed a great idea.  The environment wasn’t the concern, just the ability of big business being able to make the buck.

That is much of the problem.  As new ideas are developed, they are often to the benefit of the consumer with the decreased dependency on big power business.  Big business cannot have this decrease in demand because it would decrease their profits, so they squash any of these ideas.  People could make a huge positive impact on the environment, but big business wants control.

So, if the environment is the concern, instead of taxing the people yet again, create ways to make alternative power affordable for people to install.  The people would save on their electric bills and the electric companies would be more environmentally friendly because they wouldn’t have to produce all that extra power – isn’t that what the whole light bulb issue is?  If the concern is truly environmental then stop trying to make the big bucks over it!  Otherwise the alternative name “cap and tax” is more appropriate.