Category Archives: Enivronmental and Health

What’s For Lunch

Posted on by

I recently had a discussion with one of my siblings regarding the evils of lobbying , or as I prefer to say advocacy.  It’s an interesting phenomenon.  People like to trash the idea of special interests groups, but without them, we would have a very un-balanced society.  I was reading a WSJ article this past Wednesday, that brought it home for me.

In Utah they’re cracking down on a smog problem.  Smog in Utah?  Yup.  Given the vast increase in population in the Wasatch Front (Salt Lake City), when cold air slides in during the winter, inversion layers get created and various pollutants (VOC, NOX, particulate matter) are trapped and quickly transform into smog.  Needless to say dozens of new regulations are being passed and industry and small business are paying the price.

So, what does this have to do with advocacy?  Some of these regulations would never have been passed if there were not advocates for health.  Case in point, Brian Monech, president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment stated to the Wall Street Journal, that smog constitutes a health emergency that claims up to 1,400 lives a year to pulmonary and other illnesses.  He feels that the Utah regulations don’t go far enough as do many other health and social advocates.  And of course there’s the auto problem.  Many experts in Utah (and the other 49 states) feel strongly that “mobile sources” are a major contributor to smog (this is true in Kansas City and Dallas/Fort Worth).  Yet, anytime states/metro areas attempt to modify air emissions for vehicles, the biggest advocacy group of them all (voters) voice their concern and nothing happens to cars.  Thus, it’s small business who bears the brunt of the regulations.

And that leads me to advocacy which helped the printers in Utah.

Several years ago, when all of these smog rule discussions were starting, the industry was targeted as a major polluter.  A serious polluter.  Fortunately, one of the industry’s leaders, Randy Sparrow grew concerned and through his aggressive leadership and with assistance from the PIA regulatory team led by Gary Jones, they were able to provide factual and realistic data to the state’s regulatory community.  What could have been extremely harmful regulations to Utah’s printing industry, based on erroneous data, was re-shaped to be less harmful to the industry – and still accomplish the goals of the state.  That’s what advocacy is about.

In today’s world of special interests, advocacy plays an important role.  Fortunately for the printers in Utah, they had Randy Sparrow and the Printing Industries of America team working on their behalf.  Otherwise, it would have been the interests of the health community and motor vehicle drivers which would have been the only voices heard.  There’s an adage I heard several years ago while I was in Austin (Texas’ state capitol) which says it all  – “If you are not at the table, you will be on the table.”

So, next time you get a letter from Bob Murphy (PrintPAC chairman), or you’re wondering why should you be interested in what goes on in Jeff City , or Topeka, or Oklahoma City , or Austin, just remember where you want to be when our government gets hungry.

Watching and Waiting

Posted on by

Needless to say the next 100 days prior to our national election are going to be interesting.  I am not looking forward to the nasty campaigning and rhetoric, which will spew half-truths and continue to reinforce the ideologies of the parties’ stalwarts.  Yet, the upcoming election will effect how our country deals with health care.  On one side of the equation, progressives feel that the AHCA (Obamacare if you wish) will solve many problems with the care of those who are not insured, or have medical issues.  On the other side, we have a cacophony of voices concerned about government mandates and how are we going to pay for this.

I am worried about who’s going to pay for it.

I was speaking to one of our members recently.  He was truly concerned about how his company will be able to pay for the mandates required by AHCA.  He does not pay for dependent coverage and pays for 70% of the employee’s coverage – which is very typical of many small businesses in the industry.  “The mandates will take us from being a profitable firm to an unprofitable one immediately,” he stated.  The printing industry which tends to have margins similar to many manufacturers is just one of many which will be affected.  Does this mean firms will go out of business – some may – but as a whole most will survive, but it may be because they will prefer to pay the “penalties” for not providing insurance coverage and let their employees buy coverage from the exchanges.  It will be an alternative for survival for many businesses with more than 50 employees.

The result will be individuals becoming acutely aware of the cost of health care.  Yes, they will be provided coverage which in the past may have been missing (older children, no limits on health coverage, no pre-existing conditions, etc.), but now it will be their household budget absorbing the continuously increasing costs of health care.

