[StBernard] The Senate health care bill: no improvement

[Westley Annis]

The Senate health care bill: no improvement


Congress has outdone itself. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
unveiled a health care bill weighing in at 2,074 pages, a new record. A vote
on the bill is expected Saturday.

 <http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=1q9fmz1zfpEQpNAAu0LFiQ..>  

Heritage Foundation experts are still working through the specifics of the
massive, $849 billion health care bill, as it is estimated to take up to 34
hours to read
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=eiA7dUxgkDBgOqEKW_DFmQ..>  the
entire thing. But they already know that "the major outlines of the bill are
no different than the policy train wreck the House passed earlier this
month," reports Heritage's Conn Carroll.
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=SZfGT9mIWQ_VP6vFE7dgVA..>  

Both the House and Senate health care "reform" bills include:

1.	A government "option." Both the House and Senate proposals would
create a one-size-fits-all public plan to "compete" with private insurers.
But the government will retain its role as regulator and thus stifle any
competition and causing millions to lose their private coverage. 
2.	More people in failed programs. Both bills would place millions of
Americans under the failing government-run Medicaid program, reducing
subsidized benefits from those who truly need them and increasing the
financial burden on the states. 
3.	Employer mandates. All employers of 50 people or more will be
required to provide coverage that meets new federal standards or else face a
hefty penalty. This mandate will disproportionately impact low-income
workers. 
4.	Individual mandates. For the first time in history, all Americans
will be forced to purchase federally approved coverage minimums. Those who
fail to comply are subject to new tax penalties and, in some cases, jail
time <http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=1Mnt1KeNRgriO5160ROifg..> . 

The bill's supporters may be congratulating each other for producing a
health care bill that meets the President's $900 billion cap. But its $849
price tag is a preliminary estimate only, and it really only has one place
to go -- up. "As history has proven, government health care programs end up
costing much more than first promised," writes Carroll.

Both the House and Senate health care reform bills require individuals to
purchase federally-approved health insurance, and those who fail to do so
could face criminal prosecution. "Using [criminal law] to enforce one
particular notion of appropriate insurance coverage is nothing less than a
tyrannical assertion of raw government power over the private lives and
economic rights of individual Americans," write Heritage legal scholars
Brian Walsh and Hans von Spakovsky.
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=LlAcl1GyyxnyVxOEcqiOOQ..>  This
abuse of governmental power does not bode well for freedom, as it
specifically targets those who choose to make their own decisions regarding
their health insurance. 

Visit Heritage's FixHealthCarePolicy.com
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=1EtT4xwwcLGUqM4wMsY1xA..>  to read
the entire Senate health care bill
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=WKZ5--muqDYbZbJam8VLcQ..>  and to
find more in-depth analyses as our analysts continue to dissect this massive
legislation. 


Protecting America's interests in Copenhagen


In December, members of the United Nations Framework Convention will meet in
Copenhagen to discuss climate change and draft a new global warming treaty.
"This is the most important international conference on global warming since
the 1997 Kyoto conference that produced Kyoto Protocol," writes Heritage
expert Ben Lieberman.
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=PNpK06FMfW9UYK4VM3GFVA..>  

The Kyoto Protocol is an international environmental treaty which the United
States never ratified because of the overwhelming financial and regulatory
burdens it would impose on the country. Set to expire in 2012, however, the
Kyoto Protocol is now the prototype for a new, even more stringent global
warming treaty that would pose an even greater threat to American prosperity
than its predecessor.

Lieberman explains how a new global warming treaty would hurt America:

*	Inflicting economic harm. The contemplated global warming treaty --
like the highly controversial cap-and-trade legislation under consideration
in Congress -- would act as a large energy tax that would drive up energy
costs for individuals and consumers. This would result in massive job
losses.

