Day 15 - The Senate Agenda Starts to Emerge

Today the Senate saw the first presentation showing where Leadership wants to take us. Unfortunately for what’s left of Nevada’s middle class, it looks like you’re going to have to pay for it.

The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee considered a bill that will require health insurers to pay for behavioral health services provided by way of telephone and video conferencing at the same rate as an in-person appointment. While I’m all for equal pay for equal work, that’s going to be expensive.

Despite the added cost to the insured, the fact that the quality of the services provided might not meet the same standard seemed to bother only a few people. Senator and Physician, Dr. Joe Hardy pointed out that, as a medical provider himself, he is aware of the huge difference between services delivered in person, versus through video, and especially through a phone call. He suggested paying the same for a phone call as an in-person appointment would give a perverse incentive to those trying to run a patient-mill rather than providing adequate service. (Not that it ever happens, right?) None of us are opposed to telehealth, especially in today’s hypervigilant society, and none are opposed to paying doctors for their services. But what was apparent by the end of the hearing was that this push for expanded mental health coverage was not really well thought through.

Then, in Judiciary, we heard a bill that would limit Home Owner’s Associations (HOAs) in their ability to fine people for violations of their rules. The limit would be an utterly excessive $1,000 for any violation deemed by the volunteer board to be a risk to public safety. (This creates a target where no target existed before.) Though local code enforcement and police are already in place to deal with these issues, and though the law already limits these fines to be in line with the severity of the violation, this bill would further “limit” an HOA’s ability to load on violations. That’s probably a good thing on its face. Then the bill would expand who could be fined to include “invitees” - or guests of the landlord or tenant - which is presumably to catch the Air-B&B users. In any event, though there are some questionable parts of the bill, it’s probably ok, though I balk at giving these local neighborhood volunteers the ability to fine their neighbors so much. But it shows our leadership’s penchant for further “improvements” to their ability to restrain Nevadans in the use of their property.

Then, in Growth and Infrastructure, we saw the beginning of the far-left’s hold on Nevada politics. I’m as pro-clean-energy as anybody in the Republican Caucus. But what was outlined today as the blueprint for the Democrat’s plan for the future is nothing less than terrifying to those that would have to pay for it.

The presentation on the Governor’s “State Climate Strategy” presented a determination to eliminate all forms of non-renewable energy in the relatively near future. Though not tomorrow, their plan would be to ban the use of natural gas in new homes constructed, elimination of fossil fuels through pushing electric vehicles, and to do this with the intent of getting to a net-zero emissions standard by 2050. (Net-zero emissions simply means that we remove the same amount of carbon from the air as we put in. This means we’d essentially have to plant a small forest for every cow in Nevada, let alone all of the people, or kick them all out. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but that’s what they are getting at.) They somehow estimated it would cost us $4 Billion (over 30 years) if we didn’t do anything, but they couldn’t estimate the actual cost to Nevadans to do what they were proposing. In fact, they admitted they never did a cost-benefit analysis to see what it would cost to save the $4 Billion and all of the presupposed health and social costs of the burning of natural gas in homes.. Neither did they mention what the out-of-pocket cost would be to push the entire costs of such “improvements” onto the few in Nevada who would have to pay for it all since they are going to “protect” the poor (and exempted) from having to pay for any of it. And that doesn’t include the cost of losing our only supplier of natural gas who would necessarily pull out of Nevada as such a plan will quickly bankrupt them if they don’t. This is certainly NOT a job-creation plan.

But what was even more alarming was how quick the chairs of the committees shut down questions that poked holes in their proverbial heart-shaped balloons. In one committee, the chair squashed one caller who in his opposition to the bill went over his two minutes, only to make us all wait five minutes for a caller she wanted to hear from to get on the phone. And in another committee, my questions were silenced as I got to one that might expose the soft underbelly of their rosy picture. Yes, this session is about controlling the messaging by controlling the means of delivering the messages. It’s easy to say “there was no opposition” when it wasn’t allowed to be heard.

As will be a refrain I return to often: the government we elect is the government we deserve. (Thomas Jefferson)

I hope we can afford this one.