This post proves the point, as if it even needs to be proven, that you have to go to the editorial pages of publications like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily to get your news when leftists are in control of the government.
When the topic is statist health care, that's doubly true.
IBDeditorials.com got to Page 16 of the House's health care bill, did the investigative work the establishment media was either too lazy to do -- or worse, other outlets did the work and didn't think readers should know what IBD found.
Yesterday afternoon, IBD laid the following bombshell on its readers (HT to dscott; I also heard Rush mention this a short time ago; bolds after title are mine):
It's Not An Option
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.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓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.
..... 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 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.
As I commented to dscott earlier today, "So Obama’s definition of a 'level playing field' is one where his private competitors can’t get any new customers."
The fact that little old IBD (no offense, guys, but I know your resources are relatively thin) had to find and investigate all of this on its own should be a cause for shame in every major newsroom in America. More than likely, it is not.
Yes, the House bill writers really tried to obfuscate their handiwork. It's very easy to breeze over "does not" without realizing that it really means "cannot." But IBD caught it, and hundreds of other supposed "real journalists" did not.
Here is all of what the Associated Press had to say about health care legislation at 2:37 this afternoon (saved here at host):
The overall House bill, which would cover around 94 percent of non-elderly residents, would create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers, require individuals to get insurance and large companies to provide it and tax the wealthiest Americans.
..... The Senate health panel's $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.
I guess the end of new individual private insurance wasn't that important.
Somebody at the AP, AFP, Reuters, other wires, the New York Times, the Washington Post, all major newspapers, the alphabet news channels (including Fox in this case), and so many other self-important establishment media outlets needs to explain to the public they supposedly serve why they didn't detect and investigate what IBD found.
They can't. Consumers of meaningful news, be advised. If you're not reading IBD's and WSJ's editorials, there's a high chance you're not truly informed. If you rely on the rest of the establishment media, there's a high chance you're misinformed.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Private Insurance illegal?
July 16, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Gary HallUnbelievable.
So, what about seniors on Medicare?
One of the first things that seniors do when they become Medicare eligible is sign up for Part A (hospital), and optionally, if they wish to pay for it, Part B (medical). I know.. most seniors (especially Democrats) are initially stumped right there. Most folks do both A & B.
Then, they go out and purchase a "private insurance option" - a Medicare supplement plan. The reason folks do this, is because Medicare is not a comprehensive health care plan - never has been.
And, they go out and purchase a private insurance supplement called Medicare Part D - that's for prescription drugs, if they want their drugs covered. It's a government subsidized program sold and administered by insurance companies.
Of course, at the same time President Obama has been calling Medicare the "big problem," (has he seen his shrink lately?), and has been pushing for slashing federal funding for both Medicare and Medicaid.
..on moving out of the country.. coming next week. (;~/ gary
Does this apply to supps?
July 16, 2009 - 14:43 ET by StarAZI don't see it that way--doesn't mean it isn't, tho.
Star in AZ
July 16, 2009 - 15:13 ET by Gary HallLook, I'm just now looking thru the 1018 page piece - and I don't know what I'll find (of if I'll be able to determine this) but why do you not see it that way? gary (;~>
And That's Not All
July 16, 2009 - 17:56 ET by sic721"Health Care Bill Will Fund State Vaccine Teams to Conduct ‘Interventions’ in Private Homes"
LINK
"The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire."-Robert A. Heinlein
Probably plenty of other nuggets in these landfills
July 16, 2009 - 14:41 ET by StarAZSo people won't be able to change companies--well, then the companies won't have to take anyone with pre-existings. So THAT'S how they are working it. Sheesh, these people have their nerve. I am sure this is one teeny iceberg in the tray!
No Private Insurance
July 16, 2009 - 14:42 ET by JDWWhat about those who are self-insured? Are they penalized for not participating in the government plan?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Spending, spending, spending
Talk about Ironic!
July 16, 2009 - 14:48 ET by CobraManI'm employed by a major health care insurance provider, Blue Cross Blue/Shield of Minnesota (you know, the bad guys), and THEY don't care if I change my private insurance policy (one that I've had since before I was employed by them), yet the US House of Representatives (And Obama, apparently!) does care and want's to PREVENT me from saving money when I find a cheaper policy?
Talk about Irony! The Big Bad Insurance Companies don't care if I save some money by switching to another provider or another policy, but our Representatives are trying to do everything in their power to make damn sure I cant! Hay, who's the Bad Guys here again? It sure ain't the insurance companies!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
That whole part about keeping your doctor...
July 16, 2009 - 14:46 ET by StarAZMust doctors take you now? If not, your doctor may not keep you! The Medicare supplementals, by the way, are uniform--each comapny's Plan A has same benefits, tho perhaps a diff cost, than every other company's Plan A--and on down. You can compare on cost with the same benefits.
