Marketplace![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (20)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
 PAUL DAVIS ~ Daily American Republic [Click to enlarge] |
But a climate control bill attacked as a penalty on coal-dependent Midwestern states and a federal deficit expected to pile up $9 trillion in debt over the next 10 years are issues that will generate a lot of debate but no resolutions, Emerson predicted.
In an interview at her Cape Girardeau office, the seven-term Republican lawmaker said she's convinced big savings are available to the federal government that could shrink the budget deficit. Simple measures, such as watching how money is spent on office supplies, could make a big difference, she said.
Broader aims, including her crusade to force drug companies to negotiate Medicare prescription prices with the federal government, could result in dramatic savings, said Emerson, a Cape Girardeau Republican.
As she explained how the savings could be achieved, Emerson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the Department of Homeland Security found that it could save $42 million over five years by purchasing office supplies from Staples rather than through the federal procurement agency, the General Services Administration. A stapler, for example, cost $10.47 through GSA and $6.17 at the retailer.
"So if you are buying millions of staplers for people who work in this government, why wouldn't you get a reduced rate?" she said. "Why would it cost $10.47?"
Emerson said a Congressional Budget Office inquiry into the cost differences is underway and that she knows of many opportunities for savings.
"I went absolutely apoplectic. We checked out pens, we checked out staplers and we checked out other things and there were huge, substantial differences," Emerson said.
The prescription drug program for Medicare costs $49 billion annually. Emerson wants negotiated prices, a law allowing drugs to be reimported from Canada and an end to policies that result in U.S. consumers subsidizing prescription costs in foreign countries.
"We are talking tens of billions of dollars in just that alone over five years," she said.
The debate over health care, President Barack Obama's top priority, has been changed by the anger on display at town hall meetings held by Democratic lawmakers. Obama has all but abandoned proposals for a "public option" plan to be included in the coverage to be offered.
Aye vote not ruled out
Emerson did not rule out voting in favor of a health care bill. The essential elements needed in any bill that could win her vote, she said, are insurance reforms. The reforms she listed include a ban on companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminate lifetime caps on benefits, remove provisions that effectively result in discrimination based on age or gender and, most importantly, a federal law that takes control of health insurance regulation from the states.
That's important, she said, because it would allow insurance to be portable across state lines.
To expand coverage further, Emerson said, the income test for Medicaid should be increased to 133 percent of the federal poverty level as an incentive to work. That would mean a single person earning less than $14,400 would be eligible and a family of four with an income of $29,326 or less would be eligible.
"There are a lot of people who don't work today because they need insurance," Emerson said.
As Obama and the Democrats consider replacing the public option with insurance cooperatives, Emerson said she sees promise in the idea. "If you add the co-op concept to that and if the co-op is done kind of like, probably Minnesota is the best example, that could be workable, that adds another option," she said.
Co-ops, voluntary associations, have resulted in lower premiums for members in Wisconsin and Minnesota in part because they are not for-profit businesses.
Emerson said she will not decide to vote for or against a health care bill until it reaches her in a final form.
Cap-and-trade
The climate-control legislation known as cap-and-trade is generating bipartisan opposition from Midwestern states with a heavy concentration of utilities that depend on coal and with large agricultural communities.
Cap-and-trade imposes fees for permits allowing a set level of carbon emissions. Companies that do not exceed their permitted level may sell them to others. Companies that exceed the limits may buy the credits or install improved pollution controls.
Both cost money, costs that will show up on consumer's bills, she said.
For farmers, the heavy dependence on fossil fuels for planting, harvesting, fertilizers and grain drying, among others, mean huge new costs as the price of those fuels and products rise.
While some people can afford to invest in new appliances or other means of saving energy and reducing their costs, too many people will see their bills rise to unsustainable levels, she said.
Instead, Emerson said the emphasis should be on tax incentives to encourage conservation, rather than financial penalties.
"We can't wind, solar and electric-car our way out of the use of fossil fuels right now," Emerson said. "It is just not possible."
388-3642
Pertinent address:
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please 
I have asked JAE on several occasions if she supported UHC, and she always answered that she was not in favor of the "bill that is on the floor right now."
I guess HR3200 is not loaded up with enough goodies for her handlers.
"Insurance Co-op" is code for socialized medicine.
Nice to know that at least one member of Congress actually reads the bills before voting.
