The Health care debate - 47 million uninsured?:

One point at the very top. There is a difference between Health Care and Health Care Insurance. No one in the United States is denied health care. Hospitals are not allowed to turn people down in the case of an emergency. Now, I will admit that may not be the best way to treat health issues, but don't let anyone say that they cannot get health care.

Be that as is may, this is not an discussion about health care but rather health care insurance. The legislation currently being considered in Congress now provides, depending on the version you want to look at, nationalized health care or at the very least a "public" health care insurance option.

The rationale for this move toward government take-over or at least government involvement in health care insurance is the figure frequently being tossed around about 47 million uninsured Americans. Let's break that down just a bit.

First of all, there are somewhere between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens in the U. S. Is it the intention of Congress that we Americans subsidize insurance for 12 million people who are illegally living in the U. S.? If not, then the 47 million is really somewhere between 35 and 37 million.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan body used to estimate impact of legislation has stated that thirty percent of the uninsured have been offered insurance by employers and have turned down that coverage. That is another 14.1 million who could have insurance but have, of their own free will, chosen not too. So combined with the illegal aliens our truly uninsured American population is somewhere in the vicinity of the low 20 millions.

The CBO has concluded that the House version of the bill now under consideration will cost 1.5 trillion dollars. If we conclude that the real number of uninsured is 21 million, that works out to $71,428 per uninsured. You mean to tell me there isn't a better solution than spending $71,000 per person to solve this problem?

And this whole discussion begs the question about individual responsibility. Are we really going to demand that everyone is required, by federal law, to have a health insurance policy? What about the young man or women in their twenties who has no health issues and is trying to build their wealth (or see the world, or go to grad school, or buy a car so they can get to a job, or anything number of other money necessary things), are we really going to make these people give up their dream so they can have health insurance policy they may not use for ten years? And what coverage will be required? Coverage up to $100 or up to $1,000,000. Must it pay for first dollar coverage, or can they have a $10,000 deductible? Wow, there is no limit to the questions that arise and the regulations that will be imposed to implement such a national policy!

These bills, like the stimulus bills and the Cap & Trade bill are thousands of pages long. The CBO when asked to testify before Congress admitted that even they have not been able to completely understand the bills contents nor it's ultimate impact. Why then, the rush to pass legislation that is not and cannot be completely understood?

I will offer a couple of alternative suggestions to solving some of these issues in my next blog.

Letter to my Senators

Here is a copy of my letters to my Senators regarding Cap & Trade

Dear Senator Levin & Stabenow,

Senator, I am writing to you about the Cap & Trade bill. As I am sure you are aware, the Cap & Trade bill is ostensibly designed to help reduce man-made global warming. I live in Mancelona, Senator, and yesterday, July 18th, 2009, the temperature at my home did not reach sixty degrees. Please show me the global warming!

I know there is an impression that “science” has concluded that CO2 is causing global warming. I have done my own research on the topic, and this so-called conclusion is based up supposition and computer models. And, Senator, these computer models have not been able to predict current climate, let alone climate over the next 50 to 100 years. More and more scientist are disputing the notion that climate temperatures are being primarily adversely affected by man-made CO2 emissions. In truth the earths temperature has been dropping since 1998, for eleven years while CO2 has continued to climb! The temperature has tracked more exactly with the Sun’s solar cycles. I don’t profess to understand how our climate works, but it is clear that current claims that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change is a premature and inaccurate guess about man’s impact on climate.

This leads me to conclude that Cap & Trade is more about raising Federal Tax revenue than anything else. It doesn’t matter who collects the tax, it is the average energy user who is going to pay for this 800 plus billion dollar tax increase. This bill is on a fast track, and being crammed down our throats.

Please slow this legislation down and let’s have an honest and realistic discussion about this whole concept. Any attempt to pass this legislation now is an exercise of government tyranny under the guise of trying to protect the planet.

Please Senator, I am all in favor of debate, but this rush to jam this through is not good for Michigan and not good for America.

