Cap and Trade

If Tim Johnson votes for this, then I'm ready to support an opponent who will oppose this kind of nonsense.

Here are some interesting comments made last year by Michael Bond, a professor in the Finance Dept at Cleveland State University and Willinam Peirce, a prefessor emeriti in Economics Dept. at Case Western Reserve University on the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. made by a female poster push for protection of these jobs to a Michigan blog which seem appropriate here.

"The number of Americans employed in manufacturing is now around 14 million, the same number as in 1950. She fails to point out that the economy created 95 million net new jobs since 1950. Between 1995 and 2005, there were 16 million new jobs created. Simple math tells us the decline in manufacturing employment in that period occurred along with 19 million new jobs in non-manufacturing work. Presumably, this is a matter of concern because manufacturing jobs are "better" than those in the non-manufacturing sectors of the economy (this includes services, agriculture, trade, utilities, construction, mining and government)."

"A few Web site clicks shows average hourly earnings in manufacturing of $17.35 today. This contrasts with mining ($21.43), construction ($21.33), utilities ($28.70), wholesale trade ($19.91) and services ($17.42). Retail trade and leisure and hospitality pay less ($12.91 and $10.70). We are then told we need to protect these jobs through an "industrial policy." We can only guess what she has in mind, but presumably it will involve something like President Bush's misguided steel tariffs in 2002. For every worker in steel protected by these import taxes, there were 50 workers employed in industries that buy steel (think GM, Ford, Chrysler, Whirlpool, Maytag, General Electric, General Dynamics, John Deere, Xerox, TRW and many others). Economic simulations of the impact of these tariffs show that they destroyed more jobs among steel buyers than they saved in the steel industry. Industrial policy is no friend of manufacturing employment."

Called Johnson's office. He's voting against it.

:-)

A good bill, not perfect, but a good start.  I think the CBO estimates the economic impact at $175 a household annually by 2020.

As a Democrat I am delighted that Timmy voted against this bill.  There goes the environmental vote in the twin cities.  Can he get re-elected on conservative voters alone?  A couple more votes like this and he'll find out.

FINALLY the Congress takes a step to combat climate change and Johnson votes against it.  Political gold!

I'll bet the RED CHINESE are celebrating tonight......wow, we get to pollute all we want and we got the american's hands  tied! Keep a watch on the trade balance....whew!!!

Two questions pop to mind:

1. What is the cost of doing nothing?
2. Are Republicans always on the wrong side of history, or just most of the time?

Sigh.

"Gay rights are the new civil rights, and we see how well the Republicans are handling that one."

When is National Coming Out Day for being black?

... a President who sat for decades in the church of a antisemitic racist ...

Not to be confused with Sarah Palin, who likes to quote anti-Semites in speeches given before the Republican National Committee. And happily sat through a sermon at her church from a guy that described "terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."

Well, regardless of whether Lincoln would be a Republican or a Democrat today, it is true that the GOP seems to be clinging to positions that are going to be negatively interpreted by future historians.  Climate change is, by far, one of the most important issues of our time, and the GOP is steadfastly against doing anything to combat it.  In fact, many still don't believe it is even happening.

Gay rights is another one.  It is inevitable that every American, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be allowed equal rights.  Yet the GOP continues to advocate limiting the rights of Americans based on their sexuality.

I won't even bother to get into the defense of torture, or the illegal invasion of Iraq.

If the GOP wants a comeback they can start by acknowledging that climate change is real and we need to do something about it, and that every American deserves equal rights, regardless of their sexuality.  Until that day comes the best they can do is to fall back on Lincoln and historical illiteracy about the Civil Rights Movement.  Pretty sad.

Anon- I am not sure that would have the outcome you expect. Some folks don't have the income to buy new energy efficient appliances and heating equipment to make that fair.

I didn't think so Pattsi and the program should; many lower income people haven't had the income to update appliances or their cars and without really wanting to they become a bigger part of the problem. It would be one heck of a regressive tax on those that can ill afford it.

Sounds a lot like Cold War USSR to me, were are they now and what will China be doing?

and health care (asuming that we're not too old, or too something else as defined by the federal government).

As opposed to the current situation of being too old, or to something else as defined by a private insurance company?

