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.

The automobile industry and the labor unions have caused the problems they face today.  They have been on a free ride for years, taking advantage of the American consumers, and it finally backfired on them.  Mismanagement, gasoline prices, government regulations, labor costs and an apathetic attitude have all contributed to their failures.  The taxpayers should never have been held responsible for their actions.  This is unconstitutional, but no one in our federal government seems to be awake.  Is anybody home?

Gasoline prices are one of the problems.  Guess what, this is nothing new!  Back in the 1970’s gas prices started rising to a whopping 50 cents a gallon.  People were outraged.  Speculation was that if gas went over $1 a gallon people just wouldn’t be able to afford to drive any more.  My husband owned a foreign car at that time that got 45 mpg.  It was nothing special, just your basic automobile.  You can’t find cars today that can produce that kind of mileage.  We also purchased a new car – a 1975 Pontiac Trans Am equipped with the V8 400 engine.  One of the less efficient cars of the time, it only got 20 mpg.  Wow, a muscle car that actually beats many of the vehicles today in gas mileage standards.  So, back in the 70’s with the impending doom of higher gas prices, nothing was done to combat the issue.

In the 1980’s gas prices again became an issue.  American cars just weren’t providing the gas mileage consumers wanted so they turned to foreign imports.  Foreign cars were not something I had ever imagined owning, I always stuck with American products.  But in trying to find a car that would get better gas mileage the foreign cars provided something American cars could not.  We found a Datsun that could get 35-40 mpg, and as a second car found a Mazda that got 30 mpg.  Gas prices during this era would rise and fall even dipping below the $1/gallon mark.  It was still a concern of the American public, but nothing was being done by the automobile industry to address the issue.

Back in the 1990’s my daughter joined the electric car club in high school.  These high school students created alternative fuel vehicles and had yearly competitions between schools to see whose car was the best.  These students were able to design and build cars that ran off alternative fuels.  With limited resources they were able to succeed.  But their efforts didn’t impact the auto industry and gas prices continued to rise.

Occasionally you would hear of alternative fuel vehicles on the market.  Most were very restricted in marketing and often only available to government agencies or only on lease agreements.  They were never made readily available to the public.  One big problem with these alternative fuel vehicles is that they took the gasoline version and then converted it to an alternative fuel.  This made the car cost prohibited, because you not only were paying for the original car but all the additions to convert it.  Other manufacturing changes came along, like going from carbureted engines to fuel injection.  Emissions played a factor in the changes, and not always on the positive side of the mileage factor.  Yet no real alternatives had been produced.

During this time we again were looking for a new vehicle, and once again opted for a foreign car, one that gets 35-40 mgp or more.  American cars just didn’t offer what we were looking for.  They didn’t get the gas mileage, were uncomfortable to drive and cost more.

A few years later it looked like there might be some alternative fuel vehicles, at least some hybrid versions, being released that might fit the bill.  Saturn had announced a hybrid and we were extremely interested.  Unfortunately it seemed to die out, never to be heard from again.

Now it is almost the end of the first decade of the 2000’s and still no real alternative fuel vehicles are being produced by the big auto manufacturers.  We’ve had almost 40 years of dealing with higher gas prices and yet in those 40 years no automobile manufacturer could produce a vehicle addressing this issue.  40 years of failure and we need to bail them out!  If any one of them had put forth the effort and developed an alternative fuel vehicle at an affordable price they would have the market edge of every automobile manufacturer.  Bailouts wouldn’t have been necessary.

So due to the auto industries own deficiency we face more government regulations, including the government telling you what vehicles you can and cannot drive.  This is a ploy to force people into purchasing vehicles since the American automotive industry can’t seem to draw the consumer in without government interference.  Cash for Clunkers was just that type of program.  Give people government money so they can go out and purchase a car, because they surely won’t do it on their own in this economy.  To make it sound legit, we’ll sell it as an environmental strategy taking old gas guzzling vehicles off the road making way for more efficient vehicles.  Since the government now owns GM, we have to get the market rolling.  People took advantage, but most bought foreign made cars.  More tax dollars wasted.

Are there alternatives out there?  There might be.  A small auto manufacturer in California has developed a vehicle that runs off battery power/solar power with a gasoline backup system.  It is a rather unusual vehicle, but could provide the technology for future vehicles.  The solar power charges the batteries and when the batteries are fully charged, the excess power can be used to cool your car while parked.  Imagine actually looking to park your vehicle in the sun instead of the shade in the summertime and being able to enter a cooled vehicle!  The gasoline backup system is supposed to get 300 mpg and cars are equipped with a 2 gallon gas tank.  They have been addressing the government imposed issues as well as manufacturing problems, so the cars are only available to California residents.  Interest has peaked around the country and they have a huge waiting list.

The health care industry has problems, just like the auto industry.  But using government funds to bail out and take over another industry is not the answer.  The government has already failed in running Social Security and Medicare, with both programs going broke.  With a history of failure, why would another government run health care program succeed?  It wouldn’t.

The government program may provide INSURANCE for everyone, but having insurance does not necessarily mean you have access to care, nor does it guarantee the quality of care you get.  The government program by many speculations will result in rationing of care due to an insufficient number of doctors, nurses and other medical professionals.  It will also result in longer waiting times to get an appointment.  In many cases that could mean the difference of life or death, of treatment that saves money in the long term, of preventing permanent disabilities or surgeries.  Being able to obtain quality care in a timely manner is of utmost importance.  We cannot sacrifice that care for a government system.

