Today in Washington D. C. - June 25, 2009

Action Alert: Tomorrow, the U.S. House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the "Cap and Trade Energy Bill") which could fundamentally alter the American economy, dramatically affect the climate, and have huge implications for our national security. But, most representatives do not know what's in the 1, 201 page bill due. Cap and Trade will place a severe regulatory burden on American businesses, which will increase their costs and reduce their competitiveness, hurting our nation’s economy. These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, resulting in an estimated 74% more for gasoline, 90% more for electricity, and 55% more on our natural gas bills. And that’s not the end of it. We’ll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation! Obama will be pushing today for adoption of this bill with empty platitudes and self-professed knowledge that apparently he considers beyond our intelligence. We cannot afford this bill. Read More & Take Action

Note: a more reasonable energy bill has been introduced by Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) which can be studied hopefully if Cap-in-Trade is defeated. More on this in future posts.

Senate Republicans will meet for leadership elections to choose a new Policy Committee chairman and a Vice-Chairman of the Republican Conference. Today, Sen. McConnell and the other members of the GOP leadership will hold a press conference to announce the results of the elections.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 65-31 to invoke cloture on Koh’s nomination. Today, the Senate resumed consideration of the nomination of Yale Law School Dean Howard Koh to be legal advisor to the State Department. If all post-cloture time is used, a vote on Koh’s nomination will come at 5:30 PM today.

National Government Run Health Care: Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. McConnell said, “Americans are insisting that members of Congress work together on reforms that make health care more affordable and accessible but which don’t force people off their current plans or add to an already-staggering national debt. And yet the Democrat plan now being rushed through the Senate would do just the opposite. It would force millions of Americans off of their health care plans and bury our nation deeper and deeper in debt.”

The New York Times reports, “Senators struggled Wednesday with the possibility that in offering subsidized health insurance to millions of individuals and families, they could inadvertently speed the erosion of employer-provided coverage, which they want to preserve.” The Times notes a key Democrat senator airing concerns about this. “Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said preserving employer-sponsored insurance ‘needs to be a huge objective.” Studies by the CBO and the Lewin Group have shown that millions of people are likely to have their private insurance dropped by their employers if there is a government-run plan available.

Democrat Senate Budget Comm. Chair Kent Conrad acknowledged the possibility to The Times. “‘Even with an individual mandate,’ Mr. Conrad said, ‘if there is not some requirement for employers, you will see a drifting of people to the insurance exchange and to government subsidies. That will increase the cost.’” As the NYT explains, “Employers who do not provide coverage might have to pay penalties or contribute to a government fund.” At ABC Special health care promo, President Obama said, “The other thing we’re doing is we’re saying to employers, to provide them a disincentive for just dumping people out of existing plans, is there’s going to be a ‘play or pay’ provision.” But The New York Times points out, “Small businesses are less likely to provide health insurance than larger businesses. So any penalty for not providing insurance could affect them more than other employers.”

But while Democrat senators were expressing concerns about the impact of a government-run health plan on Americans’ existing insurance arrangements, Roll Call reports that “House liberals are warning the Senate, Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama that a government-run insurance option must be included in any health reform bill, or else the powerful bloc will vote it down.”

Cost issues are also important in the health care debate. A group of governors met with President Obama yesterday and according to The Washington Post, “The governors were adamant that the restructuring of the health-care system not push new costs on states.

Sen. McConnell has comments that, “Democrats have also promised their health plan will be paid for and won’t add to the deficit. But the facts just don’t add up. Right now, just one section of the HELP bill would spend 1.3 trillion dollars. It’s not plausible that this wouldn’t add to the deficit, which has already swelled by more than a trillion dollars, thanks to bailouts and stimulus money. . . . When Democrats predict their health care plan won’t cause people to lose their current insurance and won’t add to the national debt, Americans are right to be skeptical.”

However, very little discussion in Congress is focusing the morality of the Government determining what services a person can or should receive and what relationship each person will have with our doctors. Warner Todd Huston notes President Obama in his ABC Special health care promo yesterday stepped across the threshold and now Senators and the public need to address the following. "It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren’t worth the effort. . . . Obama said . . . that a way to save health care costs is to abandon the sort of care that “evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve” the patient’s health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation . . . But who is it that will present the “evidence” that will “show” that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled health care future?"

When the government controls heath care, the government (not the doctor) will determine what the patient will receive. Remember the old adage, they who controls the gold, makes the rules. Just ask older retired military on Tricare and Veterans relying on the VA for their medical care. Without approval, treatment cannot be rendered unless the patient can afford to pay in full and finds another source. Under nationalized health care, that option will eventually be denied. Maybe that is why Congress is opting out and the Unions are pushing to not be under the Federal rules of nationalized health care.

The comment by Obama in his position as president is of very great signal concern. If carried to fruition in a national health care program, it will effect both the elderly and all the infirmed. And, eventually "special" health care rules may then be applied to the "economically distressed." The Obama care program in the long run could in fact identify those most in need for other alternative actions or treatment as related by Obama. Consider history; this road was followed by Germany as they worked to control their economic problems. Eventually to reduce medical costs, the German government went to the extreme step of euthanizing their elderly and infirmed. All of this was before they proceeded down the road to the horrors that we have read about. Nationalized health care is not appropriate in a free society and in the end will be hazardous to both our health and our very lives.

---

Tags: Barack Obama, cap-and-trade, health care, morality, nationalized health care, US Congress, US House, US Senate, Washington D.C. To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!