House Bill makes private insurance ILLEGAL

US Flag upside downThe Socialist Health Care bill in the house, which is just another Government-Run Welfare Program, makes private insurance illegal.  You did NOT misread that.

 

Investor’s Business Daily is reporting on the contents of page 16:

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.

Unbelievable.  So in true statist form it does not make private health insurance illegal directly but does not allow them to get any new customers once the Government’s new welfare program gets implemented.  This is exactly the sort of unconstitutional marxist policy that those of us not enamored with the shiny object what was candidate Obama warned you myrmidons about.  How is that Kool Aid tasting now, comrade?  Are you having some buyer’s remorse now or are you such a societal parasite that you like this government takeover?

IDB continues:

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.

So let’s say that you like your insurance coverage but you want to change jobs.  Whether you want it or not you are now in the government welfare program.  Have fun experiencing DMV-like doctor visits, comrades.

If they could speak to us now the founding fathers would immediately suggest to patriots that they should oil up their guns and march on D.C.  This is unconstitutional tyranny at the hands of marxist ideologues; how long are we going to continue to give these statists our “consent?”

IBD closes with warnings about other things hidden more deeply in this unconstitutional bill:

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.

Socialist Health Care will only be good for losers and statists.  If you support it, you are in one of those groups.  Period.

Read the IBD OpEd here.

Advertisements

12 responses to “House Bill makes private insurance ILLEGAL

  1. LiberalsRstupid

    Okay. First, something obviously needs to be done to rein in the abuses by the insurance industry. I recently went through changing providers. If you are diligent enough, you will come up with something acceptable as I did. But some of these people were incredible. They exclude anything that might possibly be wrong with you or remotely related to something that may have ever BEEN wrong with you and still charge exorbitant prices.

    The carrier I finally ended up going with covered virtually everything, but there was a one year exclusion for anything that had ever happened to me in my life. Kinda silly because say if I came down with the flu, since I have had the flu in the past, (over 20 years ago) nothing about it would have been covered. And at the end of the first year, even though I had not been to a doctor, taken a pill or used my coverage in any way, they went up $40 per month! Some things definitely just aren’t right.

    As for the 47 million uninsured, we already know those figures are misleading. From ‘Liberty and Tyranny’:

    “In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not United States citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the non elderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months. The 47 million figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate.”

    With that said, there are some that truly need help in the areas of Health Care. And that is one of the areas the Government should direct it’s attention if it is to do anything at all. Couple that with reining in the abuses from the Insurance Providers and that would be an excellent start at reforming the Health Care issues in this country in a reasonable manner.

    I have personal experience with Socialized Health Care and I, for one, do not want ANY part of it. This is such a convoluted effort, no one will fully know the negative impact until it is implemented and you begin to experience the difficulties.

    In the end, nothing would be scarier to me than having Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Frank or Stuart Smalley involved in my personal health care service and decisions .

  2. LiberalsRstupid

    btw….I got banned from Piperni’s blog for comments such as this. I notice you promote his blog but he fails to promote yours.

    Typical Liberal Hypocrisy.

  3. I don’t deny problems in the insurance industry – there are problems in any industry. What I would suggest is that a lot of the problems that result in higher costs and more complex red tape are the result of government intervention rather than the lack thereof. Imagine how different the situation would be if our medical system was not being stressed by the well over 15 million illegals we have here, let in by our negligent (or complicit) government. It insults my intelligence and makes me yell at the tv/radio/podcast when people out in the public arena suggest that the government should ride in on a white horse and save us from the very problems that government helped create in the first place.

    The problem with the government, at least the current instantiation of government, ‘reining in’ abuses is that they have no sense or appreciation of the insurance companies being *businesses*. They expect them to run like a welfare program.

    Of course, once mommy government takes over health care we are going to see rationing that will make the insurance companies look positively compassionate by comparison. I just got a bumpersticker made that says “ObamaCare: throwing the elderly under the bus”.

    I am sure we will agree that Levin’s book is indeed awesome. He *is* the man.