People talk about the disparity of health care.  If H.R 3200 or a similar program is passed, the disparity will only increase.  The 15% of people who are currently uninsured may become insured, but projections are there will still remain a majority of these people who will be uninsured.  There will be a greater number of people whose current coverage and care will actually decrease in quality.  As companies determine if the 8% penalty outweighs the cost they contribute to employer-based health care policies, they may opt to pay the penalty and leave the employees to fend for themselves.  Smaller companies may still not be able to afford the health care coverage or the penalty and may close down, leaving those employees unemployed and looking for work in a grave economy.  For anyone who has been a small business owner (and I have), unless you have many financial resources, just paying the daily bills is a challenge, often with the owner living off what little is left.  Small business in America could quickly disappear with more government mandates.  One can only speculate how the business world will react and the consequences this will play for health insurance for the employees.

A small group of people won’t be affected by the program either way.  These are the people with money.  They will have their insurance plans, but most important, they will also have the resources to pay for care out of their own pocket.  They will have the ability to go where they want to receive care because they will have the resources to pay for it.  Granted, they have that option now.  But with the prospect of rationing, having the cash to pay for service may be a determining factor in actually receiving quality care in a timely manner.

The answer is not forcing the people on plans they don’t want, especially when 85% of the people are happy with their current coverage.  Why is 15% of the population going to destroy it for the rest?  Penalties and taxes is not the way to fix the problem.  The PEOPLE are not the problem – the insurance companies, medical system and drug industry is the problem.  The reform should start with them, evaluating what changes can be made with those industries without hurting the people.  Don’t punish the people when the industry is corrupt.

How many more strings do the democrats need to pull to try pushing through a health care plan that isn’t going to solve the problems but create more?  They talk of compromise and throw out alternatives to the public option.  The entire bill is needs to be scrapped!

Removing the public option only addresses a small portion of the bill.  The exchange program itself is a large part of the problem.  The exchange program is the government takeover of the health care system. It is through the exchange program that the government will take control over what policies will be sold, will establish the benefits and will set pricing standards for the policies.  Setting up the exchange alone costs billions of dollars, expands government, and creates a whole new government entity to control the insurance industry.  It is through this exchange program that people will end up losing their current coverage.  If all insurance policies within the next 5 years have to go through the exchange then in 5 years the government will have control over all insurance policies whether the public option is part of the program or not.  The exchange program is the government brokering insurance policies!  Why should the government go into the business of insurance brokerage?  The fact is – they SHOULDN’T.  The government needs to leave this to private industry.

Private industry needs to be given the parameters to address the current insurance needs and concerns, and there are a number of alternative bills that address these issues.  None of these bills call for a government takeover of insurance.  None of these alternative bills create a government exchange program to broker policies.  None of these bills penalize individuals for not purchasing insurance.

What the alternatives do is give responsibility to each individual to determine their insurance needs, not the government.  It allows them to choose the policy they feel meets their needs and make adjustments so they may afford the policy.  If individuals are responsible for their insurance needs then maybe they will make better choices when it comes to purchasing a policy and the utilization of the medical care under those policies.  The alternatives give a tax credit to individuals and families to apply toward the purchase of these insurance policies if they are not otherwise covered under an employment-based plan.  It also gives the individual options, so if the employer makes the choice to decrease coverage or chooses a plan that doesn’t meet the needs of the individual, then that employee could purchase a plan outside of the employer and receive the tax credit to help offset the cost.  These alternatives keep the employee from staying in a job just because of insurance, and if they become unemployed an outside insurance policy would come with them, making the expensive Cobra payments a thing of the past.

The alternatives allow the insurance companies to create new pooling mechanisms, providing new opportunities to offer policies.  They would require the insurance companies to provide affordable insurance plans to people with pre-existing conditions, at only a slightly higher premium cost.  Some alternative plans would even permit the sale of insurance across state lines.

Equally important, the alternatives do not take away care for our seniors.  The problems with the Medicare system need to be addressed separately.  You cannot take money away from the senior population to provide insurance for the uninsured.  That doesn’t solve any problems and only creates new ones.

Likewise, the pork or earmarks in the House bill are not in the alternatives.  There is over $88 billion in earmarks in H.R. 3200 that further expand the role of government, support illegal immigrants and support labor unions!

Obama promised not to sign any bill that would increase the deficit of the country.  If he intends to keep that promise then there is no way H.R. 3200 should be signed because it will not only increase the deficit but will increase the cost of insurance policies, create penalties for individuals as well as companies, and will increase taxes for everyone.  There is no magical way to pay for a $1 trillion program – the bottom line is the taxpayers will be footing the bill.  Disguising the taxes as penalties, employment costs, increases in Social Security withholdings or other creative ways is still an increase and taxes and an increase in cost to taxpayers.

Health care is a personal issue, and the government should not be making those decisions for you.  This isn’t a campaign for office that can be voted out in four years.  This is a change that will affect everyone in this country!  Any bill that creates a government run exchange program is a plan that grants a government take over of the insurance industry.  Once an exchange program is established, it will only be a matter of time before the public option is added if not initially included, and soon after the whole system is converted to a one-payer plan.  This needs to be stopped now!