-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am

I'll take my chances with a private business over the federal government, especially the current government, any day.

That's not addressing the question. Why are you ok with a private enterprise telling you, "Sorry, it'll hurt our stock dividends to give you that test you need, so we're denying it." Why is this - something that happens every day to thousands of Americans - an acceptable thing? Why do you inherently assume that a government-sponsored health plan would operate like a for-profit insurance enterprise and deny your claim?

It's all fine and dandy to waive the battle flag of "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!" (which you're not specifically saying, but given your posting history, I think it's a safe assumption), but really, why are you ok with allowing a private business whose only accountability is to the stockholders doing to you the same thing that you are afraid of the government doing? Why is it that most every other industrialized democracy on earth doesn't accept this, but we do?

-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am

"One has to wonder why health care is something we need to be able to afford."
Because health care is a service provided by professionals who have often been trained to high levels of expertise at great expense.  Very often people who have borne great expenses to be expertly trained prefer to be (and should be) compensated for their services.

"Doctors in the UK get paid well and they don't incur a mountain of debt obtaining their education."

Hey, if someone wants to talk about reducing medical costs by reining in the expenses of higher education, I'm all for including it in the discussion, but I doubt President Obama's base in higher education are going to very enthusiastic about it, and I've not heard anyone supporting single-payer advocate for it.  Same goes for malpractice reform.  Mustn't mention it, as doing so would offend a valuable constituency. 

Oh, but remember this is all about morality and doing what's right, not about a heinous power grab by a government that cannot competently manage its current health care programs.

Anon 1:21 "It's our fault, not the energy companies" If Obama put the painfully high cost of Cap and Trade directly on the voter rather then on the energy and industrial manufacturers, there would be hell to pay for the Democrat party.

"Last time I checked Medicare and Medicaid recipients were getting treatment in most hospitals, while the uninsured and under-insured are not.  Would you honestly prefer that they continue to suffer and die so that doctors can keep making dope bank? "

I've never said that.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

What I would honestly prefer is for the Feds to figure out how to fix the colonoscopy nightmares and the cancer screening problems, among others, within the VA health care system they already control before appropriating to themselves the right to decide which tests are appropriate for my child.

"First, I would mention that right now, regardless of what plan you are under, you do not have the right to decide which tests are appropriate for your child.  Your rights and health care are mutually exclusive entities.  You have no right to anything, unless you can pay for it.  That is the whole point.

Your doctor doesn't have any rights in this situation either, for that matter.  Only the person paying for the tests (your insurance company) has the right to say "yes" to those tests, unless you are going to empty your bank account and pay for them yourself."

Well, you're wrong, and I have personal experience to know otherwise.

"Second, I would mention that the federal government's work with the VA, Medicare and Medicaid far surpasses the private sector's work with covering private citizens."

Covering, yes.  Providing actual health care, no.  The services they provide pale in comparision to what is available private sector, both in selection, availability and quality.  Those who are currently pushing "public option" health care can try to pretend that government health insurance is a wholly separate issue from government health care, but they're not separate at all.  The former is simply the initial stage of the latter.

"Treatment should be not be a privilege.  The fact that people die because they can't afford to pay for routine procedures that would save their life is a shame too immense to contemplate.  The VA might not be perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than what a lot of people in this country currently have: nothing."

So let's start by offering everyone who is currently uncovered yet wants coverage VA health care.  The service is already available, I'm sure they have all the capacity in the world, and I'm certain that it won't cost anything, and will actually be a net savings to taxpayers, because President Obama says so.  Expanding entitlements is always a net savings to taxpayers, right?

"So ... your health care provider will provide you with services that are denied by your insurance, free of charge?  Sorry, I don't believe you."

Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth and then arguing against the things you imagined I've said.  Almost like someone else who used to comment on here....

No, what I said what that my wife and I were in charge of the health care decisions that affected my son, to the point of demanding and receiving tests that President Obama would likely characterize as unnecessary (based on his ABC informercial on Monday), despite our doctors' convictions that they'd already solved the problem.  We didn't have to check with the insurance company first, and we didn't have to spend hours arguing with anyone.  We talked with our doctors, they recommended something, we decided we wanted something else, and it was done.  I now have my own caseworker at the insurance company, but that's not the end of the world.  Again, this is only my experience, but I hear your tales of horror (designed to scare people, no?) about people not being allowed to make their own decisions and it doesn't reconcile with any experience I've ever had.  But, I repeat, this is only my experience, and I share it because it's what I know best.

