Does ObamaCare outlaw private insurance?
posted at 8:47 am on July 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
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 the public 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.
Update: Instapundit gets this feedback from a reader:
Investor’s Business Daily did not continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. ”
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
Well, that may address the issue, but price-fixing premiums means insurers can’t cover the costs of the risk they assume. Either the insurers will have to start with higher premiums to cover their costs, or they will go out of business when usage increases and premiums remain fixed. Forcing insurers into price-fixing schemes only adds another step to their extinction.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »
First,
these are the guys that said they couldn’t read the Nov-Jan economic signals that the recession was going to be bad, said the Porkulus would create 4 million jobs, unemployment would not go above 8%, then said that the conditions we have are exactly what they wanted. AND, BTW, they want another “stimulus”.
Second, Obama has talked about free competition in the health insurance market. That is just BS as we know. NOW, they throw on the added measure of only 1 program can get new customers, the “public option”. What a crock of crapola.
If company A is regulated to not get new customers and company POS is the only plan an individual can buy, how is that competition?
It is like playing a football game, where team A can only play defense, with 7 men, and team POS can play offense, defense and special teams, AND they get to pick the refs AND change the rules during the game. That is the Obama competition.
gonnjos on July 16, 2009 at 9:25 AM
LOL. So you have read all 1000 pages?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM
People aren’t bleeding in the streets, so we have enough doctors and equipment. Arms aren’t being cut off for the lack of anything. We’re just bankrupting people doing it and making it very difficult/costly to obtain insurance outside your employer. If everyone had insurance there wouldn’t be any more or less sick people, it would just be paid for differently.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Not all, but large sections. It’s 1000 pages, but double spaced with wide margins–not as long as you’d think. I’ve apparently read more than Ed because it’s easy to see that his point was completely false.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Just tried posting this little inconveinent fact at a few lefty boards…nothing.
People are really and truly living in De Nile over this thing.
Dark-Star on July 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Oh, really? Here’s a quote from the article:
“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.”
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 9:27 AM
We are not every other industrialized nation. We are the United States of America.
It is immoral to circumvent the Constitution for political expediency. It is immoral to saddle future generations with debts that will hinder the progress of mankind and create hardships for the poorest of the poor, and then lie and play word games to gloss over the fact that you have no way to pay for your “high-minded” socialist vision.
hillbillyjim on July 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM
It’s immoral to not fix someone when they are injured,
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Define “fix”
Would that be an open ended obligation on the part of the taxpayers or a ‘fixed’ or rationed amount of care?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Stop, you are killing me.
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Good, this pile of crap won’t even get out of committee.
I want to see Barry, Pelosi and Assrod try to spin this devastating defeat as a victory. Should be interesting.
NoDonkey on July 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
So, are you being paid $11-16 hr. to post here?
artist on July 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM
And this is the United States we live in? Buy something you don’t want or we will punish you?
Man, you can almost hear the ghosts of the men who stood at Lexington calling out to us.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Maybe America has changed and those demanding government provide cradle to grave entitlements(jonknee)are truly the majority. Over the past 20 – 30 years we’ve witnessed the tyranny of any minority group trump the will of the majority under the guise of political correctness and moral relativism, the upcoming hate legislation buried in the defense appropriations bill is just the latest chapter in a very depressing book called “what freedom”. We need to take a long hard look at the changed landscape and decide on a course of action that serves us, be it a tax revolt or armed insurrection enough is enough.
dmann on July 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Look, I have just read pages 16 through 21 and the language is such that Ed’s post is validated while Johnknee can still make the same claims he is making.
That’s what Congress does. But they will apply what Ed has posted, not what Johnknee is spinning.
myrenovations on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
How many of the 1000 pages did you read? And why is Obama trying to rush through a 1000 page bill that even you have not read completely?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Classic wealth distribution scheme. Put up or shut up moron. Whose going to be paying the bill for you parasites?
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Good one.
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 AM
You don’t get something for nothing.
Shylock would be proud of Rahm Obama.
Demand that pound of flesh!
Obama touts China’s exemplary leadership in all things. The Chinese citizens pay $805./month to torture their child for using the internet too much.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Good grief, where is this money coming from? Soros?
Yes, we’re the 1960’s Soviet Union.
petefrt on July 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Health care is expensive because government has it’s dirty fingers in it. They regulate the crap out of everything and refuse tort reform. In addition a major contributing factor are the millions of illegals in this country. They get treatment … for free … and the costs are spread amongst the paying. All overhead is picking up by the paying consumer and the taxpayer.
