In opening remarks, according to Senators in attendance, President Obama took the idea of an energy-only bill – the preferred approach of moderate Democrats – off the table, saying he wanted a “comprehensive” bill that includes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

The President is up against a a strong contingent of Senators who have been trying to sideline a carbon cap with alternate proposals such as the one being drafted by Richard Lugar (R-IN), which would promote ever-dubious “clean coal” initiatives and nuclear power. Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Lisa Mirkowski (R-AK) have also expressed their opposition to any proposal that would put a price on carbon emissions.

But the reality is that we must cap our emissions, and to do it soon. What our constituent-minded members of Congress fail to recognize is that we are the ONLY developed country that has yet to make a solid commitment to cut our carbon levels in the next few decades.

International climate negotiations are at a standstill largely because everyone is waiting for the United States to step up to the plate. Comments made by China’s top climate negotiator today, urging our Congress not to “shift the responsibility for taking more active action to other countries,” reflects a prevalent mood in the global community.

UN Climate talks, which are set to re-commence in December in Mexico, will get nowhere if the U.S. has not yet passed a comprehensive bill that includes a carbon cap.

It seems time to listen to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is urging the GOP to support a comprehensive climate and energy plan. He told the press yesterday: “I’m not going to support some half-assed reform.”

In August, Grassley laid out a strong defense of the policy by saying, “through an individual mandate and that’s individual responsibility and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.” A long time supporter of the policy, again in June he said, “there isn’t anything wrong with it [an individual mandate], except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom.”

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980’s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”…

“We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

More recently, the Heritage Foundation continued to support the proposal under the Massachusetts health care reform effort passed into law while Mitt Romney was governor. While the proposal did change over the course of the reform process in the state, and Romney and Heritage tried to walk back their support, as Romney admitted this weekend it is, “the ultimate conservative plan.”

The questions raised by tenther individual mandate opponents have largely been debunked by constitutional law experts. Grassley and other Republican are appealing to conservative voters with their recent opposition rather than the constitutional questions. If there had been problems with the legality of the requirement, the argument would have been raised at one point in the last thirty years.

By Emma Sandoe

So now its time to ask yourself: are you a “visceral giver” or a “major donor?” Well, that depends, are you a reactionary who responds to anger and fear tactics, or are you an ego-driven opportunist? Either way, the GOP has found a way to take your money. And, if you haven’t been convinced yet, Republicans have a brilliantly simple strategy to lure you to their side:

See the full presentation here.

A recent column by David Pierson in the LA Times is well worth a read and outlines the growing problems of the health care system in China.

Appointments for the best doctors are normally snapped up before sunrise. Lines begin forming in front of the hospital’s six registration counters at least a day in advance.

Communist China had a socialized health care system, but as many things in the country has been shifting toward a Western style with limited government involvement in recent years. This has created large disparities in access to medical care between the wealthy and the poor and between urban and rural populations.

China is taking action. The government has launched a campaign aimed at rural areas which will invest $124 billion in rural services.  However, it may already be to late. Thousands of rural residents have migrated into the cities citing the broken rural health care system.

Rationing is unfortunately part of the health care system no matter the level of government involvement.  When put simply, there are a limited number or resources and at times the demand overwhelms the supply.  It is unfair to say a shift from a private system to a system with greater government envolvement will solely cause a nightmare situation.  As we have seen, encouraging the private market causes rationing and long lines.  The real trick is balancing the government involvement and ability to reduce disparities in access with the beneifits of the private market system.

By Emma Sandoe

• Every child in the U.S. should learn to cook 10 meals before leaving high school.

• Supermarkets should appoint “food ambassadors” to explain to customers how they can prepare local, fresh and seasonal foods.

• Food companies should make education a central part of their business.

• Food labeling should be improved to accurately warn people about unhealthy food. He called America’s current food-labeling system a “farce.”

His final point about food labeling is the most interesting to policy makers.  Pepsi recently announced their support for putting labels more predominantly on the front of their packaging.  Coca Cola claimed support over this effort last year.

But the question for policy makers is whether industry efforts are enough.  There are certain efforts that need an extra push from policy makers; a good example is calorie counts at fast food restaurants. In the Senate health care reform proposals there is a national law to require calorie labeling in fast food restaurants.  There has been a great deal of argument as to whether or not these measures curb the use of unhealthy food.  Oliver’s suggestion of improved labeling

Additionally, Jamie Oliver has a rich history of working to combat obesity in his native UK.  He raised awareness of the health of the school lunch program and urged the government to invest a substantial amount of money into the program.  Hopefully, his previous efforts can be combined with Michelle Obama’s new campaign to fight childhood obesity to create stronger school lunch programs for our nation’s kids.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) was a former astronaut, there is a former taxi driver and a former toll booth operator.

[This] modified version of cap-and-trade that could be much more attractive in this era of rampant expressions of populism, coming both from the right (“no new taxes”) and the left (“bash the corporations”). Such a system – which would have direct and visible positive financial consequences (i.e., rebate checks larger than energy price increases) for 80% of American households – might not only not be difficult for politicians to support, but it might actually be difficult for politicians to oppose!

This concept most closely resembles the “Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act,” sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The bill, introduced in December, would create a “cap and dividend” system to defray higher energy costs to the consumer.

But some changes need to be made for this proposal to be effective, according to Stavins. For one, the current bill allows only producers and importers of fossil fuels to buy the carbon allowances, which necessarily restricts the market. “Furthermore, the Senators’ proposal says that holders of carbon allowances are actually prohibited from creating, selling, purchasing, or trading carbon derivatives, thereby tremendously reducing the efficiency of the market and needlessly driving up costs.”

Nevertheless, the concept of “upstream cap-and-trade” has a lot of promise, according to a PEW Center on GLobal Climate Change study:

An economy-wide upstream cap-and-trade program would be environmentally effective, could attain least-cost compliance if it incorporates flexibility measures, and would be administratively feasible.

There are substantial theoretical benefits from such an approach. The near-term environmental outcome is clear, assuming that the government will maintain the emission limits in the face of possibly significant price uncertainty and volatility. Current analysis indicates that it would minimize economic costs to the economy, be manageable administratively, avoid overcompensating existing emitters, and perhaps capture some offsetting benefits from reduction of distortionary taxes.

By Mary Tharin

Sebelius also addressed an issue important to the Senate health care reform bill, Medical Loss Ratios- or the amount an insurer spends on care in comparison to profits, administration and advertising.  “Additionally, you should make public information on the percent of your individual market premiums that is used for medical care versus the percent that is used for administrative costs.” As Jake Tapper reports, Anthem earned $2.7 billion and sales rose 26% in just the last quarter of 2009.  Under reform if a company were to see large profits without significant increases in health care costs, consumers would be reimbursed for their premium payments rather than see premiums skyrocket.

The Obama administration has been criticized in recent weeks about the slow response to addressing health care reform since the election of Scott Brown. This move is perhaps a signal from the administration that they are readying to become aggressive about health care reform.  Coupled with President Obama’s announcement yesterday of a February 25th summit with GOP leaders about health proposals, the White House appears to be going on the offensive to speeding the health care reform process.

By Emma Sandoe