*	Achieving little environmental gain. Leaving aside all scientific
questions about global warming, the treaty's targeted emissions reductions
will have a nominal, if any, impact on the earth's temperature. This is
especially true if developing nations, whose emissions are growing fastest,
remain exempt, as they are under Kyoto. 

*	Undermining U.S. sovereignty. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, a new
global warming treaty would impose binding international enforcement
mechanisms. An international authority will be established to ensure that
all signatories are in compliance with the international provisions, as well
as to determine penalties for non-complying entities.

Countless studies from both sides of the political aisle
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=BwXPMfMEMaYviSPog_Sf0Q..>  reveal
the devastating effects of global warming controls. This is why
cap-and-trade legislation has been stalled in the U.S. Senate.

President Obama has repeatedly promised to reduce America's greenhouse gas
emissions and he is under immense pressure from radical environmentalist
groups to keep this pledge. But surrendering American prosperity and
sovereignty is no bargain.

"The American people need to know that, in addition to harming the U.S.
economically and environmentally, a new global warming treaty would threaten
U.S. sovereignty," explains Lieberman.  The United States' decision not to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a prudent one that served America's best
interests. In Copenhagen this December, American negotiators should again
keep our best interests in mind.



> Other Heritage work of note



*	"It is a tragic mistake to now bring the detained war combatants
into the United States and to employ civilian criminal procedures which were
never intended for this type of situation," former Attorney General and
Heritage scholar Edwin Meese
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=UcvCBQoNSN1zcYflLQgrbw..>  said this
week. Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried
in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal.
This decision blurs the distinction between crimes and acts of war, which
are handled in military tribunals, not civilian court.
	
	> Read Meese's full statement online
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=eAjRDkEay5sWdtNf382RaA..> 

*	To prevent a "rerun of the Great Crash of 2008" and stave off the
need for bailouts, Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler suggests reforming
bankruptcy policy
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=h4i5B-qQtq-8S3j71NYNEw..> . "Without
a realistic bankruptcy option, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and
then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had to make it up on the fly,
often stopping up the breaking dam with taxpayers' money." To prevent
further bailouts, we should enact serious reforms that "give the bankruptcy
courts the tools they need to take care of failing giants."

*	In less than a year, the Pelosi-Reid Congress has introduced four
nation-altering proposals: the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, the
massive 2010 budget plan, cap-and-trade legislation, and health care reform.
Heritage Vice President Michael Franc points out that
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=TpuFB9AwGUejMgPjvwqEaw..>  "House
Republicans have been virtually unanimous in their opposition to this
agenda, but House Democrats have been divided in important ways." The Left
has kept this ambitious schedule despite the split between moderate liberals
and radical progressives, Franc argues, because of "the San Francisco
speaker's ability to persuade her troops to line up behind a breathtakingly
liberal legislative agenda."



> In other news



*	President Obama will postpone his decision to send additional troops
to Afghanistan
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=02Nu65oJMS2uhIt8qN7uEw..>  until
after the Thanksgiving holiday. General Stanley McChrystal, who requested
additional troops more than a month ago, has said the mission "will likely
result in failure" if more troops are not deployed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
meanwhile, called Afghan President Hamid Karzai an "unworthy partner."
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=o00OjQifAmTKbc0ZOF-uIg..> 

*	Suspicions are growing that Syria, a close ally of Iran
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=23tLErf0qUZFahdr9DrL5A..> , may have
a nuclear program.

*	Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) became the longest-serving Congressman in
history this week
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=0nk-kEbxlM7fHEbEdwcD4w..> . He has
spent just under 57 years in the House and Senate.

*	"South Carolina lawmakers plan to formally consider impeaching Gov.
Mark Sanford for the first time next week," the AP reports
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=-HHFTLE2hjhoIvWpJwk23Q..> .

*	How dubious are Big Labor's organizing practices? Even the New York
Times is reporting on them.
<http://members.myheritage.org/site/R?i=q54_EwCwfg7lJL8gwYLSRA..> 

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org-- a website for members and
supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of
MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.