, the newsletter of the American Physical Society, the world’s second largest organization of physicists.

Physicist-turned-Congressman Rush Holt supports legislation banning conventional incandescent light bulbs (Back Page, August/September APS News). His statements about the legislation are misleading. Worse yet, his support of the ban embodies an elitism that supplants people’s right to choose with authoritarian dictates of a technocratic ruling class.

To the Wall Street Journal‘s claim that “Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs,” Holt glibly replies, “This was, of course, untrue. No type of light bulb was banned.” Sure, the legislation does not ban all incandescents, but it does ban conventional ones, as the Journal claims. The legislation will “make current 100-watt bulbs obsolete” and such bulbs will “disappear from store shelves,” reports the New York Times.

To justify the ban, Dr. Holt narrowly defines efficiency to mean only energy efficiency. But the most “efficient” light bulb best achieves the user’s purpose. Energy efficiency is important, but so are an appealing color spectrum, quickly reaching full brightness, low-cost dimming, and tolerance to vibration and heat.

The Congressman also decries proposals to repeal the bulb ban, as it could undermine Congress’s “tradition of supporting innovation.”  But when companies spend money to satisfy government demands, they invest less on innovation to satisfy perceived customer demand.

Businesses in relatively free markets innovate just fine. Consumer electronics is an obvious example, but product packaging has also become more efficient. Soda cans use less metal, while bottled beverage manufacturers advertise bottles using less plastic or petroleum-free plant-based plastics.

Meanwhile, the bulb ban exemplifies “innovative” ways for bulb makers to increase profits through political pull. Conventional bulbs are a “ubiquitous commodity” with a “negligible” profit margin, the New York Times magazine recently noted.  “No amount of subsidy or ‘green’ branding has managed to woo consumers away from Edison’s bulb.” So the lighting industry endorsed new efficiency standards that force consumers to buy more expensive products.

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,” quipped Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics. Even if this is true, wasting one’s own money is every person’s right. Moreover, if a consumer has good reasons to prefer conventional incandescent bulbs, buying them is not wasteful. What’s wasteful is being forced to buy less desirable alternatives.

A physics PhD and a high-profile government job is not a moral sanction to violate consumers’ right to choose.

In Colorado, the cost-shift from the uninsured is just $85 per insured person. This is according to research done for Colorado’s 208 Commission, which Dr. Calonge himself praises.

Key findings include that “the uninsured pay for about half of their care out-of-pocket” while only “20 percent is uncompensated care from providers.” An Urban Institute study provides further evidence that uninsured cost-shifting is small — at most “only 1.7% of private insurance premiums.”

By outlawing affordable plans, mandatory insurance increases premiums by much more. Consider the federal health control bill, HR 3590. It requires that all plans include at least ten mandated benefits, such as maternity care and substance abuse treatment, whether you want them or not. A typical mandated benefit increases premiums by about 0.75%, concludes a 2008 MIT study.

By underpaying doctors, Medicaid is also guilty of large cost-shifting. But Dr. Calonge withholds this information when noting that HR 3590 expands Medicaid eligibility. A Milliman actuarial study concluded that the cost-shift from Medicaid and Medicare adds $1788 to the annual insurance premium for a family of four. The uninsured pay more of their medical bills than Medicaid does for its participants, reported Reuters in 2008. What’s more, a CDC study found that people “with Medicaid coverage were more likely to have had multiple visits to [emergency departments] … than those with private insurance and the uninsured.”

Dr. Calonge wants to “promote an honest debate” about health care. But the cost-shift argument for mandatory insurance has no place in one.

This letter to the editor was published in the Northern Colorado Business Report on December 3, 2010.

This is a shorter version of my article, Amendment 63 vs. Cost-Shift Hypocrisy, published in the Huffington Post.

Re: “The cost of failure on health care for Colorado,” Oct. 28 online-only guest commentary.

Say your neighborhood deli rigged its scales so that customers who paid for a pound of meat left the store with less. Does such fraud justify a government-run “public option” for delicatessens? Surely not, but this is how Colorado AFL-CIO Director Mike Cerbo argues for a new government-run insurance plan. Cerbo says it should “impermissible” for insurers to “drop coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions” — presumably when patients had been honest about medical histories. This is called “post-claim underwriting,” and it violates the insurer’s contract with the policy-holder. But this is no justification of a “public option.” Rather, if it happens frequently and without penalty, it shows that government has been lax in one of its legitimate duties: enforcing contracts.

This punishes employees who buy insurance directly instead of settling for their employer’s insurance options. Hence, insurers cater to employers instead of patients. The Democrats’ proposals to mandate employer-provided insurance won’t solve this problem, but merely entrench it.

Worse yet, tax-discounted insurance has skewed demand in favor of excess insurance to cover routine and predictable expenses. If car insurance similarly covered oil changes and new tires, customers wouldn’t compare prices — they’d only ask if “it’s covered.” Demand and prices would soar, and insurers would wield too much power.

Senator Bennet should support ending a biased tax policy that that favors employer-controlled insurance over patient-controlled insurance.

This letter to the editor appeared in the Denver Business Journal on August 10, 2009. (scan of print version)

Joel Stein’s commentary against tax-deductible charitable donations is penny-wise but pound-foolish. By favoring some types of spending and punishing others, the tax deduction indeed violates our freedom to spend our earnings as we please. He suggests that the increased tax revenue from eliminating the deduction could “help pay for health care.” But compared to the tax deduction, this is a much worse violation of our freedoms.

