Cleveland Sports Forum

Many doctors have stopped taking worker comp claims for the same reason as the medicare problem. For about 3 years I had no insurance, thankfully nothing major came up. Now because of income level, I qualify for the VA to take care of everything but a co-pay on my meds.

Doctors aren't the only people the left want to bankrupt.

California Truckers Take EPA to Court Over Emissions Rules

By Claudia Cowan

For the first time, the federal government is regulating big-rigs, RV's, and tractor-trailers in much the same way it's held car makers to rigorous fuel efficiency standards for decades. But a group of California truckers contends the regulations will drive them right out of business -- and has filed suit to block them.

The Environmental Protection Agency is ordering large trucks and buses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 percent and overhaul engine design starting with models built in 2014. Most operators will need to spend thousands upgrading their rigs or buying new vehicles, with prices starting at $50,000 and going up from there, depending on the model.

Even so, the regulations have the support of the large and powerful American Trucking Association.

"We have never been inclined to be supportive of federal involvement and regulations in our industry," said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the ATA. "But our experience in this case is one where we have to admit that the federal government did a really fine job of working collaboratively with all partners in this, to come up with what we think is a reasonable and fair rule."

Smaller owner-operators like Sacramento trucker Robert McClernon argue the opposite.

"With the cost of the new equipment that they're requiring, and the oversight of the government in every part of my business, I can't afford to be in business," he claimed.

McClernon is among a group of California trucking outfits challenging the Obama administration in federal court. The lawsuit claims the EPA failed to properly submit the regulations to a blue ribbon panel called the Science Advisory Board, as is required. The SAB is a group of top scientists who've been empowered by federal law to review new regulations that the EPA proposes to issue under the Clean Air Act.

"The government has to comply with the law just like the rest of us do, and when the government's rule making creates these kinds of economic dislocations for small business, we're going to make sure we hold EPA's feet to the fire," said McClernon's lawyer, Ted Hadzi-Antich with the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The EPA argues it posted all relevant information on its website, providing access for scientific and peer review. But critics say that's not good enough, and contend the new greenhouse gas rules are less about clean air, and more about the big trucking fleets pushing smaller operators out of the way.

"This is using the government as a bully pulpit to put me out of business so they can take over and get more market share," says McClernon.

The ATA's Bill Graves denies that's the case, and argues the new regulations will lead to a major goal for the transportation industry -- lower fuel costs.

"The rule is about being more fuel efficient. Over the long haul, this has got to be positive for anybody in the trucking industry," he says.

A court may decide whether that's true, and this legal fight is just beginning to unfold. Depending on the outcome, consumers could be hit hardest -- through higher prices for goods delivered by fewer trucks.

Rising food prices is one of the many things I warned people about a few years ago if Obama were to be elected. Risen they have, big time. But if the prices haven't hurt us enough already just wait till they're done jacking with the trucking industry, which is simply the life line for our country.

HB:
Here is a reply from my niece's husband, an employee of Progressive:

"I do not agree with Peter Lewis' politics but he is an amazing man. Everyone has good things and bad things about themselves - ideas, actions, mistakes, etc. Peter Lewis built a mom & pop shop that he inherited from his dad and built it into a fortune 500 company, that is still headquartered in Cleveland, that employees 20,000+ Americans. He donates millions of dollars to the arts and education besides his politics. He is a billionaire, and all billionaires have their excesses - I believe we all would if we are in the same position - mostly we are jealous of those individuals.

Like I told my friends who have taken me to task about the same thing - If you boycott the company, the end game of that strategy puts out of business the company - which puts out 20,000+ employees out of work - Peter Lewis will still be a billionaire because he is diversified."

Hey, I'm a capitalist pig. God bless him for making his fortune. And this is America, he can use his money to support any cause he wants. But as I've told you before when we discussed such things, he's just not going to do it on my dime.

eocmcdoc wrote:Many doctors have stopped taking worker comp claims for the same reason as the medicare problem. For about 3 years I had no insurance, thankfully nothing major came up. Now because of income level, I qualify for the VA to take care of everything but a co-pay on my meds.

McDoc, I am super happy to know you have the VA coverage.

There are super good people at the VA, but in my current work I think it's easy to fall through the cracks of diligence from everyone in the VA medical team.

I suggest you charge a kid of yours to monitor what the VA is doing for you should you hopefully not need VA assistance down the road.

I'll offer no other detail than that I know of someone who had kidney problems in need of dialysis that apparently the VA missed or chose not to act upon.

Most folks in VA medical facilities are good and fine people.

Nothing wrong with a look over the shoulder, though.

What company does have good commercials nowadays?

Not sure if they air nationally, but the Jack In The Box commercials are usually pretty sharp and entertaining.

(hehe....did he just say "jack in the box?")

Thanks TFISC! Fortunately so far "my team" has really been over the top on tests & breaking down what everything means. My niece was able to get hired into the New Philadelphia outpatient clinic as veterans rep. She feels like she has the greatest job in the world helping vets. God bless her & the many others.

Flo needs to hit the gym for some toning and weight loss.

I have high thresholds of expectment (sp?) for those flirting with public persona and popularity.


Get in shape, and keep in shape.

Dammit.

I <3 Flo!

Senators warn new EPA rules would raise gas prices

By Judson Berger

Published January 13, 2012

Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.

The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.

Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."

They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.

This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.

"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.

The lawmakers on the letter were: Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; and Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

The EPA did not comment on the senators' complaints.

Asked Friday for a response to the concerns, the EPA said: "EPA is still in the process of developing the proposal."

An EPA official said publicly in November that the agency was developing the so-called "Tier 3" standards proposal during a House subcommittee hearing.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told lawmakers that the proposal would help the country meet its "clean air goals."

"Motor vehicles and their fuel are an important source of compounds that form air pollution," she said.

Oge said reducing sulfur in gasoline would make emission control technology more effective, and "the end result would be cleaner air."

If the EPA formally issues the proposal, it would probably take more than a year for the agency to review public comments and finalize any plan.

A Senate Republican aide said the authority to tighten the sulfur standards comes from the Clean Air Act but noted that EPA has the discretion to either impose the standards or not.

The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson

The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck.

"They're extraordinarily expensive relative to the last round of sulfur reductions," the aide told FoxNews.com.

I think I read recently that the price of gas when Obama took office was $1.79 a gallon.

I guess doubling the price wasn't enough.

Yeah, 3 years ago I was just a fear monger.

Forget about class warfare and taking money from the rich. I think all the people who voted for Obama should have to pay part of my gas and utility bills. And everybody else who wasn't dumb enough to be duped by that pinko.

Read somewhere the US is a net EXPORTER of gasoline. Who are we exporting to? Guess we make more than we can use.

seagull wrote:Read somewhere the US is a net EXPORTER of gasoline. Who are we exporting to? Guess we make more than we can use.

http://news.yahoo.com/first-gas-other-f ... 39553.html