Government care outlaws private insurance

[Fieldmouse]

And VC said we're only fear mongering.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...32548165656854

It's Not An Option

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
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.

[nodog]

The health care industry has made it's self a target

Been reading more and more of the "gene patent" issue. It is only because the American people have been made so passive that many in the health care industry still breath. Understand though that when times get bad enough, that will change. Happened many times before.

Passive people are more feminine and turn more to an authority to destroy with viciousness those who've offended them Just life.

[emptyquiver2]

You have missed one important point. According to the Wall Street Journal, most Dems refused to fall under the same policy. They prefer to keep there own private providers. Coburn tried to get them to sign onto an agreement that they would abide by the same social plan as their trying to push onto the people, and they refused to sign. with the exception of a few. I guess that we are expendable. Just tell me again, who works for whom here.

[James B]

I am not sure but you may have misread that article about the Dems not signing. What they were trying to get everyone to sign was a agreement that no Bill would be passed without everyone reading it and posting it on the internet for at least 72 hours for the people to read. Not one Democrat would sign it but the list is going public so some of them might change their tune. As of now, the Government workers including congress will have to abide by whatever they pass, However, As Nute said, there is a 100 percent chance that that clause will disappear before the bill is finalized, At that point, the American people, IMO should just refuse to pay any more taxes until they recieve a little representation, which we are not getting now.

[emptyquiver2]

Wall Street Journal ^ Here it is James. Came about the other day. What your refering to is correct also.