Theirs
July 16, 2009 - 14:52 ET by JDWAs I understand this you will be assigned
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Spending, spending, spending
Re Private Insurance
July 16, 2009 - 14:50 ET by slickwillie2001It appears that there may be a qualifier to this clause later in the bill:
Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance: http://blog.heritage.org
The essence as I read it is that the old-style private insurance (pre Obamacare) is illegal, but a new policy by the same companies would be legal as long as they are a part of the Obamacare healthcare insurance 'exchange'.
Long-term though, it appears to me that evolution will be a one-way street to the government plan, and the democratics probably know that. No company will be able to compete with the government because the government can hide administrative costs as they do now with Medicare, and they have no obligation to keep costs to a minimum in order to seek a profit.
Keep in mind too that under Obamacare, every paper pusher, paper-clip counter, and janitor and light-bulb changer will be a Big Union fat-cat, who by the way will be exempted from Obamacare like all government employees.
PS This also illustrates that no one knows what is in this ugly sucker. What will turn up on page 999?
'they have no obligation to keep costs to a minimum'
July 16, 2009 - 14:58 ET by JDWThe threat is to scare individuals into signing-up for the plan prior to year's end, after that point premiums increase. As private companies fall by the side, premiums will have grown to unreasonable amounts.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Spending, spending, spending
We're all already paying for medicare...
July 16, 2009 - 14:57 ET by wyogator40% of Medicare's budget comes from payroll tax collection from people NOT ELIGIBLE for Medicare (under 65, able-bodied).
What happens to Medicare and the healthcare budget when these folks have to start paying for their own govt. insurance as well.
Good point above about supplemental coverage. I also learned that Medicare Prescription plan D has a annual gap for most of their insured. The annual deductible is $299. The next $2,400 is covered at 75%. Then the insured must pay 100% of their prescription bills until they hit the plans "catastrophic" level of about $6,500. Does anyone know of any private plans with this kind of "coverage gap"? More great ideas from our gummint!!!!
Learn about my daughter's Ugandan home for orphans with AIDS at
www.africaourownhome.org
Biggest problem I have with
July 16, 2009 - 15:15 ET by kangarooBiggest problem I have with private insurance, is they will not insure you if you have a pre-exsisting problem big or small. I wonder if the insurers will insure some of these people now to keep their numbers up. With this law, when things get really bad, the insurance companies will not be able to come back later down the road, like they are doing in the UK now. Also this law will faze out the private insurers.
At the moment, I can go to a specialist and arrange to pay cash for an opp in a timely fashion, will that option be gone as well.
Re pre-existing
July 16, 2009 - 15:30 ET by slickwillie2001They won't insure you if you have a pre-existing condition for medical care related to that condition. Why should they? Those that don't understand the concept of insurance might see this as a problem.
Isn't this like calling the car insurance folks from inside your wrecked car on the side of the road, and asking to sign up for insurance?
Re: pre-existing
July 16, 2009 - 19:20 ET by dan1123The problem is that companies can heavily increase your payments or drop you if you come down with a horrible disease. If they can deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition, they should also have to pay for the ongoing care of a condition that came up when they insured you in the first place--even if you drop the insurance.
Imagine if this happened with car insurance. You wreck your car and as your car is being repaired, the insurance policy needs to be renewed so they drop you and don't pay for the repair. That's not insurance, that's just a con game.
What?
July 17, 2009 - 15:27 ET by CobraMan"even if you drop the insurance."
Why should any insurance company keep paying if you drop that insurance? What your implying is that insurance companies should be FORCED to continue to supply coverage even though YOU decide not to pay for that coverage anymore. You're asking that the insurance keep covering you for free!
Let's apply this to you car insurance scenario: YOU let your insurance policy laps because YOU didn't make your payments while you car under repair. Why should the insurance companies be FORCED to pay for those repairs after YOU stopped paying for that coverage? YOU want FREE coverage simply because you car is under repairs! That doesn't make any sense!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Woe is we
July 16, 2009 - 15:24 ET by slickwillie2001I believe that the Bamster and the House and Senate democratics are going to try and push through everything they possibly can in these two years, knowing that it may cost them the House in 2012. The Bamster and his leaders in Congress don't care if the 'moderate democratics' get thrown out in 2010, and they lose a few Senators. Their revolution will be done and irrevocable.
They know that the threshold required for the Republicans to turn back their New-New Deal may never be reached. A simple Republican majority in the House will be enough to block anything further (ie block a bill), but not to undo it which would require passing and signing of a bill. To undo it the Republicans will require a Republican President, a majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. We can't do that in two years, we might not be able to do it in even four, six or eight years. It's not a matter of popularity, it's arithmetic.
