After Health, Obama Allies Zero in on Climate

[muldoon]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b24442bc9647cf6ceeb5e334a6908618.d01&show_article=1

After Health, Obama Allies Zero in on Climate

After a hard-fought victory on health care reform, President Barack Obama's allies in Congress are setting their sights on climate change -- but some on both sides are already crying foul.

Environmentalists hope Obama will seize on new political momentum to push forward climate legislation, though some observers question whether he would seek another divisive vote as November congressional elections approach.

Senator John Kerry, who has spearheaded climate legislation, said that White House officials can now "pour their energy and attention" into the issue after Sunday's down-to-the-wire vote on expanding health care coverage.

"In the wake of health care's passage, we have a strong case to make that this can be the next breakthrough legislative fight," the Massachusetts Democrat argued.

"Climate legislation is the single best opportunity we have to create jobs, reduce pollution and stop sending billions overseas for foreign oil from countries that would do us harm," Kerry said.

"If we sell those arguments we've got a winning issue on jobs, on security and on public health. This can happen."

The House of Representatives in June approved a bill that would start the country's first nationwide "cap-and-trade" system that restricts carbon emissions blamed for global warming and allows trading in credits.

The Senate has yet to offer companion legislation, despite pressure on the United States to finalize an action plan before December's climate summit in Copenhagen.

Unlike health care, which split on sharply partisan lines, Kerry voiced confidence in winning Republican support. He is working on climate legislation with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a vociferous foe of Obama's health care plan.

But the odd-couple alliance, which also includes independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, has raised concern among some green groups.

Some greens were already disappointed with the House bill, which would curb emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels -- much less than promises by the European Union and Japan which use a 1990 baseline.

Kerry and Graham have sought to woo support by meeting with leaders of businesses that have concerns about the legislation including oil companies.

The legislation is likely to back nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling, anathema to some environmentalists, and may reduce the reliance on a cap-and-trade system.

"If the senators feel it's their job to move from what was one of the biggest corporate giveaways in American history to make something that's even more friendly to polluting industry, that would be a huge mistake," said Nick Berning, director of public advocacy at Friends of the Earth.

Some Republicans have sought to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of the right to regulate carbon dioxide as part of a compromise -- a step Berning said would be a "huge step backwards."

But Eric Haxthausen, director of US climate policy at The Nature Conservancy, said it only advanced the cause of climate legislation for environmentalists and industry to work together.

"It's tempting to say that you're watering this down. But what's important is the fact that you can get an engagement from a sector that hasn't been engaged in the process," he said.

Despite Graham's support, most Republicans remain opposed to action on climate change, arguing that it will harm an already fragile economy.

Republican Senator Scott Brown, who won a special election in January in Massachusetts, is critical of climate legislation. Representative Mark Kirk of Illinois, one of only eight Republicans to vote for the bill in June, has changed course as he seeks a Senate seat.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said it would be "enormously complicated" to draft a climate and energy bill that satisfies all sides.

"There may or may not be time for another initiative" after health care, Lieberman said. "There's not a lot of time between now and when legislators have to get serious about elections."

[NM_Shooter]

Huh.  And here I thought immigration was next, in order to replace all the independent voters the "health care" bill pissed off.

Maybe we should tax human respiration.

-f-

[fishing_guy]

 

[ScottA]

Watch closely as the last breaths of the repubilc are smothered out of the dying American dream. It's just a conspiricy theory they keep saying. Just watch. It's going to happen before your very eyes.

[peternap]

 

[pagan]

Should we truly expect anything else from our so called leaders? Of course they're not going to address illegal immigration. If they did anything it'd be to grant amnesty to the millions of illegals currently living here.

[peternap]

Watch closely as the last breaths of the repubilc are smothered out of the dying American dream. It's just a conspiricy theory they keep saying. Just watch. It's going to happen before your very eyes.

Scott, I do think a lot of things are conspiracy theory. I worked for the Government long enough to know that a lot of the supposed outrages just couldn't be kept quiet. Further, most Government employees just aren't creative enough to cover up a dead mouse.