It’s almost like this was a setup. Everything the government has done has driven up the cost of health care to the point where Obama and his filthy henchmen can play saviors.
Crooked bastards.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Read. The. Bill. It’s not right or even close to right. IBD has an agenda and they posted something that aligns with it. Same with Ed. But if you read the bill that’s not what it says. I’ll summarize: “grandfathered” coverage is defined as coverage that exists before the bill. After the bill no coverage can be considered grandfathered. Regulation rules are changing with the bill so any new policies need to use those rules. These policies will be available to both companies and individuals on an insurance exchange. There will be many private and public plans to choose from (many more private than public actually).
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Exactly. Leftists are highly skilled at this double-speak. Only need compare Obama’s campaign and his presidency. You can’t trust a leftist.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Huh … us.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
I realize that reform should address any number of matters.
But focusing in on the one I continually hear about–47 million uninsured. Is this figure correct?
I hear and read that 25% of that number consists of illegal aliens. If so, are we going to debate the efficacy of health coverage for these freeloaders? When will the GOP alert the public to this?
I also hear and read that 25% of that number consists of people who can afford coverage but who, for whatever reason, choose not to purchase insurance. I don’t have sympathy for these people. That said, should these people be subject to a mandate to acquire some amount of minimum catastrophic coverage?
I also hear that 25% of that number consists of people who can qualify under existing programs, but they’ve not enrolled. Why aren’t we making a push to enroll these people?
Finally, if what I hear and read is correct, we need to worry about only 12 million uninsured. And, in that case, are we changing to a system that is supposedly designed to address a problem of 47 million uninsureds when we have only a fraction of that number?
BuckeyeSam on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
It was them or Mass? But yeah, you’d think insurance providers would be all over this one with every ounce of muscle they can muster.
I was at least a little reassured that some voice of reason was in Washington. Let’s hope they make the difference.
Thunderstorm129 on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
This is a bunch of total crap. Why the hell is the taxpayer responsible for paying for other people’s health care? Health care is not a right. People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. The costs are high for insurance 1.) because of the high cost of malpractice insurance and 2.) state regulations that force insurance companies to include all sorts of coverage that you just don’t need. Let people pick their own plans, reduce the ability to sue doctors for trillions of dollars and leave it to the market.
bnichols10 on July 16, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Which they do here except for: 1) People who fail to enroll in public option for which they are currently eligible, such as Medicaid. 2) People who can well afford to pay for health insurance, but choose not to. 3) People who are in this country illegally.
So my family is going to be forced into some crappy public plan, because of a small percentage of the population who is 1) Too stupid to sign up for something free 2) Too irresponsible to buy health insurance 3) People who don’t belong in this country in the first place.
Outstanding idea – for Democrat politicians. After all, the Stupid and Irresponsible Community are their core base.
NoDonkey on July 16, 2009 at 9:33 AM
I’m not so sure they are going to let it go down in defeat. The filthy liar and his corrupt party needs to have this done before the end of the year because there is no way that they will be able to get away with this crap in the months leading up to the mid-term elections. I suspect that they will go ahead and push this through on a strictly partisan basis.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Socialized medicine is the very antithesis of democracy. And, socialized medicine is not opposed by a minority of Americans, it’s opposed by a majority of Americans. Other than that, everything else you said makes perfect sense.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Oh, it most certainly was. Much like Fannie/Freddie.
Gov. screws it all up, then steps in to “rescue” their own mistakes by grabbing more power.
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Drudge just caught on. But Craigslist and Classifieds have been featuring similar ads for years. One of the more “creative” lures is for writers to be paid for submitting their opinions on whatever topics of interest they may have, to garner internet “friends”.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Good question! Of course he is.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
You mean property forcibly taken from some to buy the votes of many?
What gives them the right to do that?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Expand and fix the bankrupt Medicaid system. THEN go pound sand. Keep your hands off of our freedom, Obama, you lying sack of sh*t. There’s never a PEEP about Obama’s double talk and flat out lies. THIS SYSTEM IS MEANT TO END PRIVATE OPTIONS – PERIOD – and Obama just smiles and lies through his teeth. It’s surreal.
marklmail on July 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I think it was Mark Levin who talked about this. The real number is actually quite small and if you gave every single one of them like 5 grand to fund their healthcare, it would be far, far less and give them much better care than Obama’s plan.
But hey, that’s common sense and it’s NOT ALLOWED in Washington. ;)
Thunderstorm129 on July 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Why are we forcing people to have insurance? If I don’t want it, why should I have to have it and be punished if I refuse? The problem you will have is the same one that exists for income tax, an ever-growing pool of Americans who don’t pay-in being supported by a rapidly shrinking pool who have to shoulder the cost burden.