In the long-term this may be a shift of responsibility many of us have argued for (get employer’s out of health care), but the immediate reality in 2014 and 2015 will be an eye-opener for many.  And maybe at that time, we can have a rational discussion of what it will take to rein in health care in the United States.

Affordable Health Care?

Posted on by

I’d like to observe that there are as many folks wanting to kiss Chief Justice Roberts as there are folks wanting to stick a sharp pointy object in him.  Regardless, we now have to deal with the aftermath of the decision.

If you are hoping for November to take care of the problem, it ain’t going to happen.  Whether we have a new president, same president, new congress, old congress, there is a good possibility that most of us are not going to like the end game.  The present ACA does nothing to control costs.  It’s about expanding coverage.  Any changes which may occur with a different administration/congress may still not address the cost, or health care concerns of many. Thus, we will continue to fight over the issues of who deserves health care and who’s going to pay for it until the system is so out of whack that we’ll end up with a single payer system.  Did I say that out loud?

No Print Day Does Not Compute

Posted on by

Toshiba America Business Solutions recently announced the creation of National No-Print Day (NNPD), to be held on October 23, 2012.  For a company who is in the business of producing electronics and print devices, this seemed to be 1.) a twisted way to get PR or 2.) a marketing department and management who are extremely out of touch with reality.

The trouble with this missive is that it sends the wrong message.  No, there’s nothing wrong with sustainability and recycling, and no, there’s nothing wrong with minimizing waste.  What Toshiba got wrong is that trees are being destroyed to create paper. Trees are re-planted at a faster rate than they are consumed.  Why would a farmer (paper industry) want to destroy their seed corn?  Trees are a crop and people need to understand that there is more forest land in North America today than there was 40 years ago, and that over 60% of paper is recycled.  Can producers of electronic devices come close to those types of numbers?  I didn’t think so.

Maybe we need to consider a No Electronics Day, or maybe a No Toshiba Decade!

Say Goodnight Al

Posted on by

This week EPA administrator for Region 6, Al Armendariz, resigned.  For many in the regulated community, seeing Mr. Armendariz leave is good news. Although that is not the opinion of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in Texas, who saw Armendariz as a savior.  “He brought a breath of fresh air — literally and figuratively — to Texas in his vigorous enforcement of the federal Clean Air Act,” was a comment made by Ken Kramer, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Needless to say, those of us on the other side of the fence saw an individual who was extremely aggressive in attempting to interpret regulations which often did not have solid science behind them and often created solutions which were detrimental to the state’s economy and everyone involved with regulations – including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Armendariz grew up in El Paso in neighborhoods which were environmentally unprotected; thus his passion for the environment.  And if you’ve seen those neighborhoods (or parts of West Dallas), you can understand his passion.  Yet, as an appointed official he should have been finding ways to use that passion to make meaningful changes.  Issuing statements such as, “Find people who are not complying with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and make examples of them,” or making an analogy to how Romans once conquered villages, “They’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them,” is not a way to build bridges.

Personally, I don’t want to see an individual who is in the back pocket of the regulated community.  That is not good for us, or our children.  I hope that Mr. Armendariz’s replacement will have the same passion for the environment, but be willing to find ways to have the regulated community participate in improving the environment.  Crucifixion is not an option.

The Supremes

Posted on by

Well the first round is over regarding the Affordable Health Care Act.  To the surprise of many (including the author), there is now a possibility that the whole Act could be overturned.  And I might have to agree with some of the justices on this one.  There are so many moving parts to the Act that hang off of each other that by deleting mandated health insurance the Act doesn’t create the necessary funding.  Yet, I’m a bit concerned about the legal precedence that action would create, which could really open a can of worms for many other existing and future laws/regulations.

Personally, I didn’t have a problem with mandated insurance – that’s the only way we can make a “capitalistic” health system work.  It’s similar to the German and Canadian model.  The issue I had with the Affordable Health Care Act is the first word – affordable.  The public was being told (implied) that health care costs would go down with this law.  That’s just crazy talk.  I don’t think that a universal health care plan is a bad idea, but I don’t think AHCA was the right approach.

Well, that might all be moot in a few months.  I just can’t wait!

