Over on the public blog I saw a post that linked to a Investors Business Daily editorial which claimed a provision of the bill made "individual private medical insurance illegal."
But here's a hint: the quoted text from the bill starts out, "Except as provided in this paragraph." When you see that, it's a hint that you should read the rest of the paragraph.
If you read further, you find out the bill would only outlaw individual private health insurance that is not participating in the Health Insurance Exchange. It's right there:
Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
Now, this is still a really big deal: under this bill you could only buy individual health insurance products by going through the government and subjecting yourself to whatever terms and conditions the government mandates (mostly outside of the legislative process, mind you) for all such products. That is scary stuff. My friends and relatives on individual insurance are rightfully worried about this, especially given that the terms and conditions are not outlined in the bill, but left up to the new "Health Choices Commissioner" (whose explicit job it would be to limit your choices).
And it is, of course, quite possible that these mandates will essentially leave you with little or no choice: all products may end up costing about the same and having about the same benefits. And many, most, or even all private insurers may decide they cannot earn a profit under the government's conditions, and drop out of the individual health insurance market. All of this is possible, and scary.
But it would not outlaw individual private health insurance.
So I pointed all this out to a liberal friend of mine, and he informed me that this has been "all over the blogosphere." Being one who does not travel the blogcube, I looked around, and it seems he was right: many right-wing sites reprinted the original false claims from Investor's Business Daily as fact.
Yuck.
So, I present the facts here.
Have a good weekend!
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 17, 2009 03:10 PM | Email ThisThe fact is that Chuck "The Schmuck" Schumer wants to make it illegal for health insurance companies to shift the tax burden that this new bill creates to their customers. The health insurance companies - which make around $10 billion a year in profits - will have to eat $10 billion a year in additional fees and taxes.
Telling a company that it can run but cannot make a profit is as good as shutting the company down. It's not a direct command, but a direct result. A roundabout way of shutting it down.
As far as my personal plan goes, I love it! I have money set aside in a tax-free health savings account to cover my deductible. The interest I earn on that HSA more than pays for my prescription insurance and my annual dental cleaning. I figured out a plan that WORKS FOR ME because the market exists.
What you want is to eliminate that market. You want to remove my choice - admit it! If it were up to you, there would be no high-deductible policies. My choice would be gone because YOU don't think it's applicable to everyone.
You want to dictate what is acceptable in health care. What's next? You and your Slavery Party ilk already want to dictate what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can drive, and how much power you can consume. I guess until you control the entire population to be your little pet drones you won't be happy...
But why don't we accept was a majority (50 to 35) of Americans think? NO Government health care plan! How about listening to Americans? Is that not acceptable?
And no one has explained yet how adding tens of millions more consumers to the Government plan will reduce the deficit or unfunded long-term liabilities of the US Government. Even the CBO says it's economic suicide.
So John, you got some explaining to do:
1. Why should the US Government do what a solid majority of Americans NOT want to happen?
2. Why do you want to remove choice?
3. Why do you want to run private companies out of business?
4. Why do you want to greatly expand the fiscal debt of the US Government?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 04:42 PMHey pudge...You should Dump this Toilet from this forum and any other forum. He only purposefully renders Deceit and Confusion to the commentary. He's a Government Shill.
However, who here trusts whoever Obama chooses to be the Insurance Czar?
Posted by: D.W. Drang on July 17, 2009 05:30 PMThis is one of the big problems with modern laws - they tend to be so convoluted and poorly worded that there is no easily-understood interpretation available. It has to go to the courts, or have additional laws later passed to 'clarify' what was 'originally intended'.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 06:05 PMI do agree this is poorly written, but that is how most law is.
Absent that information, NO plan would qualify, since there is no means to judge them. And the law - section 101 - states that you must first meet those requirements to be allowed. It's exclusive, not inclusive.
So, as currently written, NO private plan is allowed since this plan has not defined what an acceptable plan is.
It's not just a poorly written law, it's one that is completely open ended and not defined.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 17, 2009 06:58 PMIt’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
Posted by: jacksmith on July 17, 2009 08:00 PMCorrect (except that existing plans are grandfathered in, of course). But that doesn't mean I am wrong: all I said was that this does not make private plans illegal, it only makes private plans not meeting the requirements for participation in the Exchange illegal.
So, as currently written, NO private plan is allowed since this plan has not defined what an acceptable plan is.
Well, no specific, existing plan is allowed. But private plans generally speaking are, and will be allowed.
It's not just a poorly written law, it's one that is completely open ended and not defined.
Right, as I said in my original post, when I wrote, "especially given that the terms and conditions are not outlined in the bill, but left up to the new 'Health Choices Commissioner' (whose explicit job it would be to limit your choices)." :-)
"The Democrats' intention, obviously, is to drive private insurance into extinction so that we wind up with a "single payer" system, i.e., socialized medicine. In fact, in the health care proposal that Barack Obama put up on his web site during the campaign, he made it explicit that no private carrier would be allowed to compete with the government by offering a cheaper health insurance policy. That goal is achieved in a slightly different way by the proposals the Democrats are now debating."