Sincerely,

Bob Baldwin

For those who really want to seriously look at the amount of information from scientist disputing man-made global warming, check out all the information here: http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23406/Scores_of_PeerReviewed_Studies_Contradict_Global_Warming_Alarmism.html

If you're not afraid to look, it will open your eyes.

Bob

The Ten Cannots

I got an email from a friend the other day. It contained some words of wisdom as follows:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
3. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

These 10 Cannots were attributed by my friend and someone who had sent them to him as coming from President Lincoln. This looked too good to be true so I did a little research, and Abe Lincoln was not the author of these nor did he every speak them. According to a number of sources I checked these were written on a back of a pamphlet that did contain a quote of Lincoln's. However, on the back of the pamphlet, Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, Presbyterian Clergyman, penned these 10 Cannots. There is conflict about when the 10 Cannots were originally published. I found a couple of publication dates of 1916, but also found dates of 1942, and even 1873.

Well Lincoln didn't write or say them, but never-the-less, I think these 10 Cannots are true wisdom no matter who said them and I think our current President and Congress would do well to heed them.

Thoughts?

Oil Imports from the Middle East

This morning, on WLS radio out of Chicago, I heard Congressman Kirk, one of the eight Republican House members who voted for the CAP & TRADE bill, justify his vote. I don't remember his exact quote, however, he talked about the U.S. oil imports and implied that much of those came from Nations that are not friendly to the U.S. This sounded a little fishy to me since I knew that Canada and Mexico are some of our largest importers so I did a little looking.

According to an article at Suite1o1.com, quoting a Department of Energy report:

According to data from the US Department of Energy, of the top five
suppliers of crude oil to the US only one, Saudi Arabia, is a Middle East
exporter. In March 2008, the US imported 1.795 million barrels per day (b/d)
from Canada, 1.535 million b/d from Saudi Arabia, 1.214 million b/d from Mexico,
1.154 million b/d from Nigeria, and 858,000 b/d from Venezuela. These top five
suppliers accounted for 68 percent of total US crude oil imports for that
month.
When looking at the top ten foreign suppliers of crude oil to the US,
only two more Middle East exporters make the list: Iraq (sixth), which exported
773,000 b/d to the US in March 2008, and Kuwait (tenth), which exported 199,000
b/d. The top ten suppliers of crude oil to the US accounted for 87 percent of
total US imports for that month. Other importers that made up the top ten were
Angola (sixth, 368,000 b/d), Algeria (seventh, 247,000 b/d), and Ecuador
(eighth, 231,000 b/d).Read more: http://international-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_us_and_middle_east_oil#ixzz0K6cXayOP&C

For the year 2007, here are the top ten nations that the U.S. imports oil from and their percentage of imported oil:

Canada … US$38 billion (17.8% of U.S. imports from top 20 oil-producing nations)
Saudi Arabia … $33.8 billion (15.8%) Mexico … $30.3 billion (14.2%) Nigeria …
$30.1 billion (14.1%) Venezuela … $30 billion (14%) Angola … $12.1 billion
(5.7%) Algeria … $11.5 billion (5.4%) Iraq … $10.9 billion (5.1%) Brazil … $3.8
billion (1.8%) Kuwait … $3.75 billion (1.8%).
Read more: http://import-export.suite101.com/article.cfm/usa_oil_imports_by_country_2007#ixzz0K6vY7gQt&C

While I am not happy about importing oil from anywhere in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait are not high on my list of enemy states. Congressman Kirk's assertion doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If he favors reducing our dependence on foreign oil, as I do, then we should be doing more to expose and collect the vast oil reserves the U.S. has within our own national boundries, and near our shores.

Energy independence will not be acheived by doubling our sources of solar or wind, which currently generate about one percent of our nations energy.

Comments?

HR 2454 - Cap and Trade - National Energy Standards for Homes

My last blog talked a bit about the Cap & Trade bill HR 2454 which passed the House by an eight vote margin. I would like to take a look at the bill from a different perspective for this blog.

