Comments on: CBO Scores Senate Climate Bill – Will Save $21 Billion in First 10 Years

By: dealaday

dealaday — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:19:35 +0000

I’ll have to read the language but if that 85% MLR requirement applies to private plans in the exchange almost all the doomsday scenarios become moot, it makes it almost impossible to continue the current predatory model of shoving people who make claims off the role while seeking out customers ho are less likely. Doing so just elevates the risk of rebates.

This provision was in the Tri Committee and HELP bills but was effectively eliminated in non SFC and the Speaker/Majority Leader verisions.It’s reinsertion by the Team of 10 is potentially huge and the for-profit insurers their worst nightmare. So people shouldn’t write off Franken until the actually read the languag.

By: dealaday

dealaday — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:19:00 +0000

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:08:00 +0000

@RT “So they’re going to tax the utilities, then give it back to you to pay your utility bills- what a crewed up idea”

No, here’s why it is a sensible idea.

You, at your business (or at your home) can’t control whether your electric utility reduces its pollution or switches to clean energy and avoids those fees.

So why should you pay more if they won’t?

The pollution fee affects only about 7,000 coal, oil, and cement businesses that emit over 25,000 tons a year of GHGs. This put the pain at the action point.

And if they want to avoid that fee, they can (should!) just install combined heat & power, waste to energy or similar tech (we write about the many options here all the time) to reduce their emissions so they also earn money from the trade side of the cap and trade.

By complying with the law to reduce pollution, they make their businesses more profitable. They reduce waste, or add renewable energy.

@James, no the costs would not be passed down to us. Details:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/11/76-of-cap-and-trade-bill-allowances-benefit-people-not-polluters/

This legislation has controls against us suffering for their inaction. By contrast, a carbon tax would pass down the pain. CEJAPA has been designed to keep it within the group that pollutes.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:08:47 +0000

@RT “So they’re going to tax the utilities, then give it back to you to pay your utility bills- what a crewed up idea”

No, here’s why it is a sensible idea.

You, at your business (or at your home) can’t control whether your electric utility reduces its pollution or switches to clean energy and avoids those fees.

So why should you pay more if they won’t?

The pollution fee affects only about 7,000 coal, oil, and cement businesses that emit over 25,000 tons a year of GHGs. This put the pain at the action point.

By complying with the law to reduce pollution, they make their businesses more profitable. They reduce waste, or add renewable energy.

@James, no the costs would not be passed down to us. Details:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/11/76-of-cap-and-trade-bill-allowances-benefit-people-not-polluters/

This legislation has controls against us suffering for their inaction. By contrast, a carbon tax would pass down the pain. CEJAPA has been designed to keep it within the group that pollutes.

By: James

James — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:21 +0000

That is $854 billion in taxes paid by individuals since businesses pass the taxes onto us. If the government would not spend anything, then we could have $854 billion off of the deficit instead of a paltry $21 billion.

Tax and spend in the name of the environment. Just another way to raise taxes by our congress.

By: James

James — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:00 +0000

Tax and spend in the name of the environment. Just another way to raise taxes by our congress.

By: RT

RT — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:02:09 +0000

Use your brain here – where do you think that $854 BILLION in revenue to the government is coming from? It’s coming from the cap & TAX on businesses. Do you think these businesses are going to just eat that tax? No! each of us is going to pay it through higher costs. So they’re going to tax the utilities, then give it back to you to pay your utility bills – what a crewed up idea that is! Meanwhile, the companies that make the things we buy will not get this rebate, resulting in increased costs for them, and you guessed it, for all of us. Ultimately, we’ll send what few manufacturing jobs we haven’t already run out of this country packing to lower cost areas of the world.

By: RT

RT — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:02:00 +0000

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:39:00 +0000

@ Peter – I read it all in depth and wrote the details here:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/11/76-of-cap-and-trade-bill-allowances-benefit-people-not-polluters/

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:33:00 +0000

The EPA estimated the average annual household cost of ACES (identical Waxman-Markey bill to range from $84 to $110 in 2020; because there’s provisions in both to spend about 80% of the proceeds on consumer protection.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:35:07 +0000

How much will this cost the consumer?

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:35:00 +0000

How much will this cost the consumer?

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:39:01 +0000

@ Peter – I read it all in depth and wrote the details here:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/11/76-of-cap-and-trade-bill-allowances-benefit-people-not-polluters/

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:33:12 +0000