Roe v. Wade has been thrown in America’s face for how long how with the never-ending chant of “Hands off my body!” If I wish to take a chance with MY body and not insure it against medical problems, why would that be your concern?
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Communism/socialism at work.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Hypocrite. You admitted that you have not read the whole bill. Only “large chunks” (wink, wink).
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
You just stepped in it, my friend.
After all your weeping about the lies! lies! You just told a whopper.
The cause of bankruptcy is stupidity, not “health care” debt as you on the hard-left claim.
http://www.gsm.ucdavis.edu/uploadedFiles/Faculty/Directory_and_Profiles/personal_bank.pdf
Nice try, but you’re busted, shill.
jeff_from_mpls on July 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
are you friends with anninCA? cause she’s not to bright either…
SHARPTOOTH on July 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Then you can’t comprehend what you just read. The quoted piece:
… Is entirely in reference to defining grandfathered plans. So you will not be able to buy insurance with the previous set of rules after the new rules are passed. That’s all it saying. The grandfathered clause is there so that everyone’s existing plan won’t change, but this is simply saying that they can’t continue to issue policies with the same rules. Plans after the bill be will subject to the new rules and sold on the insurance exchange. It’s not exactly complicated.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Do they do that any other way?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Right. We need to start focusing on the 250 million people who have insurance who are mostly satisfied with their insurance, instead of on the small minority that don’t have insurance. But of course that makes too much sense, so you certainly can’t expect the Democrats to do anything like that.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Thanks. That Dems don’t discuss this honestly convinces me not to trust anything they do. The the GOP doesn’t debunk this in some loud forum convinces me that the GOP consists of idiots.
BuckeyeSam on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Considering the bill hasn’t even been finalized in the House there is no way you can make that claim with any credibility. YOU ARE LYING because there is no way for you to substantiate the claim that there will be more choice under the filthy liar’s bill.
Be honest or STFU.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Libertarian? That is quite a stretch.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
After the bill no coverage can be considered grandfathered. Regulation rules are changing with the bill so any new policies need to use those rules. These policies will be available to both companies and individuals on an insurance exchange. There will be many private and public plans to choose from (many more private than public actually).
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM
You fail to point out that the grandfathered coverage loses its status if the policy is changed.
myrenovations on July 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Yes, and you also have an “agenda”. You are reading the bill through the filter of your agenda and IBD is reading it through theirs.
The difference is, they asked for clarification from the House Ways and Means committee, and their view was validated by THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT.
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Someone hijacked a whole shipment of FAIL today, and kept it for themselves.
I’ll try and break it down for you in simple terms, in a way you might be able to understand.
I can also use an example of a compant lefties love to loathe.
The Public plan is the Super WalMart.
The private plans will be mom and pop on main street with 2 parking spaces out front, who sell the toaster for twice what WalMart can sell it for.
Any questions?
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Interesting, and thank you for the information.
But you have to put on some pretty big blinders not to see where this is headed. The administration just knows if they were to tell everyone what their end state was no one would buy it.
Wanting everyone to have health insurance is a noble goal that most wouldn’t argue with. But a government run system is not the answer. It will be both expensive and inefficient, and the only way to keep costs down will be to ration care. An easier method would expand options (allow people to shop across state lines) and get rid of the frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to hold massive insurance policies, and in turn pass those costs on. What’s your thought on that approach?
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 9:38 AM
jonknee,
How many pages of the 1000 pages did you read? And why is Obama trying to rush a 1000 page bill through?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:38 AM
You wouldn’t like it if “Democracy” did arrive, because if “Democracy” were used then Ogabe would be thrown from office by popular vote and bills such as nationalized healthcare would die the day the reached the house floor.
I don’t think that words means what you think it means.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Because if you get injured we still have to fix you regardless if you have insurance or not. Ultimately everyone else pays for that. Car insurance is mandatory if you drive for the same reason–you can cause someone else expense. I know it’s not quite the same since everyone has to live and not everyone has to drive, but it’s the same principle.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Fools! You’re supposed to bury that gem on page 1,012, next to the fine print: “Barack H. Obama getz 2 B Prez 4 Life.”
Grafted on July 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM
No wonder, they want to outlaw guns.
franksalterego on July 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM
The Feds never pass up a good scam. They see the insurance fat cat and are determined to make it their own. Given TARP, Insurance bail-outs and Stimulus precedence, bailout an industry hardly means you can’t keep bailing it out, or at least selling stock in Federal bankruptcy to acquire industry via statist assimilation.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM
AnninCA is clearly a left-of-center liberal but she’s honest about it. This guy is simply cutting and pasting the talking points from the DNC. More choice, lower costs for all, immoral to not socialize, no one turned away for any reason, no additional cost to the taxpayer…..