This is real though. It's law now and it's happening. Exactly what the ramifications are can be twisted all different ways. Even some members of this board are in favor of it and it does make financial sense in a welfareish way.

This NOT theory.

[pagan]

As the last of the good paying jobs that still offer medical benefits are shipped overseas to be replaced by low paying non-benefited jobs more people will qualify for medical coverage under this law. Lower paying jobs means less tax revenue for Uncle Sam. Where's the money to fund this program going to come from? The democrats expand social welfare programs while republicans cut taxes for the wealthiest and they're all telling us everything will be just fine.

Small companies, who will now be forced to offer medical benefits, may very well find a reason to fire uninsured employees and only hire people who are insured through a spouse.

[Pox Eclipse]

Small companies, who will now be forced to offer medical benefits, may very well find a reason to fire uninsured employees and only hire people who are insured through a spouse.

Won't the free market take care of that nicely?  Companies that reject competent employees because they lack existing insurance will end up with everybody elses rejects, and their product will be less profitable.

[peternap]

Small companies, who will now be forced to offer medical benefits, may very well find a reason to fire uninsured employees and only hire people who are insured through a spouse.

Won't the free market take care of that nicely?  Companies that reject competent employees because they lack existing insurance will end up with everybody elses rejects, and their product will be less profitable.

Yeah boy!
That's what made America great. Hard work, Good ideas and lots of Government regulation.

[pagan]

Actually it appears the free market was taking care of this. People who choose to live in unhealthy manners are justifiably punished for their lifestyle choices by being rejected coverage by insurance companies, or they must pay hefty premiums. Heavy drinkers, smokers, couch potatoes, the obese, as well as mountain climbers, extreme sports enthusiasts all pay higher premiums, and that's if they can find a company to insure them. People with chronic and expensive illness are rejected by insurance companies because they represent a losing financial proposition for the company. Essentially they'll take out far more money than they'll ever put in, and thus, they're not insured. This is the free market at work.

[ScottA]

Wiat till they mandate shots, vitamins, what kind of food you're allowed to eat, where you can live ect. etc. etc. It's even concevable you could be denied coverage or charged higher rates based on DNA tests. If your DNA says you're more likely to have heart troble or some such. Pretty much anything could be considered a heath risk if looked at from the right angle. Now that we are forced to buy the insuance they can set all kinds of crazy standards and get away with it because they don't need to worry about losing business.

[MountainDon]

What about someone who does eat healthy, is not overweight, never smoked, exercises, has great blood pressure, cholesterol levels and everything else on the blood work is wonderful. The insurance company is paid faithfully for years by the plan she's on through her husband's big corporation job. Then she has a breast cancer show up, it's caught early enough to be treated successfully. Everything is fine for 11 years. Then when she finds it necessary to purchase her own insurance because she is no longer married to the guy with insurance, and she is self employed, she is turned down by every insurance company she contacts.

This is fair?

[pagan]

Don,

Of course that's not fair, I was simply pointing out how insurance companies look at potential customers in the so called free market. That woman would be denied coverage based on the fact that she's not economically viable to them. This is purely business to them and the potential exists that her cancer will return and they'll foot the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in treatments for her with the very real chance she'll die and even if she survives they'll never be able to collect enough from her premiums to repay what they've spent on her. This is the free market and if an insurance company sees no economic benefit in covering someone, that person will not be insured. These companies don't exist because they necessarily care about people or even want them to have the best care money can provide. They exist to make money for their shareholders. Insurance companies calculate the odds on people getting sick or injured, and how much that will cost them and then base the decisions regarding premiums and whether or not to cover someone based on these odds.

I've never seen fairness in the free market.

[ScottA]

That's not how insurance is suposed to work. The odds should be based across many people not one individual. Sure they'll lose money on the people who get sick but they'll make money on the people who don't. If the insuance is priced right they'll still make a profit at the end of the day even if they cover some sick people. They don't price fire insuance based on every house burning down sooner or later. Most never burn down. It's the same priciple.