Keep in mind that the Bamster's fudged census is on the way, run by ACORN. Destruction of voter-ID laws also continues, so illegals will be voting in huge numbers.
The Beauty of America
July 16, 2009 - 15:43 ET by CobraManThe Beauty of America and our form of government is that nothing is irrevocable. Take the repeal of the 18th Amendment as a good example.
As long as the people who (supposedly) represent us in Congress use their authority correctly, no law, no policy, no part of the Constitution itself, is irrevocable. If this Administration, and the members of Congress that enables it, does anything that severely harms the country, the next Administration, and the newly elected members of Congress that will accompany it, can revoke the laws and/or policies that created that harm.
Let's just hope that the future members Congress realizes the laws and policies currently being enacted are harmful to the country as a whole and they have the courage to undo the harm that has been done.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Medicare/Medicaid, social
July 16, 2009 - 16:50 ET by ckc1227Medicare/Medicaid, social security, and Roe v.Wade say 'hi"
Irrevocable? Technically, no. In actuality...yes. If nationalized health care, cap and tax, etc become the law of the land, they aren't going away, revokable or not.
.....Dont forget about
July 16, 2009 - 18:22 ET by Snappy.....Dont forget about amnesty. Thats a rather permanent one.
Is it, really?
July 17, 2009 - 15:34 ET by CobraManIs it, really? So, you're saying that one the Government makes a law, it become permanent? Boy, I'm glad that omen had the right to vote at the beginning of this Country's birth. Oh, wait, they didn't have that right for over 100 years! Hay, I guess laws CHANGED, didn't they? Humm... it looks like permanency is really just an illusion.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
They can be changed
July 17, 2009 - 15:31 ET by CobraManIt CAN be changed. if CONGRESS wants to do this. It ain't going to happen on it's own. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the guts to do this. But that, too, will change, in time. Just like the ban legalized slavery.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Oligarchy!
July 16, 2009 - 17:01 ET by Republic First."When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
This is getting out of hand. Not only did they slip this in, and it's being completely ignored by the MSM, but there's also a penalty for not getting insured.
So if I have this right, if I lose my job after this gets passed, I have to either A) Take COBRA (which is outrageously expensive) or B)I have to get insured through the 'public option'. If I decide to go without, I get to give the gov't some ridiculous penalty.
How do you spell communism?
How do you spell communism?
July 16, 2009 - 17:06 ET by vrwc13How do you spell communism? Simple and plain...o-b-a-m-a
v
vr... Hey...that works
July 16, 2009 - 17:09 ET by bigtimervr...
Hey...that works for me.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Joe says it isn't so...
July 16, 2009 - 17:03 ET by vrwc13"Biden told the group that the Obama health plan will not eliminate people’s ability to choose their health care insurance..."
...that's as long as you choose what they tell you to!
v
A note about Investors Business Daily...
July 16, 2009 - 17:20 ET by traderjamesNot only is their editorial page the best in the nation, (take a pen and mark 'TRUTH' at the top, because that's what it is), their stock market analysis is second to none. They call changes in market direction correctly EVERY time. Their analysis of individual stocks has made many a millionaire. Get a book: How to Make Money in Stocks by William O'Neil. It will change your life.
tj... Hey thanks for the
July 16, 2009 - 17:36 ET by bigtimertj...
Hey thanks for the info and tips.
You aren't W. O'Neil by any chance are ya? ;-)
I'm going to look into the book, seriously.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bigtimer give IBD a call,
July 16, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Radical1979bigtimer give IBD a call, sometimes they offer a free two week subscription and the book for free. Or you'll get the book with a full subscription, it explains how to use the stock tables of the paper.
Hey Rad, thanks, I will do
July 16, 2009 - 18:31 ET by bigtimerHey Rad, thanks, I will do that in the next few days....I have another one I want to subscibe to that I haven't gotten to yet...so I think I'll check that out and do both then.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
I'm sure Congress will keep
July 16, 2009 - 18:33 ET by Radical1979I'm sure Congress will keep their own insurance. And it'll be better than anything we can possibly get.
...And that is the ONLY way
July 16, 2009 - 18:52 ET by Snappy...And that is the ONLY way I would ever get behind a government backed comprehensive health insurance if congress was mandated to participate just like us unwashed masses. That way when it fails miserably (as anything government run will) they will feel the pain as we do.
If you think government will efficiantly run health care, just remember how well they did selling whiskey and women in Nevada.
Sooooo how long after going
July 17, 2009 - 04:52 ET by RR GOPSooooo how long after going into effect would it take for millions of Americans to find this out? It's something that would happen to them, not just something they'd have to read about in some piece of legislation.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).