"So, while it isn't quite correct to say that the House bill "bans private insurance," it certainly is correct that the bill is intended to destroy competition and your opportunity to pay for your health care through a private carrier."
This transparently shows the intention of power brokers in Congress. What about this theory - If Government run health care doesn't pass now, it eventually will and it may not necessarily happen under a Democrat Administration. Don't think I bet that it would be any better than now, if the Administrations continue to become progressively more corrupt, as the current trend shows.
Posted by: KDS on July 17, 2009 09:07 PMWhere does he say that? I did find him saying in that plan that other programs in the Exchange must be "at least as generous as the new public plan," but I didn't see anything about not being cheaper.
That said, we've seen many Democrats, including authors of Obama's plan and others with similar measures, say part of the point is kill small private insurers. This would likely do it. I don't know that it will destroy all private insurance in the long run, but that does seem to be the direction it's headed, as the Exchange reduces competitive advantage (and therefore profit) by forcing uniformity.
And don't think these businesses won't just stop offering coverage if that happens. Again, we have only a small handful of insurers in this state now. Many companies simply won't offer coverage because it's not worth it to them to do so.
And of course, Chuck "The Schmuck" Schumer wants to add fees to insurance companies that is greater than their combined profits - essentially forcing them to lose money each year, and wants to make sure that the insurance companies don't pass those fees on to their customers.
So the White House gets to decide what you must put in your insurance plans and how much you can charge for them, the Congress will tax away all your profits, and will mandate you cannot charge your customers for those profits.
Essentially, they're going to outlaw profit in the health care industry. That will kill every single insurance company, and there goes your choice.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 18, 2009 07:23 AMI hope the folks who pulled the lever for Obama, especially the ones in the healhcare fields, enjoy every minute of what Obama healthcare rationing and cost requirements will do to their lives.
Posted by: attila on July 18, 2009 08:08 AMLighten up a bit folks, what's being proposed isn't even all the way to what they have in France Germany England or Switzerland.
Ever been there lately?
Not exactly failing societies, and if the nationalized health systems there were such a disaster why then voters would vote it out!
But they don't. Even Maggie Thatcher and Nicky Sarkozy don't propose fundamental changes, and that's because it works enough for voters to be cool with keeping it.
Ummmm.
The difference is that Obama ACTUALLY SAID his goal is a government takeover of ALL health insurance. He said this many times. He is for, and wants to get, single-payer health care, and that he wants to get there gradually, with incremental steps.
For you to pretend this is a crazy accusation when Obama himself said it, is dishonest or ignorant.
what's being proposed isn't even all the way to what they have in France Germany England or Switzerland.
Right. Again: as Obama said, it would be a gradual process. Now, it might be Obama's ultimate goal is something different from what Europe has, but it is still total government control: single-payer.
Not exactly failing societies
Not exactly free ones, either.
Maybe you can explain how adding millions more people to Government health insurance will reduce the absolute dollars of debt this Administration is racking up at an unprecedented rate?
How is adding another 15+ million people to Government care going to reduce our debt?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 18, 2009 03:42 PM"How is adding another 15+ million people to Government care going to reduce our debt?"
Briefly, expanding the pool of insured enables preventative care. Currently all are entitled to emergency care, but emergency care is most expensive.
The cost of treating those without insurance isn't avoided by hospitals and doctors by not covering them, the cost of the most expensive care (emergency care) is unfortunately passed to those with coverage.
Expanding the pool of insured should reduce costs to those already covered.
First, thanks for at least attempting to address this question. So far, no one else has been willing to give it a shot.
Currently, there are 110 million people covered by the Government (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal employees, Tricare/VA). It is your contention that adding another 40 million to the Government plan will reduce the cost of those first 110 by enough to offset the cost of the new 40 million?
Remember, the issue isn't to reduce cost to the economy as a whole, but to the Government directly. We'd need to cut current costs by 35% to simply break even when adding 40 million more people.
I don't think that's really going to happen, do you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 19, 2009 08:46 PMFine. It's your belief that emergency care will be reduced significantly to decrease costs that's nutty. Most people who have insurance NOW are significantly under-cared for. Most people won't use preventative care just because it is "paid for."
There's no reason other than fantasy to believe that increase in use of preventative care will be sufficient to reduce costs overall.
Posted by: pudge on July 20, 2009 09:43 AM-
I wonder about something. A hypothetical, let's say 1 out of 1,000 develops a certain malady. If all 1,000 get an examination for it (preventative care?) is that less expensive than just treating the one person who develops it? I'm not so sure that it is. I cannot really see how any of this reduces health care costs. I can see the opposite however. More individuals making claims while the number of doctors/hospital rooms remains the same. I can see higher costs and longer waits.
Posted by: Gary on July 20, 2009 02:59 PM