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 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.

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.

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.

As I initially read and took notes throughout this section I really didn’t grasp the absurdity of the program.  When I started writing this column I was overwhelmed by the stupidity of the thought that someone would actually think this was health care reform and not just a government take over of the health industry.  The public option is based on the same business model (if you could actually call it that) of the Medicare system – the system that is currently failing and going bankrupt today!  So why would one think that applying the same standards of a failing business to another model is going to create success.  Did any of the members participating in the creation of this bill have any business background?  Failure x 2 does not equal success.  With that said, I will continue on my quest at reporting on bill H.R. 3200.

The Public Health option is the portion of the bill allowing the government to sell insurance.  The Public Option is basically a Medicare type program offered to those who do not quality for Medicare, operating concurrently and competing against the private plans offered in the Health Insurance Exchange.  The government controls the Health Insurance Exchange, controls the policies offered within the exchange, and would now be able to sell government policies.  Try side stepping this all you want, but this is a government take over of health care.

Some of the bill’s BS (sorry) just could not be reworded or interpreted, so I had to quote the bill so you could fully understand the vague references and enthusiastic goals of the Public Option.

The Magic Wand of Health Care

The bill establishes the administration of a Public Health Insurance Option, an exchange qualified plan, which is supposed to “ensure choice, competition and stability of affordable, high quality coverage.”  The Secretary of Health & Human Services is responsible to create a “low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.”  WOW!  Apparently the magic formula has been discovered to have low-cost insurance premiums that will give accessible and quality care, and if you listen to Obama’s promises, this will not raise taxes.  Since this is similar to Medicare, one would have to wonder why this magic wand hasn’t already been applied to Medicare to ensure the same quality of care without bankrupting the system.

The Public Option will only be made available through the Health Insurance Exchange, so if you cannot obtain insurance through the exchange for whatever reason, you will also not be able to obtain the Public Option insurance either.  (For further information, please visit article H.R. 3200 – The Health Insurance Exchange.)

The Public Option must comply with the requirements that apply to an exchange plan, including benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections and cost-sharing.  Different levels of plans will also be offered.  The Secretary enters into the contracts for the public option.  This is similar to that of the Commissioner on the Health Insurance Exchange.

The Secretary sets the premiums for the public option and may allow for geographic adjustments.  The rates must be set at a level sufficient to fully finance the cost of the health benefits provided by the public options and all administrative costs related to operating the public option.

The Secretary will determine the payment rates for services and providers based on similar services and providers under Parts A and B of Medicare.  Since this public option includes services typically not provided under Medicare (such as well-child visits) the Secretary has the ability to modify payment rates to accommodate these services.  The same goes for prescription drugs not typically covered under Medicare Part A or B.

An incentive is offered to get providers to participate, allowing rates 5% greater for the first three years.  Anyone on Medicare knows how difficult it is to find a doctor that will accept patients under Medicare – they just don’t want to get involved with the government program.  So to try to get doctors to even participate in this new Public Option plan, they will allow them to charge more for services just to get them to sign up.  The catch – but only if they participate in both Medicare and the Public Option.  Pediatricians and other practitioners who typically do not participate in Medicare would also be eligible for increased payment rates.