[pagan]

How things are supposed to work and how they're put into practice in the real world seldom match. Insurance company CEOs are constantly under pressure from Wall Street bankers and shareholders to produce perpetually rising dividends. How do you do that? Simple, actually, just get rid of insured people who cost your company money. How many people have you heard about who had their insurance premiums nearly double or had their insurance dropped after their claims were paid?

[Woodsrule]

I am as mindful of the human element as anyone. My brother became a paraplegic after a tree fell on him. A month prior, he was contemplating cancelling his health insurance because it was expensive. He didn't out of concern for his children's health needs. He simply factored in the cost in relation to the risk. He put his children's future ahead of financial concerns. You know, I recently heard someone say "why should I lose my house if I get cancer?" I thought "Why should my parents lose their house because they can't pay confiscatory takes?"
I do not believe that anyone has the right to mandate any of us to buy a specific product. You may say that mandatory car insurance is one such item, but I don't have to drive and there is no penalty attached if I ride my bicycle to work. Is anyone out there questioning the motive of the car insurers? Do they have to "care" about us? Does Walmart, Target, Dell, McDonalds, et. al. have to "care" about us? I say not. They simply provide a product which we could previously either agree to buy or agree to shun if the product is not what we want.
Getting back to the human element. My brother lost a lot, but our family pulled through and took care of him. That is a family's duty, not the government's. My brother now runs his own company (excavating business) and pays more than his fair share of taxes. Ask him if he believes in Mandatory insurance with the attendant penalties attached if you choose not to participate. He will tell you in no certain terms what he thinks. In the real world, it is not anyone's duty to care about you or I - that is your family's duty. I don't mean to sound spiteful, but as this is a truth as I see it. Don, I empathize with the person you cited and if I knew her personally, would help her any way I could, but like my brother's situation, I'm sure everything will come out find in the end. Regards, Tony

[peternap]

I am as mindful of the human element as anyone. My brother became a paraplegic after a tree fell on him. A month prior, he was contemplating cancelling his health insurance because it was expensive. He didn't out of concern for his children's health needs. He simply factored in the cost in relation to the risk. He put his children's future ahead of financial concerns. You know, I recently heard someone say "why should I lose my house if I get cancer?" I thought "Why should my parents lose their house because they can't pay confiscatory takes?"
I do not believe that anyone has the right to mandate any of us to buy a specific product. You may say that mandatory car insurance is one such item, but I don't have to drive and there is no penalty attached if I ride my bicycle to work. Is anyone out there questioning the motive of the car insurers? Do they have to "care" about us? Does Walmart, Target, Dell, McDonalds, et. al. have to "care" about us? I say not. They simply provide a product which we could previously either agree to buy or agree to shun if the product is not what we want.
Getting back to the human element. My brother lost a lot, but our family pulled through and took care of him. That is a family's duty, not the government's. My brother now runs his own company (excavating business) and pays more than his fair share of taxes. Ask him if he believes in Mandatory insurance with the attendant penalties attached if you choose not to participate. He will tell you in no certain terms what he thinks. In the real world, it is not anyone's duty to care about you or I - that is your family's duty. I don't mean to sound spiteful, but as this is a truth as I see it. Don, I empathize with the person you cited and if I knew her personally, would help her any way I could, but like my brother's situation, I'm sure everything will come out find in the end. Regards, Tony

I happen to agree with you completely.
The case Don cited isn'y uncommon and I do feel for those people. It was their choice to gear their life around the insurance though.

In all my life, I've never filed an insurance claim of any kind. Homeowners, auto or health.
I also haven't had a ticket since 1969 or so or an accident. The few things that were insurable to the house, I fixed without reporting.

That should make me a pretty good risk...but the damn rates keep going up and I keep the insurance for the family.

I don't ask for anything I haven't earned from the Government or anyone else and my only request to them is stay out of my life.