In article , Bob-tx wrote:

I bet selling incandesants is in your declining line of work. I use
near 100 cfl at several locations and cut my overall bill 30-50%
using
them, they last, HD has a 7 yr warranty, I will only buy
incandesants-
halogen for where I must.

The incandesant lightbulb is actualy an electric heater, outputting
only 3-6% of energy consumed as light you see, anybody relying on AC
in summer doesnt need a bigger bill from incandesants, do they.
Incandesants should be heavily taxed, CFls should be subsidised from
the tax.

This reminds me of my film camera store, still pushing film a few
years ago, he closed his business recently.
_________________________________________________ ___

That's great that you cut your energy cost, and that you wanted to use
CFL bulbs. If you want to use them, you should be allowed to do so.

I am not concerned about the energy cost of the few bulbs in our house
and I don't want to use CFL's. If I don't want to use them, I
should be allowed to use incandesents.

I propose that the lightbulb types to be banned be taxed appropriately
instead.

Meanwhile, the soon-upcoming USA incandescent ban (2012/2014 stuff)
appears to me to have a set of loopholes wide enough to route the
Mississippi River through - including some options involving *decrease*
of energy efficiency.

http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html

Get the government out of our everyday lives and decisions, like
what light bulb to use, and what health care I want.

Even if healthcare cost to citizens of propserous industrialized
democracies is less in those other than USA than this is in USA?

USA has government spending for healthcare, as percentage of GDP,
about the same as that of Canada,

while USA citizens on average pay about as much privately as they do
through taxes and Federal gubmint borrowing (paid by taxpayers plus
interest until national debt is paid down to zero) for hospitals,
doctors/practioners, and prescriptions.

A goodly 40 fair-chance 45 million American citizens have no health
insurance or "healthcare coverage" by anyone/anything, and this does not
include illegal aliens. A much greater number deal with deductibles,
copays, and usually some out-of-pocket-from-take-home-pay for health
insurance premiums (sometimes 100%).

Why should this be the case with American gubmint spending for
healthcare coverage be as high in percentage of GDP as that in
more-socialist countries?

- Don Klipstein )