Energy independence: how high a priority?

Excerpted from Jerry Pournelle's blog:

One estimate is that 500 nuclear power plants would make America energy independent. I think that's optimistic in that an abundance of electricity doesn't mean we won't need to import oil for transportation needs, but it would certainly take us a long way towards independence. The cost would be in the order of 2 billion per plant (I would think less; that is, the first one might be 4 billion, but the 400th would be considerably less than a billion; but, for an average, call it 2 billion). That's one trillion dollars, comparable to what the Obama administration has thrown to Wall Street for the "TARP" or stimulus -- and, should we do that, then, for once, a deficit would be financing something real.

It is less than the cost of the war, and less than the war is going to cost if we continue. Cheap reliable energy would be one major step toward economic recovery. Low cost energy plus freedom will bring prosperity. If we have the energy we can work on the freedom. The whole thing could be accomplished in four years. Of course, the ravening wolves in the Congress won't do it -- but then it's not likely that this is the kind of "hope and change" we can believe in from the current White House, either.

But it would work. France knows the value of nuclear power. Why can't we learn it?

Pelosi's health care bill blows a kiss to trial lawyers...

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can't try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you've actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

GOP on health care: In 568 words, what's wrong with 1,990 pages

House Republican Leader John Boehner gave the Republican radio address today, and in 568 words made a simple and compelling case for what is wrong with the Democrats' 1,990-page health care proposal -- and for what should be done instead.

"This 1,990 pages of bureaucracy will centralize health care decision making in Washington, DC," Boehner said. "It’ll require thousands of new federal employees. It’ll put unelected boards, bureaus, and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially life-saving treatment."

"The best way to get a sense of what Speaker Pelosi’s takeover of health care looks like is to actually look at it," Boehner continued. "Just shy of 2,000 pages, it runs more than 620 pages longer than the government-run plan Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993."

Boehner then offered four proposals to improve the health care situation in America -- not a universal fix, but four significant improvements:

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Boehner summed up by saying .... "No doubt the White House and Democrats in Congress will continue to insist that Republicans "have no plan." But Boehner's four proposals are contained in fleshed-out legislative form in several GOP reform bills. They really exist. You can check them out.

Of course, Republicans have been saying this for months, and few have listened. But there is the possibility that House Democrats, by unveiling a plan even more gargantuan than some supporters expected, have finally pushed too far; the giant stack of paper that is the printed version of the 1,990-page bill is a physical representation of what Republican critics have long branded a massive government takeover of health care.

And it won’t come cheap. Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill will raise the cost of Americans’ health insurance premiums; it will kill jobs with tax hikes and new mandates; and it will cut seniors’ Medicare benefits.

We now have a choice: we can come together to implement smart, fiscally responsible reforms to improve Americans’ health care or we can recklessly pursue this government takeover that creates far more problems than it solves.

It’s clear where the American people stand on this issue. They‘re frustrated and fed up. The ‘stimulus’ bill isn’t working. Unemployment is rising. The debt to be paid by our kids and grandkids is exploding. And now, Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care.

Enough is enough. Breaking the bank and taking away the freedoms Americans cherish is not the answer to the challenges we face."

"Change you can believe in...."

BIG NEWS! There's yet another "final" health care bill, this one with the public option. Since the purpose of all this is to end private health care insurance and drive the US to a European style single-payer system, the details aren't really important: the real question is, do we want or need the end result? Once the "comprehensive reform" process gets started, it will be hard to stop.

It's simply not true that if you are satisfied with what you have, you won't have to change it. Any "comprehensive reform" will at least have the provision that health insurance cannot refuse applications for pre-existing conditions, nor can it charge more to those who are already sick than it does to those who buy the policy when well; plus, mandatory coverage of all kinds of conditions and treatments depending on the effectiveness of lobbyists in getting their clients' services (mental health, maternity, various forms of counseling, osteopathy and chiropractic, homeopathic medicine, etc., etc.) included, meaning that those who can't or don't use those services still must pay the same premiums as those who do. Those conditions alone will force premium costs up. Adding more people to the rolls whether they can pay or not will also force premiums up -- or will require subsidies, meaning either higher taxes or more operational expenses, to be paid for with more borrowed money and thus increased debt.

The counter argument is that we'll save all those costs and keep the premiums down by eliminating fraud and waste. The rest will be covered by soaking the rich, and that won't affect the middle class. (You can believe as much of that as you want to.) Oh -- and there will be taxes on "medical devices" such as walkers, wheel chairs, tampons, condoms, crutches, Ace bandages, diabetes meters, blood pressure meters, thermometers, splints, braces, joint restricting boots, MRI and X-ray machines, and other such devices, thus raising their prices without increasing profits. What that will do to investment in research to improve such devices isn't known, but I think it's predictable. Generally such taxes tend to restrict entry into an industry, thus consolidating it with fewer firms and less competition.

When all this is finished (according to the leadership "elite"), we will be getting health care at least as good as we have now, without significantly increasing costs or taxes, and lowering the percentage of GDP that goes into health care. You may believe as much of that prediction as you want to, too.

We are also told that the recession is over, because government has spent enough money to have the GDP go slightly up. Given that unemployment is still rising, you can believe as much of that as you want to as well.

We are moving toward the European style of modern state. It is definitely "change you can believe in." It is not too late to stop this trend, but the hour is late. Of course nearly everyone who might read this already knows it altready.

HT to Jerry Pournelle.