It’s all lies and jonknee is nothing but a propagandist without a single valid point.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM
What new “rules”? Why would they have to change the “rules” at all?
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Jonnee says:
Now who here would not love to have a business “competitor”, to be able to tell that business “competitor” that at present they CAN NOT CHANGE THIS and in the future they CANNOT DO THAT. YOU DO WHAT I SAY. You wouldn’t have a “competitor” much longer, no?
Marcus on July 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Welcome to the club.
BigWyo on July 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM
How many pages of the 1000 pages did you read? And why is Obama trying to rush a 1000 page bill through? Are you being paid to post here?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I’d be happy with expanding options, TORT reform and an insurance mandate (that’s the key in my opinion). De-coupling from work would be awesome too, but unlikely to happen. I don’t care who runs a plan, just want it to be done efficiently and fairly. The current system fails on both. It’s way too expensive and they drop you when you’re sick.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Free enterprise catastrophic health insurance is one thing.
Obamacare is an insatiable beast.
Taxing on grounds of morality is immoral.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Tha bolded part, alone, should let people know that the Blue Dogs cannot be trusted, at all. The “changes that make the bill more to their liking” are going to allow this travesty to pass, and it should not – no matter what changes are made.
The Blue Dogs are traitors and morons as bad as their Yellow Dog liberal buddies. They are all despicable, lying scum on the left. The Blue Dogs are just dogs, ready to screw America on a moment’s notice.
We are f#cked, because the Washington junta (Blue Dog sh#theads, included) is determined to kill America and everything this country is about. They are some of the worst people who have ever existed on this Earth.
Benedict Arnold looks like a patriot compared to these traitors.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM
I’m laughing on the outside but I’m crying on the inside because there is more truth in your joke than not. The filthy liar wants to rush this through without any real debate or revisions.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
At least jonknee is earning his hourly Obama propaganda wage. His employers appreciate his efforts … though futile.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
How many pages of the 1000 pages did you read? And why is Obama trying to rush a 1000 page bill through? Are you being paid to post here?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
What is health care, 1/6th…1/7th of our economy?
They’ve gone after the banks, housing, automakers and this sham would do to hospitals what cap and tax would do to Caterpillar (among others)- it’s like dropping a nuke on them.
Like those creepy kids sang: Change it and rearrange it
tehd on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Why does this have to be this complicated and rushed through so fast?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Thank God for IBD. They pretty much scooped the hell out of the WSJ on this, didn’t they?
BigD on July 16, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Yes. The anecdotal stories carted out by the Dems are certainly representative, but I think their bankruptcy argument requires greater proof. I haven’t studied it, but I’ve read that many of these “medical” bankruptcies really aren’t so. No question, there are some catastrophic situations, but many of these situations involve facts where the medical expenses are just one of many expenses–including stupid-ass home-loan borrowing.
This requires fleshing out before fixing a problem that really doesn’t exist on a significant scale. I’m not suggesting a solution for genuine catastrophes. I just don’t see “reforming” to address this particular “problem.”
BuckeyeSam on July 16, 2009 at 9:44 AM
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM
spot on, i see that, but his rehtoric bs reminds me of her,
SHARPTOOTH on July 16, 2009 at 9:44 AM
This is trying to lock people into the status quo. How is this Hope and Change?
What is needed is MORE competition in private health care insurance, by allowing consumers to shop for it across state lines, allowing small businesses to form PRIVATE co-ops to buy health insurance at discount rates, and tort reform to cap malpractice awards and drive down the cost of malpractice insurance.
Exactly the opposite of what Obama is trying to do here.
No wonder Steny Hoyer doesn’t want anyone to read the bill.
Steve Z on July 16, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Because the existing system is broken? The most important of the new rules is not having limitations on pre-existing conditions. This is why most people can’t get adequate insurance on their own at the moment and also leads to a lot of problem with small businesses (try adding on someone who’s had leukemia and see what that does to your rate if they will even issue a policy). It basically gets rid of having the risk pool just be whoever is on a given policy and makes it whoever is covered by the company.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
But in countries that have had single payer system for a while now there is a shortage of doctors and equipment. An overwhelming majority of the medical advances and breakthroughs happens in the U.S. because there is an incentive for people to take risks to make them. Single payer nations rely on our breakthroughs.
