Investors Business Daily’s editors quickly read through the actual legislation of the House health-care reform bill looking for hidden time bombs — and they found a doozy. On page 16 of over a thousand pages of text, they discovered a clause that essentially locks people into their current plan, and locks everyone out of any other plan. Well, presumably thepublic plan will be an exception:
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.
Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.
That will have the effect of forcing millions of people into the public plan whether they want it or not. Even worse, if insurers get barred from attracting new customers — which this clause outlaws — then they will eventually see their rolls drained, thanks to the natural flow of the market as employers drop plans and skip the expense of offering medical insurance. It won’t take long at all for insurers to exit the market and leave the field for just the public plan, which will automatically get the customers of each individual insurer as they close up shop.
Does this bill outlaw private insurance? Literally, no, but in practical terms, it makes it an endangered species and creates an American single-payer system by default.
It has to pass first, though, and Blue Dog Democrats say they’ve seen enough:
Centrist Democrats are threatening to oppose their party’s healthcare legislation unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accepts changes that make the bill more to their liking.
Seven Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have banded together to draft amendments that they’ll co-sponsor in the committee markup, which starts Thursday. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dogs’ point man on healthcare, says if those changes aren’t accepted, they’ll vote down the bill.
“We cannot support the current bill,” Ross said. “Last time I checked, it took seven Democrats to stop a bill in Energy and Commerce.” …
Blue Dogs think the bill fails to do enough to reduce healthcare costs, jeopardizes jobs with a fee on employers that don’t provide health insurance, and would base a government-run healthcare plan on a Medicare payment system that already penalizes their rural districts.
Michelle has the names to call this week to encourage them to vote against this bill.
5 comments:
There are also problems in regards to bioethical concerns. This is more problematic since President Obama has repeated supported programs and procedures that are highly controversial and abhorrent to some populations. All American will be paying taxes into the system. But what will be covered:
-Will abortion be covered? Will that include late term abortion which many people consider infanticide?
-Will euthanasia be covered? Will assisted suicide be expanded according to some bioethics claim that even those who are depressed or who have dependency problems may seek government funding for this final option? Will assisted suicide be mandated as a cost saver for terminal patients who have already signed DNR's?
-Who will decide the propriety of specific research and procedures? Will politically advantageous programs such as AIDS research be given more funding that research for ovarian cancer? Will celebrity driven programs such as Parkinson's get more attention that juvenile diabetes? Will programs that show little or no signs of success such as stem cell research be continued even in the face of no progress to appease political groups?
-Will HIPAA laws extend to government records or will anybody be able to access private files via a central data source? Will employers or other parties be able to access these records?
-Will responsible citizens who have bitten the bullet and paid for insurance be penalized in order to force them into government programs?
There are so many more....but I am not sure anyone is listening. I do plan to email the Blue Dogs on my list and ask them to consider these very serious points.
Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it.
Shit.
I hate the private plan I have.
I'm stuck with it unless I opt for a government plan???
Health care reform is all about rationing care:
Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another....
[...]
The case for explicit health care rationing in the United States starts with the difficulty of thinking of any other way in which we can continue to provide adequate health care to people on Medicaid and Medicare, let alone extend coverage to those who do not now have it.
The author is Pete Singer, and he supports the rationing.
Nice. Will he support the rationing when he finds himself on the "get thee to a hospice" list?
Pete Seeger is a fascist, and he has always been a fascist.
Post a Comment