It's Not An Option, New health bill would outlaw individual private insurance

[GaryC 7]

It's Not An Option

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...332548165656854

[HAL 9000 96]

Bachmann Misreads House Health Bill To Claim ‘Whatever Health Care You Have Now’ Will Be Gone In 5 Years

On Tuesday, three separate House committees — Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, Education and Labor Committee — released a single health care reform bill, the American Affordable Healthy Choices Act. An analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the legislation would cost $1 trillion over 10 years and cover 94 percent of Americans (97% if you don’t count undocumented immigrants).

On Dennis Miller’s radio show today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attacked the bill, claiming that it plainly stated that Americans would be forced out of their current health care plans “within five years”:

BACHMANN: Well, what does that mean? That means that politicians are going to substitute their choice for your doctor’s choice for you. That’s exactly what this bill does. Here’s the other thing about that bill. It’s a monstrosity. I have the bill printed out on my desk, it’s over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you’re not going to have in five years. What you’re going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all.

Bachmann either misread the bill or is willfully misrepresenting it. In fact, page 16 is the beginning of the section on “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage.” The section that refers to five years is on page 17, but it’s not about pushing Americans off their current health plans. As the summary on Rep. Pete Stark’s (D-CA) website notes, it simply “provides for a five year grace period for current group health plans to meet specified standards.”

In fact, as the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky points out, the CBO’s coverage tables “undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage”:

The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage.

So, in Bachmann’s world, increased private insurance is a government takeover of health care.

Here's the bill itself...

[GaryC 7]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

[HAL 9000 96]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

define 'such coverage'

FYI... the bill is linked in pdf. All 1018 pages.

Read the paragraph just before what was misread.

There is no mention of private insurance being outlawed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We're going to work now.

[GaryC 7]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

define 'such coverage'

FYI... the bill is linked in pdf. All 1018 pages.

Read the paragraph just before what was misread.

There is no mention of private insurance being outlawed.

I read it, that is where I copied from. The paragraph before talks about Grandfathering in coverage. The line I quoted is one of the conditions that must be met to be allowed to be grandfathered. It is telling me that any policy written after this bill is passed is not grandfathered in, meaning you cannot get that coverage. It is, in essence, saying that after this bill is passed you cannot get individual insurance unless it meets the guidlines spelled out. In short, you cannot choose your own coverage to meet your needs, you must choose something that the government says you can have. Correct me if I missread it.

Edited July 16, 2009 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

define 'such coverage'

FYI... the bill is linked in pdf. All 1018 pages.

Read the paragraph just before what was misread.

There is no mention of private insurance being outlawed.

I read it, that is where I copied from. The paragraph before talks about Grandfathering in coverage. The line I quoted is one of the conditions that must be met to be allowed to be grandfathered. It is telling me that any policy written after this bill is passed is not grandfathered in, meaning you cannot get that coverage. It is, in essence, saying that after this bill is passed you cannot get individual insurance unless it meets the guidlines spelled out. In short, you cannot choose your own coverage to meet your needs, you must choose something that the government says you can have. Correct me if I missread it.

I merely suggest you check again what 'grandfathering' means.

It does not mean that private insurance will be declared illegal.

What the lingo states is that grandfathered plans can't have additional insured members due to the provisions thereof having been grandfathered.

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

OMG! The End Is Near!

[GaryC 7]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

define 'such coverage'

FYI... the bill is linked in pdf. All 1018 pages.

Read the paragraph just before what was misread.

There is no mention of private insurance being outlawed.

I read it, that is where I copied from. The paragraph before talks about Grandfathering in coverage. The line I quoted is one of the conditions that must be met to be allowed to be grandfathered. It is telling me that any policy written after this bill is passed is not grandfathered in, meaning you cannot get that coverage. It is, in essence, saying that after this bill is passed you cannot get individual insurance unless it meets the guidlines spelled out. In short, you cannot choose your own coverage to meet your needs, you must choose something that the government says you can have. Correct me if I missread it.

I merely suggest you check again what 'grandfathering' means.

It does not mean that private insurance will be declared illegal.

What the lingo states is that grandfathered plans can't have additional insured members due to the provisions thereof having been grandfathered.

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

That is your read on it. I read it as the government taking away my ability to choose the plan I want. What happens if I don't want an "approved" plan? I can't get it, so the government is taking away my right to choose and making illegal something that I may want.

[GaryC 7]

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

OMG! The End Is Near!

And so much for your contention that government run health care would be cheaper. The CBO today said the health costs will rise if this bill is passed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Can we hold our fire on this argument till a consensus version is released after the Senate has a chance to butcher it and the versions are reconciled?

[HAL 9000 96]

This is a direct quote from the bill. You tell me what it says.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

define 'such coverage'

FYI... the bill is linked in pdf. All 1018 pages.

Read the paragraph just before what was misread.

There is no mention of private insurance being outlawed.

I read it, that is where I copied from. The paragraph before talks about Grandfathering in coverage. The line I quoted is one of the conditions that must be met to be allowed to be grandfathered. It is telling me that any policy written after this bill is passed is not grandfathered in, meaning you cannot get that coverage. It is, in essence, saying that after this bill is passed you cannot get individual insurance unless it meets the guidlines spelled out. In short, you cannot choose your own coverage to meet your needs, you must choose something that the government says you can have. Correct me if I missread it.

I merely suggest you check again what 'grandfathering' means.

It does not mean that private insurance will be declared illegal.

What the lingo states is that grandfathered plans can't have additional insured members due to the provisions thereof having been grandfathered.

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

That is your read on it. I read it as the government taking away my ability to choose the plan I want. What happens if I don't want an "approved" plan? I can't get it, so the government is taking away my right to choose and making illegal something that I may want.

1018 pages is a long read... but let us know if any language pops up about the plans you have now that work fine being outlawed.

I suspect you won't find that language.

People will likely have the continued benefit of paying more should they choose.

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

OMG! The End Is Near!

And so much for your contention that government run health care would be cheaper. The CBO today said the health costs will rise if this bill is passed.

A result of initial investment costs that would decrease with a greater monetary base to make claim payments.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What this means for private insurance is that its going to have to change to compete to provide services instead of providing profiteering. That is worded in the bill itself in the consumer protections sections of the bill. So... the consumer gets what they pay for, instead of denials and bankruptcies.

OMG! The End Is Near!

And so much for your contention that government run health care would be cheaper. The CBO today said the health costs will rise if this bill is passed.

They didn't grow the balls to axe fee-for-service. Costs will not decrease until that is done.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They didn't grow the balls to axe fee-for-service. Costs will not decrease until that is done.

Repeat after me.

Change was a lie.