And as a side nore, any time I see someone note a European nation as a solidly run single payer system I like to point out that we basically subsidize the national defense of that entire continent, freeing up billions of dollars for them to spend elsewhere.
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 9:45 AM
“Hope” is rapidly becoming the only four-letter word I think of as profanity.
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 9:46 AM
wildcat84 on July 16, 2009 at 9:46 AM
I don’t think 1000 pages is too complicated for what it’s doing, but you’re right in that I would prefer they all read it first. Sadly that seems to be the exception these days (for both sides).
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:46 AM
How will the government force illegal aliens to buy insurance? Do they all file income tax returns?
ProfessorMiao on July 16, 2009 at 9:46 AM
As you can see, Obama’s shill doesn’t want to answer that question and others.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Coming soon, repeal of the 13th amendment, since for all intents and purposes we will be slaves to the oligarchy in DC.
evilned on July 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Why do you refuse to answer my question? Who pays under the filthy liar’s plan you are defending. Who do you think should pay? Tort reform is great, and probably needed but the fundamental issue under any sort of plan is the funding mechanism and you refuse to acknowledge that it means higher taxes for individuals and employers. If that isn’t the case show where the funding for all this is coming from.
Too tough for you or has the DNC not yet given you a talking point on the funding issue.
Using your own spin: It would be immoral to put forth a bill this massive, that changes the system so completely, that changes lives and society so utterly…. without first identifying how it will be funded so that decisions can be made based on the true cost of the proposed reform.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I’ve never had a racist bone in my body. Now I have a skeleton.
texaninfidel on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Given that the government have never accomplished that feat, would that mean you favor private industry handling the task?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
tehd on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Creepy Kids Song
change it and rearrange it
Revisionism 101
N.B., nothing new, no originality, just revisions of what works into what fails.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Which part of socialism do you not like? Which part of liberty do you like?
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Of all the systems I’ve seen, I think Switzerland is the one we should most strive towards. They had a system pretty similar to ours and were able to change it over to a mostly private system where everyone chooses their own plan. It’s more expensive than single payer, but still much cheaper than our own way.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
How on earth could it be less complicated than what is being rammed down our throats right now? De-coupling insurance from your employer is a fantastic idea. It would force people to take a look at what things cost and increase competition.
Wanting everyone to have health insurance is no reason to support an awful idea.
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Stop pretending you are above “both sides.” You have admitted that you did not read the bill either. Your stench of your hypocrisy leads me to ignore your mealy-mouthed attempt to come across as reasonable.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
The 13th amendment doesn’t need repealing since the whole damn Constitution is about to be shredded by the dictator in the White House and his unelected street thugs. Rigging the census results is just the first step. These are evil people.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Big government is the problem, not the solution.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM
AZCoyote nailed that.
Project 2009 #1 US Export: illegal aliens.
Enforce current laws before adding to them.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM
It’s not that these advances happen in the US, but that just about all medical advances are developed only for the US market. European companies won’t bother working on anything new unless it is targeted for the US market, where money can be made. The rest of the world then drafts off of that. The Euros are extremely ticked at their drug companies because they won’t even consider developing drugs that won’t sell, first, in the US.
When the US market drops out and no longer provides the profit, medical development will pretty much come to a screeching halt, everywhere.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM
If they could do it, sure. But they haven’t and have had ample time. For-profit health insurance needs very strong regulation to work though, so we can’t get the Feds out of it completely.
If private insurers are so good they have little to worry about. No one will choose the public plan. I’d love for that to be the case actually, let the market decide who’s better.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM
It’s not broken, no matter how much leftists scream that. It’s been smothered with bureaucratic regulation and millions of illegal aliens. No one should be forced to pay for anything, for anyone. This is not a government of the people anymore … it’s becoming a government where people exist simply to serve the needs of those in power.
A major goal of this plan is to tacitly give health care to illegals. La Raza has been a staunch proponent of raping the American taxpayer and has been for this from the get go.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I think it can be argued that a rate of taxation of 50% or higher (when you combine all taxes paid, state, local, sales, fees, property, etc) is a violation of the 13th Amendment because it amounts to slavery, since the state is getting more from your labor than you are.
wildcat84 on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
The Swiss are wringing their hands, unable to sustain for their citizens, given the huge burden of immigrant demands.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Yes, I know – that’s typical.
I am trying to keep them simple so even the Statist trolls can figure them out.
I’m guessing they’re not EDUCATED enough.
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
He’s not getting paid to answer your questions. He is being paid to drone on for Obama.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Cheaper or is the cost just shifted away from the individuals and borne by employers or the state? I’m willing to bet the latter.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »