The Public Option...

[imported_inspire]

Crawling across the internet today on lunch, reading about Obama's Healthcare bill and found this editorial from last week.

It seems pretty freaking crazy. Check out the bolded portions.

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.

Ignoring the fact that this is clearly an editorial, what do you guys think about this? It just strikes me as something that can't be real.

EDIT: So, after getting out of a meeting to see the usual screams of 'bloody murder' in the responses, I had a chance to read the surrounding parts of the bill. This section of the bill is defining which policies will be grandfathered in under the bill. In short, it looks like the bill is going to set out some rules that will regulate which types of health policies are valid in the eyes of the government. Since it's pretty unheard of to retroactively apply laws, this section defines what existing policies will be able to be 'grandfathered in' under the new law.

Thanks to bamacre for posting a link to the full bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200

I'd copy & repost the applicable sections, but it doesn't work too well - To get the full context, start at TITLE I on Page 14.

So now, this:

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.

is a fallacy. True, you won't be able to change your coverage on a grandfathered policy - but you will be able to get a new private policy under the new rules - whatever they are (haven't gotten that far).

Ignoring for a moment any controversy over the new rules or a public option and focusing on this paragraph of the bill - isn't this (or what I see of it so far), similar to what is done by a state insurance commissioner?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Shh...it's supposed to be a secret! Despite all of the lies being spouted by Obama, when people start reading the bill, they come across monstrosities like this.

It is very real, and you should be very afraid.

 

[theeedude]

Did you read the actual bill? Seems like a bunch of out of context quotes.

 

[Carmen813]

Links broke, but something seems odd.

Sure this isn't the section that is supposed to prevent business from dropping private coverage?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Shh...it's supposed to be a secret! Despite all of the lies being spouted by Obama, when people start reading the bill, they come across monstrosities like this.

It is very real, and you should be very afraid.

LOL @ you and your lies and secrets and general FUD. If you think what's being kicked around is anything close to what will be put to vote you're crazy.

I lived through 2000-2008 under what I (and many) consider to be the worst president in modern history. I think I'll live through your 'monstrosities' under Obama.

 

[waggy]

FUD.

now way they are going to make private insurance illegal.While i have my issues with UHC i don't think this is a real one.

 

[theeedude]

If the quote says "Except as provided in this paragraph" seems to me like you would want to at least include the paragraph for context. Maybe a bit too much common sense for rightwingers though.

 

[sandorski]

There's a glitch in the Failtrix and it is emanating from this thread.

 

[yllus]

There are exactly two countries in the world that outlaw private health care - Canada and Cuba. And Canada is quickly moving away from that position, if we ever truly had it.

Rest assured, unless we truly are living in an Ayn Rand novel where the rich hate themselves so much they want to destroy everything, you are not going to join this very select club.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: waggy
FUD.

now way they are going to make private insurance illegal.While i have my issues with UHC i don't think this is a real one.

It's pretty real, believe someone on cnn was even talking about it. The progressive members of the democrats want the government to supply all with the insurance and that was pointed to as the reason BHO is getting complaints from that grouping.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: waggy
FUD.

now way they are going to make private insurance illegal.While i have my issues with UHC i don't think this is a real one.

It's pretty real, believe someone on cnn was even talking about it. The progressive members of the democrats want the government to supply all with the insurance and that was pointed to as the reason BHO is getting complaints from that grouping.

IF true you think it would be all over the news. you think FOX would be having major issues with it.

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If the quote says "Except as provided in this paragraph" seems to me like you would want to at least include the paragraph for context. Maybe a bit too much common sense for rightwingers though.

The "paragraph" in question consists of 2 subparagraphs. That one, and one excepting additions of new dependents on existing grandfathered policies.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: waggy
FUD.

now way they are going to make private insurance illegal.While i have my issues with UHC i don't think this is a real one.

It's pretty real, believe someone on cnn was even talking about it. The progressive members of the democrats want the government to supply all with the insurance and that was pointed to as the reason BHO is getting complaints from that grouping.

IF true you think it would be all over the news. you think FOX would be having major issues with it.

Why, because the popular media is an unbiased source of info, not owned by the rich fat cats? Doesn't look like it to me.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Big Health lobbyists are crafting some pretty good FUD for the credulous.

Did you know that pork is no longer being served in the White House? Did you know that Muslims can't eat pork? It's true!

 

[Phokus]

WHY WON'T OBAMA SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?!?!?!?! :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

If anyone would like to read the bill...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200

Just click on "Full Text."

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If the quote says "Except as provided in this paragraph" seems to me like you would want to at least include the paragraph for context. Maybe a bit too much common sense for rightwingers though.

I'll get to it, geeze.

EDIT - Done - OP is edited. Chill.

 

[Carmen813]

I found the bill and read through it. As you said in your edit, this article is basically a fallacy.

Private plans that are not grandfathered in must meet the new government requirements. This includes the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, participation in a national insurance exchange program, guaranteed issue and renewal of plans, new rules on premiums, nondiscrimination in benefits and providing of adequate mental health and substance abuse coverage, and other services specifically outlined in the bill. That's my quick summary, there is more, I didn't read all of it.

I found all of this at my Congressman's website, the entire bill is posted for us to see.

http://massa.house.gov/uploads/HR3200.pdf

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: waggy
FUD.

now way they are going to make private insurance illegal.While i have my issues with UHC i don't think this is a real one.

Why not? It's illegal in Canada for all intents and purposes for all except the most banal of procedures. Do you people really think that a thorough public and private health system can co-exist? I mean really, think for a moment you really believe that?

There are exactly two countries in the world that outlaw private health care - Canada and Cuba. And Canada is quickly moving away from that position, if we ever truly had it.

Rest assured, unless we truly are living in an Ayn Rand novel where the rich hate themselves so much they want to destroy everything, you are not going to join this very select club.

But from a practical standpoint, can you name a Western nation in which, say, half people have private and half public? I rather doubt it. I predict confidently that if this plan goes through in any shape resembling its current, private will be an increasingly small portion of the pie for the wealthy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I found the bill and read through it. As you said in your edit, this article is basically a fallacy.

Private plans that are not grandfathered in must meet the new government requirements. This includes the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, participation in a national insurance exchange program, guaranteed issue and renewal of plans, new rules on premiums, nondiscrimination in benefits and providing of adequate mental health and substance abuse coverage, and other services specifically outlined in the bill. That's my quick summary, there is more, I didn't read all of it.

I found all of this at my Congressman's website, the entire bill is posted for us to see.

http://massa.house.gov/uploads/HR3200.pdf

Great, all the reasons you listed are why insurance is skyrocketing. And this bill is supposed to fight cost (the so far ONLY REASON UHC supporters can come up with, if you really press them all they can come up with are cost and ineffiency).

Can you please PM me your congressman's name so I can tear him a new one?

 

[DaveSimmons]

^ except that they only skyrocket cost because people wait to buy insurance until they need it. One point of UHC is to make insurance affordable enough so that people do get it before they need it.

This will fix lapses in coverage for people who are unemployed just a little too long. In a recent Off-Topic thread the new insurer counted coverage as starting with the first paycheck not the first day of work, which was 1 day past the period for continuing the past coverage. "Ha ha, preexisting condition, we pay nothing!"

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
^ except that they only skyrocket cost because people wait to buy insurance until they need it. One point of UHC is to make insurance affordable enough so that people do get it before they need it.

This will fix lapses in coverage for people who are unemployed just a little too long. In a recent Off-Topic thread the new insurer counted coverage as starting with the first paycheck not the first day of work, which was 1 day past the period for continuing the past coverage. "Ha ha, preexisting condition, we pay nothing!"

Most employer based HI programs cover preexisting conditions....

Kaiser has covered my pre-existing conditions completely and has given me some really fantastic medical to date.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I found the bill and read through it. As you said in your edit, this article is basically a fallacy.

Private plans that are not grandfathered in must meet the new government requirements. This includes the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, participation in a national insurance exchange program, guaranteed issue and renewal of plans, new rules on premiums, nondiscrimination in benefits and providing of adequate mental health and substance abuse coverage, and other services specifically outlined in the bill. That's my quick summary, there is more, I didn't read all of it.

I found all of this at my Congressman's website, the entire bill is posted for us to see.

http://massa.house.gov/uploads/HR3200.pdf

Great, all the reasons you listed are why insurance is skyrocketing. And this bill is supposed to fight cost (the so far ONLY REASON UHC supporters can come up with, if you really press them all they can come up with are cost and ineffiency).

Can you please PM me your congressman's name so I can tear him a new one?

Actually found some good stuff in the bill, to my surprise...

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
18 (a) IN GENERAL.?A qualified health benefits plan
19 shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commis-
20 sioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health
21 benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP
22 offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the
23 Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment suffi-
24 cient to meet such loss ratio.

So HI plans will be held to a medical loss ratio... fantastic.

There is also a gem of not helping "undocumented aliens" pay for UHC... but we are gonna pay for their clinic visits and whatnot? I'm cool with ER treatment... followed by a INS visit but... oh well, fuck it.

One thing that bugs me is that all the details of what margins HI can operate under, what constitutes a qualifying HI plan and a shit ton else is being left up to discretion of the "Comissioner" who is a political appointee of the President. Senate consent. I have not read anywhere near the whole bill, not even close but from i have read (first 100 pages or so... I don't like it.

They are leaving all the details to be decided upon by some dude and his posse... and really, when it boils down to it, by the POTUS. I don't like it at all. So now the POTUS will be the chief executive officer of the US healthcare system too?

 

[trenchfoot]

The Farce is Strong in this thread.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Did you read the actual bill? Seems like a bunch of out of context quotes.

This coming from the poster who refused to read even one page of the bill until I pasted the text in the forum. :roll:

The big question is how the new Government-run mysterious "Health Care Exchange" will be managed by "the Comissioner."

I honestly don't believe that the "public option" will remain optional for very long; and, unlike most posters here, I've actually read a large portion of the current version of the bill.

I also believe that many posters here support 100% Government-run UHC -- and every other aspect of our lives for that matter -- so they'll probably support it regardless of the bill's Orwellian undertones.

I've already posted the full text of pages 16 and 17 twice in these forums... and I've linked to the PDF for the bill in multiple threads. Many, including senseamp, won't even bother to glance at the actual bill. As long as there remains a (D) in front of the authors' names, they'll blindly support it forever.