The Realities of AHCA

Posted on by

AHCA, a.k.a. Obamacare is front in center with the Republican presidential candidates.  ”I will repeal Obamacare.  I’ll grant a waiver on Day One to get that started,” says Romney. Governor Perry says, “I will use an executive order to get rid of as much of Obamacare as I can on Day One.”  And not to be outdone,  candidate Cain, states, “Obamacare must be replaced because it is a disaster.”  So, what’s really going to happen? Continue reading →

The Moth Returns

Posted on by

I just can’t resist returning to health care — or The Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA/Obamacare) as that wonderful piece of legislation is known.  It’s such an oxymoron, I can’t resist.

I had my interest piqued the other day by a notice I received on AHCA — it was a notification from the Department of Health and Human Services on the development of standards for the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (45 CFR Parts 155 and 157 for you geeky types).  These are the state run exchanges which “will provide competitive marketplaces for individuals and small employers to directly compare available private health insurance options on the basis of price, quality, and other factors.”

I don’t know what I was thinking (or was I?), but I started reading the 35 pages of details in the Federal Register — and rapidly determined that the Exchanges (as they are known) are going to make Homeland Security seem like a micro agency.  The scope of detail which will be monitored and regulated by the Exchanges is very broad and will necessitate a very large bureaucracy.  The exchanges will be responsible to make sure that individuals have valid social security numbers; that they qualify for appropriate discounts (which means they’ll have to interface with the IRS and/or employers);  coordinate with Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP to ensure that the individuals don’t qualify for those plans — and these rules didn’t even mention how the Exchanges are going to work with insurance carriers to make sure that the coverage is “affordable.”

I’m amazed at how our government has determined that the “initial” cost of the exchanges will be expensive, but long term costs will be reduced because of the “use of efficient systems.”  Hmm.  Government and efficient systems — another oxymoron.  In my opinion, this solution is not going to be affordable — in the short-run or long-run.  But it sounds like a pretty creative way to reduce unemployment.

Texas Vs. EPA – Round 2

Posted on by

As I noted in my previous blog, the EPA took control of permitting of major sources from the State of Texas.  If one carefully reads the Dallas Morning News article on December 24th’s front page, you’ll note that the fight is over carbon dioxide emissions – which Texas and a variety of other states have sued EPA’s right regulate.  But it was only Texas which had the cojones (a great Mex-Tex phrase) to refuse setting up the permitting program.  The state’s regulators (TCEQ) don’t agree with the science which the EPA is using (and this is not the first time); so, it’s not just a bunch of oil guys in an uproar.  The end result of this will be more paperwork and hoops to jump through, with no real results.  This takes me to my next point.

Round 1, which Texas lost, was the fight over the process Texas used to allow quick permitting – which by the way still takes months and thousands of dollars of consulting and air modeling.  The end result of that fight will be the EPA making the process more “transparent,” which in my mind means “politically correct,” not necessarily ending up in cleaner air.

Just as an aside comment – one of full disclosure.  Much of what I write about in this area is not created from a vacuum.  I have the privilege to co-chair a committee which represents the interests of small businesses and local governments to the TCEQ.  Consequently, over the years I had the opportunity to meet with many directors and staff members of the TCEQ, as well as their scientists.  Thus, I have a good understanding of the dilemma which the agency finds itself in trying to serve the people of Texas in providing a safe environment without hamstringing the ability of business to provide livelihood for the state’s citizens.

Regulations – Making Them Work

Posted on by

Just finished meeting with our Clean Air Committee to discuss the upcoming regulations which impact our industry in Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston next year.  The industry if facing some significant changes next year and I’m always amazed how much willingness there is for the industry to try to do the right thing.  The challenge is trying to get the regulators to understand that documentation for documentation’s sake is not the solution.

Our biggest issue is not the requirements to use chemistry that helps reduce ozone — which has a dramatic impact on a company’s productivity/profitability.  It’s the regulatory hoops which must be jumped so the regulating community can “document” that the “rules” were followed.   It’s one of the major frustrations between the regulated community and the regulators.  If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.  Yet, if one makes the rules so onerous — businesses are less willing to comply.  It’s a fine balancing act.  It’s also an argument at the heart of the recent litigation between Texas and the EPA.  Ah, such a tangled weave.