  4. Mario is a little bit of a crybaby but I truly believe that “tough liberal” is an oxymoron so there you go. I figure that anyone who follows the link to his site from mine is going to intellectually slay the people on his site, so I left it there.

    He felt that I insulted Canada and perhaps I did. I have little patience for members of the Obama personality cult – the creepiest thing that I have seen in politics in my many years of observation.

    My father in law is Cuban and had very bad experiences with Castro’s people before he got out. He has said numerous times that Obama’s speeches remind him of Castro’s back when he first came to power.

  5. Excuse me: Cuban-American. He is as fiercely patriotic an American as you will find. Cuban immigrants are like that – they have felt the yoke of collectivism for themselves.

  6. LiberalsRstupid

    Good discussion on this topic over on Piperni’s Liberal Blog. Your site has been mentioned by a commenter. I can’t post on his blog. He banned me for calling someone “sweetie”, even as he called me an ignorant Nazi! Go figure!!

    But that’s how they operate.

  7. Hey Rob, I thought I’d drop by and say hi. I see that my good friend has been crying on your shouder. Nice.

    Of course he’s neglected to tell you the truth. No surprise there. Liberal has been banned a number of times for his abuse of other posters. His conservtive commentary is all over my blog so any talk of being banned for his political views is typical BS from a BS artist.

    You should perhaps let this vermin understand that if you had a poster who regularly abused your readers, you would ban him also. I’ve had 3 readers who have written me to say that they will no longer comment on my site because of abuse from this lowlife.

    And he was not banned for calling anyone sweetie. He condescendingly referred to a poster as ‘honey’ and when she asked him to refrain from doing so, he did it once more in a mocking way.

    Just thought I’d set the record straight. Conservative opinion is welcome on my site as I’m sure liberal thought is welcome here. What is not acceptable is scum like LiberalR who routinely abuses other readers. Not a nice person. Kind of ugly actually. Bad temperament and full of himself. Makes up for his low self-esteem and insecurities by playing the bully.

    I actually felt sorry for this guy once. Now he deserves his own sorry company.

    Good luck with the site, Rob.

  8. I will choose to stay out of the disagreement that you guys have built over time. I have been flaming and getting flamed on the internet for almost 20 years now – I have been on both sides of that. I do invite both of you to check back here & comment on things.

    Mario – I will make my way over to your site again soon. I have stayed quite busy with programming work (darned day job!) and with the blogs to which I contribute. We surely blog in interesting times.

    I blog more for my own benefit than anything else, otherwise I would have to go into politics or something.

  9. LiberalsRstupid

    “Cry Baby” seems spot on.

    I’m sorry he brought his stupidity over to this blog. It is painfully evident that anyone who does not subscribe to his particular form of condescending, Liberal Radicalism is a target for his ridicule. And if you have the temerity to stand up for yourself, then he exercises the right to take his toys and go home.

    Not sure why I bother, but I enjoy a spirited exchange. I don’t mind playing the Conservative Pinata on Liberal Blogs. But sometimes, it’s an exercise in futility when you have the “courtesy” as it were, to accept the abuse one has to endure when posting Conservative Thinking on a Liberal Blog, and then be “Banned” when you try to respond to their ridicule and insult.

    And I’ll have to say, I have not witnessed anyone being banned from any blog short of abusive and profane language. Except Mario’s Blog, where you get banned for disputing the owner of the blog or defending yourself against verbal insult. Or simply pointing out the Blogger isn’t even a U.S. Citizen, and while he is being so critical, truthfully has no skin in the game.

    Anyway, I apologize I attracted Mario to your site to exercise more of his immature Crying. But it’s typical “Piperni”. As he decries my abuse of posters, he called me at least 7 different, disparaging names.

    And as much as he touts his ballyhooed, willingness to debate Conservative (or just opposing) opinion, he still hasn’t responded as to why this passage in this draft does not say, as he seems to believe it does not, exactly what it says.

    Have a good one. Again, my apologies. But sometimes it gets kinda tiring having a Canadian telling us how bad our President is. How inadequate our Health System is. And how we should be less, in some Liberal Social experiment to make everyone else a bit better.