O.K., so I'm a little slow. (Maybe a lot slow)
Isn't cap and trade supposed to reduce carbon emmissions? If so, how does it reduce these emmissions when companies that emit less can sell their credits to a companies that emits more? If company A emits 20% less carbon and sells credits to company B so it can emit 20% more, then the same amount of carbon is being emitted. I guess the government is just a lot smarter than I am in these matters.
"ban on companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, eliminate lifetime caps on benefits, remove provisions that effectively result in discrimination based on age or gender"
This will drive private insurance out of business if they have to comply with these mandates.
"Medicaid should be increased "
Increasing medicaid will add to the amont of money we need to borrow from the Chinese.
It's amazing to me how career politicians say they can "save money" in government when they have had 12+ years to do so and didn't.
"I went absolutely apoplectic. We checked out pens, we checked out staplers and we checked out other things and there were huge, substantial differences," Emerson said."
She, like other members of congress are ignoring what their constituents demand of them. Billions in savings can be had by legalizing marijuana and paying off our huge and growing national debt.
She SOUNDS more reasonable than many people in Congress. Let us see how she votes.
I find it interesting that after years in office JAE is now comparing prices. The additdional admin work involved in GSA contracts adds cost to the products being purchased, as any one having had experience with can confirm.
Voters are fed up with the hypocrisy of elected officials and the righteous indignation of now finding "overpayments " for products is much to little too late. Vote'em all out!
Insurance of all types is a science. Competition is a necessity, as is making a legitimate profit, along with reserves for catastrophic events. A part of the answer is in large pools of insured, over a large geographic area. Actuarial scientists and Statisticians are the science behind making sure insurance companies can stay in business individually, and at the same time cross insure and back up one another in the case of major catastrophes. It's a part of the business. They are not fraud proof, but better than the "government".
I saw a coop among public schools form that employed a (salesman)/administrator who purchased (from an insurance company of course) the coverage, set the premiums, etc. It worked fine for a couple of years and savings were as predicted until...... Five car pooling teachers finally died in a single accident, and at the same time, there were two severe cases of terminal cancer.
The school participants had to abandon the project and found it difficult obtain insurance because of their past health care record.
My school's insurance program continued because we were in a national company's large participant pool.
I'm not in Congresswoman Emerson's district, but I would urge her to vote "NO!".
how anyone can not want reform when the rates have went up 45% in the last 8 yrs. you can't get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. republicans get the common man stirred up with "gummit takeover" and "socialism". while the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank.
workingdude, do you research. The insurance companies have signed on to the "gummit takeover" plan, which is really not socialism, more like facism.
Everyone wants reform. The better solution is to get government out of the process, not more government in the process, for example:
get rid of the interstate laws to increase competition.
The GOP has tried to get insurance reforms passed for years, to no avail.
I find it interesting that Emerson is making a big deal over 42 million dollars over office expenses. That's like me saving about a dime.
I echo hehall, vote no, wait for more conservatives to get elected and implement some market based solutions that will actually work!
The scam with cap and trade (cap and tax): Govt regulators decide the "appropriate amount" of carbon emmisions businesses are "allowed to put out. If the company cant reach the goals, they can continue to put out the same or more emmisions as long as they buy "carbon offsets" to "green companies" (many of which Al Gore and the like are invested in) So, the power plants and factories then have to raise the prices of their goods and services to cover the hidden tax they pay for carbon offsets. Then, i predict, the public will get terribly P.O.ed at the power company because their electric bill is high and will come to a point that the govt literaly takes over the companies from the evil greedy companies in the name of "fairness" to "the little guy"
I heard an advertisement on the rado from 21st centuryag.org about the potential for farmers for cashing in on the scam. They would get paid for the oxygen their crops produce. They would receive money from businesses that produce co2. I have no doubt they will continue to receive subsities for the farm land they dont farm also.
Rep. Emerson has voted "aye" on the following in past few months...
TARP I
Automakers' bailout bill
Omnibus spending bill
In the past she has voted for other bills such as Medicare Suppliment Part D and allowing the Treasury Dept to raise the ceiling on the national debt. I can continue, but Emerson's voting record speaks for itself, and she is neither a fiscal conservative, or a good representative for the hard working individuals of the MO 8th CD.
Jo Ann Emerson IS the problem in Washington. It is time to vote her out in 2010!
I do not agree with JAE on forcing Health Insurance Companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Why should the insurance company be responsible for health related costs that were present before the person purchases the insurance.