Tax-funded health care is mandatory charity. Unlike voluntary charities, government charities need not compete for and earn your donations. The penalty for tax evasion effectively encourages your “donations.”

If Mr. Stein wants more fairness toward charities, he’d support allowing taxpayers to opt out of funding entitlement programs by donating to charities of their choice. For example, if you donate $100 to a low-income medical-care charity, Medicaid loses that funding and you pay $100 less in taxes.

Colorado House Bill 1256 would bring affordable insurance to thousands of Coloradans by allowing them to buy less expensive policies available in other states (Health Care, Feb. 19).  Consider the average annual premium costs for non-group policies.  According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in four states the costs are $500 less than in Colorado.  The savings is more for family plans: In five states costs are $1000 less than in Colorado.

Opponents of a similar bill proposed last year claimed healthy consumers who bought out-of-state policies would increase premiums for others.  True or not, this reveals the effect of Colorado’s insurance mandates and price controls: they bundle medical insurance with politically-mandated charity.  Never mind that these controls increase premium costs and the number of uninsured.

But we have the right to buy insurance and give to charity as we see fit, without political mandates and prohibitions.  Politicians should not forbid Coloradans from buying more affordable insurance available in other states. Colorado House Bill 1256 recognizes this.

–
(Scan of print edition)

New insurance law wastes taxpayer dollars

Re: “The governor’s first two years; Two views of his energy level,” Jan. 4 Denver & The West story.

The Post reports that Gov. Bill Ritter “signed a law that … could result in as many as 50,000 more children being enrolled in state health- care programs.” Actually, most of the newly enrolled children already have insurance, and the program fosters government dependency.

The new law wastes tax dollars. Its net effect is to insure four kids for the price of insuring 10. How’s that? More than half of newly eligible children already have private health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that “for every 100 children who are enrolled in public insurance, 60 children lose private insurance.”

Worse yet, programs like SCHIP discourage parents from advancing their careers and earning higher wages because they might forfeit their government benefits. Parents are thus caught in a “low-wage trap.”

Ritter shouldn’t force taxpayers to fund such a program while truly worthwhile charities could do better with voluntary donations.

Amendment 59 backers should send refunds to schools

Let the “begathon” begin! That’s what educators would need to raise school funding because Amendment 59 failed, said Colorado Association of School Boards director Jane Urschel (“Despite defeat, Ritter aims for budget fix,” Nov. 6).

But fundraising should be easy – if 59′s supporters simply put their money where their vote is. Since 59 failed, taxpayers will receive a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Why not donate it to schools?

Amendment 59 would have sent about $50 million in annual tax surpluses to government schools. Since almost a million Coloradans voted for it, that’s a $50 donation each. As a tax-deductible donation, it’s even less. Just forgo dinner and a movie one weekend.

Surely voters who want government to spend their own tax refund – and everyone else’s – on government schools would donate voluntarily, right? Or would they prefer to support a school of their choice, a scholarship fund, or other causes they deem worthwhile?

In a previous essay I addressed a common argument against the above point of view:

Another common argument in support of [taxing people to pay for schools] is that “we all benefit from it.”… In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it.  We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

(What does this have to do with Barbara Streisand?  She supports tax-funded schools. (Photo credit.))

Amendment 59 Raises Taxes

Re: “SAFE gets Colorado back on track,” Sept. 25 Gail Schoettler column.

Amendment 59 is based on deception, and former Colorado State Treasurer Gail Schoettler perpetuates this deceit.

Amendment 59 would raise your taxes. Schoettler denies this, saying that “Amendment 59 will ensure that your tax rates will stay exactly the same as they are now.”

But Amendment 59 would raise taxes without raising tax rates. The Colorado Constitution guarantees taxpayers a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Amendment 59 would force us to donate this refund to a so-called “Savings Account for Education.” That’s a tax increase. Ms. Schoettler’s mentioning constant tax rates is misleading.

A second deceit is that Amendment 59 is a “Savings Account for Education.” There’s a difference between education and government-funded schools. Just Google “college illiteracy.” Further, Schoettler writes that 59 “frees up money for critical things our citizens need.” That is, not schools. If you want to spend your own money on education not favored by politicians, tough luck. To Schoettler, the needs you want to finance with your own money are irrelevant.

Amendment 59 uses the “for the kids” sales pitch to give politicians a blank check from your bank account to spend your money on whatever they please.

A DIFFERING VIEW: Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes

The Rocky should regret endorsing the deceptive Amendment 59 (editorial, Sept. 19).

Like other proponents, the Rocky claims that 59 “is not a tax hike.” The Rocky continues, “it would eliminate rebates that taxpayers otherwise would receive whenever a [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] surplus occurs.”

How is this not a tax hike? The amendment’s supporters claim the money that would otherwise go to rebates would fund “education.” Yet the Rocky reports that it would “allow legislatures more opportunities for investing in other priorities.”

That is, not education. Instead of spending your own money on your priorities, politicians would spend your money on their priorities.  Amendment 59 would force you to donate to government-run schools, regardless
of your satisfaction with them. If you’d prefer to provide for your family, or donate your refund to schools or scholarships that politicians don’t favor, tough. Amendment 59 forbids it.

The amendment’s Web site claims to “protect our taxpayers.” From what, spending our money as we please?

For more on this, see VoteNo59.com.