    Mario, Statists and the whole group of Apologists will never get it:

    “There is no justice, and great harm, in diminishing the whole array of future opportunity to save a few people now from a regrettable fate.”

    Again. My apologies. But someone other than me sprinkled the blood in the water.

  10. LiberalsRstupid

    Again, my apologies. I will not further “Clog Your Blog” (Catchy phrase. Maybe I should patent it!) with this stupidity.

    If Mario wants a personal exchange, he has my email. I welcome a debate with him on any matter of substance in a venue where he doesn’t have the ability to censor or ban me. I’m all for a level playing field.

    Take care and take more time to post. I understand you aren’t on the public dole and your time can be limited, (I suspect that may not be the case with many bloggers) but your posts seem well thought out for the most part and lacking the typical biased hysteria often exhibited by both sides.

  11. Okay. I guess I’m the one that really opened this can of worms. So I’ll give my best effort to closing it.

    The debate was that: this doesn’t say what it appears to say. I constructed this comment. I got NO RESPONSE. But I did managed to get banned. I’m beginning to wonder if through my “banishment” I may not be in better company. 🙂

    Any way, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just saying that my admittedly limited understanding is that it simply says exactly that. If you lose or change your coverage AFTER this bill is passed, you have to sign onto the Public Option.

    And again, if I am wrong, just explain it to me. Don’t ridicule, insult and censor me…please??

    My Post:

    Okay. I’m not a lawyer. But I am reading this “Discussion Draft”. I’m not sure what THAT is but I think in layman’s terms, it is the outline for what will become the bill. Maybe I’m wrong. For all I know, it could be the lyrics to the new Ozzie Osbourne Song.

    But the way I read it, it does state that if you want to purchase private insurance coverage AFTER this bill becomes law, you can’t do it. Simplified, but that’s the way I read it. I’ve tried to create a dummy’s copy of the language for the sake of myself and Tommy. But the way I read it, it says after this bill takes effect, if I lose my coverage, want a different carrier or just simply want to change the terms of my coverage, I can’t exercise that choice. I have to go into the Government Program.

    Someone smarter than me please correct me if I’m wrong. And don’t just ridicule me and tell me I’m indoctrinated by Fox News. Show me or explain to me WHY I’m wrong.

    Dummy copy follows: No “Legalize”

    Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term “grandfathered health insurance coverage” means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 (as defined in section 100(c)) if the following conditions are met:

    (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

    (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

    (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.

    —Subject to paragraph (3), the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

  12. Okay. I guess I’m the one that really opened this can of worms. So I’ll give my best effort to closing it.

    The debate was that: This doesn’t say what it appears to say. I constructed this comment. I got NO RESPONSE. But I did managed to get banned. I’m beginning to wonder if through my “banishment” I may not be in better company. 🙂

    Anyway, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just saying that my admittedly limited understanding is that it simply says exactly that. If you lose or change your coverage AFTER this bill is passed, you have to sign onto the Public Option.

    And again, if I am wrong, just explain it to me. Don’t ridicule, insult and censor me…please??

    My Post:

    Okay. I’m not a lawyer. But I am reading this “Discussion Draft”. I’m not sure what THAT is but I think in layman’s terms, it is the outline for what will become the bill. Maybe I’m wrong. For all I know, it could be the lyrics to the new Ozzie Osbourne Song.

    But the way I read it, it does state that if you want to purchase private insurance coverage AFTER this bill becomes law, you can’t do it. Simplified, but that’s the way I read it. I’ve tried to create a dummy’s copy of the language for the sake of myself and Tommy. But the way I read it, it says after this bill takes effect, if I lose my coverage, want a different carrier or just simply want to change the terms of my coverage, I can’t exercise that choice. I have to go into the Government Program.

    Someone smarter than me please correct me if I’m wrong. And don’t just ridicule me and tell me I’m indoctrinated by Fox News. Show me or explain to me WHY I’m wrong.

    Dummy copy follows: No “Legalize”

    Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term “grandfathered health insurance coverage” means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 (as defined in section 100(c)) if the following conditions are met:

    (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

    (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

    (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.

    —Subject to paragraph (3), the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s