In the last couple of days I was hearing about provisions of this bill that would require Federal inspections of individual homes for energy efficiencies and prevent homes from being sold if they do not meet a certain standard. I don't like to quote unsubstantiated statements, so I took the time to look up the language in the 1200 page bill. While I couldn't find any specific references to restricting sales of homes, there is more than enough evidence to infer that this could happen.

It is often the way an administration implements a law that determines what will actually happen. I believe this legislation does give the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) all the authority it needs to implement such a plan.

Below are some quotes from the legislation:

HR 2454 establishes a "Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program". This program is, according to the bill, designed

"...to implement the residential and nonresidential policies based on the standards developed under this section shall together be known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program." (HR 2454)

This new program will establish national building codes that will supersede State and Local building codes and require

"...standards for a national energy and environmental
building retrofit policy for single-family and multifamily
residences." (HR245, pg 351)

Multi unit housing will also be required to comply with this new program. However, any retrofits done by the owners

"...not shall not be used to justify any increase in rents
charged to residents of such housing...(HR 2454, pg 360)"

As most legislation does, much of the details are left to the agency that will administer the law. "

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.—The Secretary shall propose and, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, shall define by rule violations of the energy efficiency building codes to be enforced by the Secretary pursuant to this section, and the penalties that shall apply to violators, in any jurisdiction in which the national energy efficiency building code has been made applicable under subsection (d)(1). (HR 2454 pg 344)

This is a part of legislation that your Congress passed last week. Apart from the cost in taxes, jobs and the economy, this is just grinding salt in the wounds of the American taxpayer and homeowner.

I welcome your thoughts.

Cap and Trade

With the passage by the U.S. House of Representatives of HR 2454, the Cap and Trade bill, I thought I would jump into the fray.

There is no question that this is a monumental tax increase by the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office, the most often quoted "independent" analysis of Congressional Legislation estimates that this will cost Americans $845 from 2010 to 2019. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf)

CBO acknowledges that these costs will be passed on to consumers:
"As noted, firms would generally pass the cost of reducing their emissions—or of acquiring offset credits or emission allowances—on to their customers, and their customers’ customers. (Indeed, assuming that higher costs are passed into prices is customary in distributional analyses.) Households and governments would bear those costs through their consumption of goods and services. Because households account for the bulk of spending, they would bear most of the costs." (same source)

These costs do not include the costs that are likely as a result in reduced GDP over that time, and acknowledged by CBO in a footnote to the same report:
"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."

I have found very little information about what this additional tax will result in from a Climate Change perspective. What I have found is that the change resulting will have an insignificant impact on reversing any global warming that may be occurring. I am struck with the thought that maybe this is just using a current hot button issue to raise more federal revenue.

Welcome your thoughts.

Universal Health Insurance

What is the truth about the uninsured Americans in this debate about Universal Health Care?

According to a study released by the Emploment Policy Institute there are a lot of myths concerning the number of uninsured Americans. Here are some of the statistics they share:

Of the 47 million uninsured Americans "shows that more than 43 percent, or 18 million, of uninsured Americans ages 18-64 could likely afford health coverage and are actually 'voluntarily uninsured.'" So then the 47 million is not really 47 million, but only 27 million. The study calls these 18 million "voluntarily uninsured"

The report further states "...79 percent of people with incomes between 2.5 and 3.75 times the poverty level currently purchase private health insurance". What about the other 21%?

Here is a link to this stduy by Dr's June and Dave O'Neill: http://epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf

If there is information that refutes this, I would love to see it posted here.

What is the Problem with Politics

What has happened to political discourse in the United States. It seems that we have lost all civility in our discussion of the issues. Whatever happened to honest respect for those with different opinions? Don't get me wrong, I am a fervent believer in passionate discourse, and I will assert my position with ardor. But why do we have to turn our arguments into personal attacks?

I hope this blog can explore the issues facing America without the partisan rancor we daily in the media.

Let me know what you think.