That is like having a wreck in your car and going to the car insurance company after the wreck and expecting them to pay to have your car fixed.
hehall: Having formerly worked in the insurance industry most coops I saw also carried reinsurance policies that would eliminate the problems you described. Only an incompetent coop administrator would not employ reinsurance policies to reduce the risk of one bad year causing a failure.
For those that are not familiar with reinsurance if you are running a small insurer or coop group you will calculate the maximum amount of risk you can afford to pay each year. Any risk in excess of that you need to purchase a reinsurance contract for so that a larger reinsurance company will be liable for that amount. So in the end a small coop might determine that during an average year they will have 5 million worth of claims and they can afford to pay that from their regular premiums. They would then have a reinsurance contract that would pay amounts above 5 million so that if a few catastrophic events caused the claims to rise above expectation for that year the reinsurance company would step in to pay the bills.
"I guess the government is just a lot smarter than I am in these matters." Very clever, but doubtful, DTower. ~laughing~
"That's like me saving about a dime." Too young to remember old adages, B_O_B? Like A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned or Every Penny Adds Up? Emerson et al should have over the years been more consciencious about every single dollar spent/wasted by government. Just at local and state levels, Pops and I have seen many such wastes like the 'staplers.'
lumpy ... anyone ... Explain to me about Medicare Part D. I was under the impression that private companies offered Part D ... but confused about where the government comes into it, as far as money. Is it sort of a 'partnership' between gov't. and insurance providers, and gov't. is providing the funds, or what? We don't personally save much (about $12 a year) by being enrolled in Part D, because of the 'gap,' but know several seniors who, without the coverage, would be going without essential drugs.
The 'pre-existing' thing is a two-sided issue ... Certainly easy to understand in terms such as superbee's comment comparing it to car insurance ... Most of us realize that one even minor accident will either raise premiums, or the company will cancel the policy ... It's really puzzling that so many seem to believe that health insurance companies, unlike any other business, should not be allowed to make whatever profit the market will bear. Call it greed if you will, but isn't money the basis for anyone going into business?
I think even if reform passed we are just delaying the inevitable budget crunch again. We have an unnatural amount of people who get sick because of age, obesity, family history, etc, and there are not enough healthy people to support the costs of those that aren't.
The point of the carbon cap is to create jobs in the clean energy industry, reduce the causes of climate change, and give Americans access to cleaner, cheaper sources of energy. Emerson misrepresents the carbon cap bill in this article--there are actually allowances for power companies to prevent them from having to suddenly raise rates on consumers, and the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated the bill will only cost the average family a dime a day.
"Emerson said the emphasis should be on tax incentives to encourage conservation, rather than financial penalties"--yes, that's true, and tax incentives to encourage conservation are part of the carbon cap bill. And far from "financial penalties," Missourians will have access to a new array of opportunities for job growth and investment in clean energy. Clean energy has one of the only job growth rates in this state and has already created thousands of jobs.
When the carbon cap bill comes through the Senate this fall, I hope Stabenow and Levin will take a wiser view on this than Emerson. Missouri's economy needs the investment from the carbon cap bill.
Cap and trade will be the end of whatever manufacturing jobs are left in this country. We can all work for Wal-Mart or the state if it is passed.
Mom,
Here is some information regarding MMA...
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In the early morning of June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeas, 218 nays.
Three Republican representatives then changed their votes. One opponent of the bill, Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK-5), changed his vote to "present" upon being told that C.W. Bill Young (R-FL-10), who was absent due to a death in the family, would have voted "aye" if he had been present. Next, Republicans Butch Otter (ID-1) and Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8) switched their vote to "aye" under pressure from the party leadership. The bill passed by one vote, 216-215.
The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.
One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it.[2] By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.[3]
Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep."
Here is the link to the legislation on THOMAS...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...
This is just one piece of fiscally irresponsible legislation that can be directly attributed to our representative.
Dear Mrs Emerson,
Leave my health care alone!
I am quite happy with my health insurance, if not, I would get rid of my i phone, satellite giant screen tv, new car payments, over-priced house, overly expensive clothes, drug and alcohol habits, eating every meal out, and all kinds of unneeded wants!
Wait, I don't have all that crap, that's why I can afford my health insurance!
PS I don't want to go to a doctor that works non-profit. The better you are at something, the more profit you make. No profit, no skills!
PSS LEAVE MY HEALTH CARE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!