The bottom line is that you trust the government to decide what care you should recieve, and how much care you and your family are worth.  I, and many others, don't, partly because I can see right now the effects of health care provided by our government, and it's lower quality than what the vast majority of Americans are already receiving.  Partly because I can only imagine the effects of clout and influence on the system.  Partly because I have no illusions that the government will provide an equal level of care to everyone, but instead as always will choose winners and losers.  Partly because being dependent on the government for health care is a fundamental threat to the liberty of individual Americans. 

Your response to all those concerns seems to be to shrug and attack.  So be it.  Your side won the election, and will have to answer to the voters for whatever system they create.

On July 1st, 2009 at 07:27 AM, A is for Anonymous said:  "...for about 50 million Americans..." 

George Will delves deeper into the "50 million Americans" meme here.  I'll quote him at length:

Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states -- Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.

Will goes on to finish his piece by suggesting that the remaining 20 million or so uninsured people (those who are unable to afford insurance) be given tax credits or debit cards (like with food stamp programs -- think of the LINK card here in Illinois) to purchase their own insurance or pay for their health care.  I'm not sure if I agree with his last point or not.  I offer the above as a more complex picture of the oft-repeated "50 million uninsured" meme.

HG

"So the statistics in Will's article need serious review and questioning."

And so do the statistics being routinely cited (50 million uninsured) as an impetus for single payer.

One other point - there should be nobody in Illinois who counts as uninsured.  Coverage is available for everyone living here, whether a resident of the state or not, whether a citizen or not, either through Medicaid, KidCare, FamilyCare, etc. Illinois has universal eligibility, with free and/or subsidized coverage for those with lower incomes, and therefore should have zero uninsured persons.

"Huh.  Well, originally I said that the only people with the power to make these decisions are the insurance providers who are paying the bills.  I think you contested that notion.  In fact, I think you said I was "wrong."

The experience you outlined above doesn't prove that I was wrong.  Why do you have your own caseworker now?"

You are wrong.  The insurance providers didn't make any health care decisions for us.  The caseworker was assigned to us after the fact, and has been doing nothing more than verifing with us that everything that the hospital is charging us for was actually done.  I expect that is fairly routine when one of their clients spends nine days in a hospital in a different state.

"I wish everyone in this country had the same privileges you enjoy.  But right now I would just settle for basic coverage for everyone who needs to have their kid's earache checked out, or who needs a hip replaced sooner rather than later.  Apparently that is an awful lot to ask, but I'm still not sure why."

Everyone in Illinois already does have basic coverage available to them, and it's bankrupting medical providers because of the politics.

"That's possible, but I doubt it.  I originally said, "You have no right to anything, unless you can pay for it."  In your case you are either paying for these tests out of pocket, or you got lucky.  I sincerely hope it is the latter.  But if it is there are only two possibilities.  Either you requested tests that your provider already insures, or your provider is granting you leniency, which is very rare.  Although in that case I would expect that you are going to be surprised by the size of your co-pays on the hospital visit."
Actually, you said that our family doesn't have the ability to make decisions regarding our own health care, and you're still wrong about that.

"I say all this as a guy who worked in this area for about a minute, but who still has good friends who are insurance agents and see this stuff all the time.  Honestly, if you get stuck with a big bill (it happens *all* the time) you should let me know privately and I might be able to get you some free advice.  A couple of Carslbads go pretty far in this town."

Billings are mostly over at this point, and have been for six months or more, except for follow-ups with the specialists.  But thanks.

"But I am still interested in why you believe it is acceptable for you to have a good (great?) health care plan, while thouands of others in this town have nothing."

Why would anyone in Illinois have no coverage, unless they want no coverage, given all of the free and subsidized health insurance programs introduced by the State over the past few years.  Is there anyone in Illinois who is ineligible for some sort of health insurance?

Because some of us pay for it....

Sure....If I make enough for a volvo, I buy one....if not I drive a ford. If I can live in southwest champaign and have the funds, I do it, ...if not I live on market street. Makes sense to me.

Why do I have to be taxed for your health care?