Loose Lips

Today SC state senators debated S. 360 in a House Agricultural and Natural Resources Subcommittee. It was surreal.

The committee met to consider the bill that defines “renewable resources” in our state energy policy. The bill references solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, renewable hydrogen and nuclear power as renewable resources.

Nuclear power?

Since when, in any corporate lobbyist’s wildest dreams, has nuclear power been considered a renewable resource?

Nowhere. Ever.

South Carolina could be the first in making this exciting discovery.

The industry lobbyist was quite clear that if we don’t include clean coal and nuclear power in our future, we might as well hang out a “going out of business” sign at the state borders.

The notion that nuclear power plants provide renewable energy is only slightly less ridiculous than the fact the the state Senate passed this bill last year (S-360). Being listed as a renewable resource would entitle nuclear energy providers to the tax breaks offered to honestly renewable resources.

Faced with the obvious, that nuclear energy is not renewable, the committee adopted an amendment to change the context of the original bill from “renewable” to “clean” energy, thereby establishing a questionable rationale for including nuclear into the state’s energy policy.

The committee unanimously passed the amended “clean energy” bill that will be sent back to the Senate for concurrence.

We can only hope that the Senate refuses, and comes up with a rational definition of “renewable resources” for our state’s energy policy.

Doctors give Massachusetts health care reform failing grade

Poor early outcomes raise red flags: only private insurers profit
Physicians for a National Health Program

Over 250 Massachusetts doctors have signed an open letter to the country warning that the health reform model enacted by Massachusetts is failing and that a single payer program is the only alternative.

“It is urgent that the rest of the country know that Massachusetts is a living laboratory for the health care reforms being pushed in California and by the Obama/Clinton/Edwards campaigns. Right now the Gov. Romney/Massachusetts’ plan gets a failing grade on the ground,” said Dr.Rachel Nardin, Assistant Professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

We write to alert colleagues and the nation to the disturbing early outcomes of Massachusetts’ widely heralded approach to health care reform. Although we wish that the current reform could secure health insurance for all, its failings reinforce our conviction that only a single payer program can assure patients the care they need.

In 2006, our state enacted a law designed to extend health coverage to virtually all state residents. Political leaders in other states, as well as several Democratic presidential candidates, have embraced this model.

Massachusetts’ law mandates that uninsured individuals must purchase private insurance or pay a fine. The law established a new state agency to ensure that affordable plans were available; offered low income residents subsidies to help them buy coverage; and expanded Medicaid coverage for the very poor. (Immigrants are mostly excluded from these subsidized programs.) Moneys that previously funded free care for the uninsured were shifted to the new insurance program, along with revenues from new fines on employers who fail to offer health benefits to their workers. In addition, the federal government provided extra funds for the program’s first two years.

Continue reading