Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Quoted from http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/23/panel-of-experts-see-no-economic-stimulus-from-cap-and-trade/

Panel of Experts See No Economic Stimulus from Cap and Trade

» The Foundry – September 23, 2009

The Heritage Foundation recently hosted an event on the economic impacts of cap and trade. Multiple organizations have modeled the effects of cap and trade and found varied results but none of them provided the news you’d want to hear, especially in a recession. Despite repeated attempts to sell cap and trade as a jobs bill, not one scenario of even one presenter (including the three government agencies) projected a net increase in income or employment from cap and trade. The entire debate was over the magnitude of income, consumption and job losses.

Speakers included representatives from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, The Brookings Institution, the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, and The Heritage Foundation. The Congressional Research Service’s recently analyzed seven studies on the projected cost (including the National Association for Manufacturers’ study and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology’s study). None of the studies projected jobs or income growth from cap and trade. While these studies differed, they only differed on the magnitude of negative impacts. There was no disagreement on the sign. That is, cap and trade will lead to fewer jobs and lower income.

The disparity in the cost estimates was largely a result of differing assumptions on the use of offsets as well as the commercialization of carbon capture and sequestration and increases in the amount of nuclear energy. But two things are clear: This is not a jobs bill. This is not an economic stimulus.

Regardless of the cost estimates and regardless of whether global warming is a significant problem, the studies all agree that cap and trade will not stimulate the economy. So maybe the trade off is lost jobs and lost income for a cooler planet?

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger projected that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would moderate temperatures by only five hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century.

More on the costs of cap and trade can be found here. You can watch yesterday’s event, and find the presentations of the presenters, here.

Tweet This Post

Quoted from http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0037.cfm:

September 18, 2009
The Max Tax: Baucus Health Bill Is More of the Same

Nothing New Here Same Objectionable Features: A public plan disguised as a co-op, individual and employer mandates, massive federal regulation over insurance and benefits, and massive Medicaid expansion–the Baucus bill has them all. These are the same features plaguing the other bills in Congress and that Americans have routinely dismissed for months. Seven Fatal Flaws Middle Class Tax Hike: The Baucus bill would impose a new sales tax on drugs and medical devices and a new federal excise tax on insurance plans that exceed $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. These taxes will ultimately be passed down to the consumer, putting many middle class families on the receiving end of a tax hike. An Individual Mandate: In 2013, almost everyone would be required to purchase health insurance that complies with new federal standards. Those making more than three times the poverty level would face a tax penalty of $950 (maxing out at $3,800 per family) and $750 (maxing out at $1,500 per family) for those below 300 percent poverty. This penalty could apply to individuals with incomes as low as $10,831 a year. No Privacy: In order to enforce the tax penalty provisions, the government would be forced to collect detailed health insurance information on Americans, reducing patient privacy and adding significant administrative costs to employers and insurers. A Pay-or-Play Employer Mandate: Employers with more than 50 employees that don’t offer health coverage would have to pay a penalty for each employee who qualifies for new federal subsidizes under the bill. Inevitably, low-income workers will be hurt the most as employers would simply downsize or cut wages. A Thinly Disguised Public Option: The Baucus bill invites indefinite federal control of a “co-op” by providing an unnecessary $6 billion in federal funding for startup loans and grants and it gives broad latitude to the HHS Secretary to regulate co-ops and promote them. The co-op created in this bill is literally an acronym for a new government-run health plan. Medicaid Expansion: Under the Baucus bill, millions of Americans would end up on Medicaid. The current Medicaid program is unsustainable and poorly serves the needy and indigent now. Taxpayers will pick up the new costs of Medicaid, and states will have little flexibility for real reform. Medicare: The Baucus bill establishes value-based purchasing, requiring compliance with government guidelines on the delivery of medical services. Hospitals and physicians who don’t comply would get lower Medicare payments. This approach could bias or compromise doctors’ decisions and contradict U.S. law on the federal interference in the practice of medicine. Start Over Time to Hit the Reset Button: The President needs to lead by meeting with key leaders of both parties and seek bipartisan reform around two key themes: 1) instead of a one-size-fits-all federal solution, Congress should let the states take the lead on reform, and 2) reform the tax treatment of health insurance to give all taxpayers tax relief for purchasing private insurance and extend assistance (through spending offsets) to low-income families to purchase private insurance instead of expanding government care. For more information, please visit: http://FixHealthCarePolicy.com

Tweet This Post

Quoted from Heritage.org

The Foundry

Byron York gets this scoop in the Washington Examiner today:

…if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS….

…Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties. Continue reading…

Tweet This Post

Quoted from: Pacific Research Institute

Conservative Leaders on Costly Lawsuits and Health Care Reform

The American Spectator, August 27, 2009

MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT

RE: Costly lawsuit abuses drive up medical expenses and add billions of dollars to the cost of healthcare, but provide only marginal assistance to injured patients. Yet Congress refuses to address this problem or to make it part of meaningful healthcare reform. Concerned citizens need to raise the issue with Members of Congress and insist it be addressed in any health care reform legislation.

ACTION:
We urge you to contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that any healthcare legislation that lacks substantive lawsuit reform with respect to the medical malpractice issue is unacceptable. Any healthcare reform bill passed by Congress should explicitly address the increasingly costly lawsuit abuses that hamper our healthcare system and economy.

ISSUE IN BRIEF:
Frivolous litigation is a large and growing contributor to healthcare costs. The Manhattan Institute estimates that the annual direct cost of such litigation is over $30 billion per year — a 2000% increase since 1975. When the indirect costs are added, as set forth below, the total healthcare costs are estimated to exceed $124 billion per year. Doctors spent over $6.3 billion to obtain malpractice liability coverage in 2002, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Read the entire article here

Tweet This Post