You're losing your plan

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I wanted single payer to begin with but what we got is a back door to finacial ruin. We cannot get SP this way and have it work. Lets repeal this trash and insist on a well though out single payer plan that will save our HC system rather than bankrupt us all. I have always had a very bad feeling about this and now I am flat out scared over what will happen next.

You're losing your plan

ObamaCare's true face emerges

Late last week saw the first leaks of the administration's draft regulations for imple menting the ObamaCare law -- and everything is playing out just as the critics warned.

The 3,000-odd pages of legislation left most of the really important (and controversial) policy decisions to the regulations that government agencies were told to issue once the bill passed. Now that those regs are starting to take shape, it's clear that the Obama team is using its new power to exert tight control over the payment and delivery of all formerly "private" health insurance.

The ObamaCare law references the Secretary of Health and Human Services almost 2,200 times and uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725. Each reference requires HHS to set new rules on medical care, giving control to an existing federal office or one of 160 new agencies that the bill created.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who was once the Kansas state-insurance commissioner) has taken to these tasks with zeal. In some circles, she's now known as the nation's "insurance regulator in chief."

She's starting off by applying new regs to health plans offered by large employers -- even though these costly rules were supposedly only going to apply to plans sold in the state insurance "exchanges" that don't get created until 2014. This twist is spelled out in an 83-page draft of a new regulation that leaked late last week.

Bottom line: Sebelius means to dictate what your insurance plan must look like almost from day one, no matter how you get your coverage.

Indeed, the draft regs envision more than half of all policies having to change within three years -- an unmistakable break with President's Obama's oft-repeated promise, "If people like their insurance, they will be able to keep it."

Yet that may be the least of the broken promises.

Ultimately, these rules force consumers to buy one of just four health policies -- which vary mostly only by trading off higher co-payments for lower premiums, while offering essentially the same actual benefits. In arguing for passage of the law, ObamaCare's defenders claimed the rules were aimed at health plans sold in the "exchanges." Oops: Now Sebelius is applying them to employer plans. Eventually, this would force all but the very wealthiest Americans into a single government-designed insurance scheme.

This is far from the only area where Secretary Sebelius is exploiting the law's fuzzy language to tighten her control over the private insurance market. In recent weeks, she has said that the new law gives her authority to review and even set the rates on health policies sold in private markets, a role previously left to state insurance regulators.

The ObamaCare bills were written to paper over an intellectual divide between White House economists and HHS policy wonks. Some economists wanted genuine competition to take root in the new federally managed insurance "exchanges." The HHS crew favored a one-sized government plan with tight federal regulation over benefits.

The law itself didn't explicitly side with either school -- but it did leave the writing of the implementing regs to those same HHS wonks. Unfortunately, those more moderate White House economists are now leaving the administration, including the rumored departure of widely admired businessman and health-care expert Robert Kocher.

Washington insiders refer to this HHS team as "true believers" -- a group of earnest, left-leaning activists who've long favored a single nationalized health plan. They are massaging the law's vagueness to give themselves the tight federal control over health care that will bring their vision into practice.

Critics warned that the Obama bill meant a federal takeover of health care, with Washington bureaucrats making core decisions about medical care. With ObamaCare taking shape, that's exactly what consumers are getting. Saying "we told you so" is no consolation to those who took the president at his word.

Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute fellow, was a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He is partner in a firm that invests in health-care companies.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

Edited June 14, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[alienlovechild 75]

Indeed, the draft regs envision more than half of all policies having to change within three years -- an unmistakable break with President's Obama's oft-repeated promise, "If people like their insurance, they will be able to keep it."

Ultimately, these rules force consumers to buy one of just four health policies -- which vary mostly only by trading off higher co-payments for lower premiums, while offering essentially the same actual benefits. In arguing for passage of the law, ObamaCare's defenders claimed the rules were aimed at health plans sold in the "exchanges." Oops: Now Sebelius is applying them to employer plans. Eventually, this would force all but the very wealthiest Americans into a single government-designed insurance scheme.

It'll be interesting to see how many people end up having to go on the government plan once employers start dropping the old coverage by paying the fine instead or determining the government care is cheaper and dropping plans for that reason.

In short, Obama knew he was lying from day one but didn't care because it's all for you're own good. Had to pass the bill by hook or by crook and that's why it was done.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

and now you know why i'm glad we got sebelius outta kansas.

[SMOKE 1,426]

this is news to who?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It'll be interesting to see how many people end up having to go on the government plan once employers start dropping the old coverage by paying the fine instead or determining the government care is cheaper and dropping plans for that reason.

In short, Obama knew he was lying from day one but didn't care because it's all for you're own good. Had to pass the bill by hook or by crook and that's why it was done.

Don't care..... I'm sure I'm just one of many who had their employers already drop coverage due to the recession.

[alienlovechild 75]

Don't care..... I'm sure I'm just one of many who had their employers already drop coverage due to the recession.

Some businesses will fold and others will cut back on their workforce in order to provide healthcare coverage. More unemployed folks in a high unemployment environment. It's all good though as we're told the new "norm" for unemployment will be fairly high.

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

What a deceptive title and faulty argument. Regulating insurance policies doesn't equate to taking away anyone's plan, but what can you expect from one of the pushers of the death panels lie.

Edited June 14, 2010 by El Buscador

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[mawilson 2,133]

What a deceptive title and faulty argument. Regulating insurance policies doesn't equate to taking away anyone's plan, but what can you expect from one of the pushers of the death panels lie.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know how it's going to play out yet.