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 5 6 Next »
Here’s yet another little snapshot of what we’re in for if this horror show passes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=1
Why have we not heard from actual insurance companies on this? You’d think they’d be a little more vocal, considering this plan effectively means they’ll be going out of business (how will all of those newly unemployed health insurance industry workers figure into the whole jobs saved/created claptrap?). I assume they are bankrolling some of the opposition ads and the like but they seem pretty quiet otherwise.
As for the paid astroturfers, I’d say to Teh One, “Guy, if it requires this much effort to rally support around this garbage, maybe it’s not meant to be, huh?”
Not that that matters of course. He knows better than we do what’s good for us.
Nov. 4, 2012 cannot possibly arrive soon enough. I almost willing to take a sabbatical for a year to campaign against this tool full time. HATE him, and all of his ilk in Congress.
NoLeftTurn on July 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I’m not voting for it and no one is voting for it today, so no I don’t feel bad for not completing my analysis yet. I have read the portions dedicated to what it would mean for me though. Have you?
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
They won’t. THey’ll still get the same free care that they’ve always received, and the rest of us dolts will dutifully fall in line and keep paying out higher taxes.
gatorboy on July 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Then why don’t you just move to Switzerland and stop trying to f#ck our country up?
Azzwipe.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Cheaper. Total health spending per capita.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM
The biggest fallacy in America today is that “the system is broken.”
It can be improved, yes. “Broken”? Hell no.
It’s ABOUT to be broken, once the government gets its filthy mitts on the system and distorts healthy competition in private insurance enterprise all to hell.
There is not a person in America who cannot get care if he or she really wants it. Do we all pay for the care of such people? Yes. Can this flawed system be improved upon? Yes certainly, but don’t absolutely MAIM the America’s main-street insurance businesses to do so.
Which country attracts the world’s best doctors? Which country allows for even complicated, life-saving surgeries to be routinely quickly performed? Which country boasts more of the world’s greatest medical innovations by far?
Did you ever ask yourself WHY the answer to those questions is America, America, America, and not Britain, Canada, Cuba?
Edouard on July 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Thank you.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Bullcrap. Lot’s of business’s would love to unload their employees to the “public plan.” But members of Congress won’t be on the public plan, now will they?
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 9:54 AM
It’s interesting to note, that Donks refer to this as a “competitive” plan.
In what other area, does a “competitor” get to mandate what a consumer shall, or shall not purchase?
franksalterego on July 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I invested (loaned a friend) in a small Health Insurance company. Two of their young employees were big O supporters with bumper stickers and went to rally’s.
I wish you could see their faces when I showed them this article. It was priceless.
(Well actually, the price was my investment, which will be gone if this is passed, along with their careers.)
barnone on July 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Because I love this country, I’d rather not bail just because she has a poor health care system. Have you read about Switzerland’s health care system? It’s almost all private and everyone chooses their own plan. What’s not to like?
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Have had the same health insurance for over two decades. My premiums adjust annually according to the number of others enrolled in the same program generally. I have used it many times for myself and my kids. At no point was I told what doctors to use and which not to use, nor was I ever denied coverage. Have had several major health problems that needed “fixin’” over the years…still covered.
It is run through Mutual of Omaha. It is not exactly cheap, but it doesn’t break the bank. It runs about $400(+or-) a month for me, and the other half paid by my former employer. I know dozens who share the same program. Never denied coverage.
And if you believe that “De-coupling from work would be awesome too” then premiums for guys like me would double if not triple almost immediately once such is “decoupled.”
That tired old talking point about “The current system fails…way too expensive…they drop you when you’re sick.” was old and tired when it was first said, years ago, and is old and tired still, today.
Believe the meme if you wish. Intelligent people can read for content a lot better. The Health Care Bill before Congress states that after the first of the year the Bill is passed, you cannot enter in to a new health care insurance plan, unless it is a government plan. Keep the one ya got. Unless your insurance company is driven out by unfair and heavily weighted against it government interference in the private sector.
If I were an investor in health insurance (not a client) and this is where a huge part of insurance moneys come from, not just premiums paid by clients, I’d be looking for a safer and more long term nest for my investment funds.
This Bill will indeed kill off a huge segment of the private insurance industry…and kill off a large number of American citizens as well.
But you believe what you want to believe…unicorns and all that fairy dust stuff…but don’t try to peddle it here…we are not the Kos Krowd.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM
If I waited for my auto insurance to pay every time I needed gas, or an oil change, the auto insurance costs would be out of hand too. Funny how that concept escapes most obama-care fanatics.
Did the federal gov’t nanny wipe your nose last time you sneezed? If not, why not?
gatorboy on July 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Apparently. It is really quite comical. He may even believe that all those talking points are really his own ideas but, in actuality I could go to any of the filthy liar’s speeches on this and find the exact same points verbatim. From the “the immorality of not doing anything” through the “only industrialized country without” to the “not one additional cent for the taxpayer or employer” It is all straight from TOTUS to this troll.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Socialism is a broken system, a parasite that requires a host government to bleed dry, at which point all collapse in death though in stages. EATR enters stage left.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
We do? Now define “fix”?
Awesome, it’s not quite the same but the same principle. Then when healthcare costs go up the government can start mandating what we eat, what we do, where we go and how we get there; our habits, our exercise routines, our vitamin intake.
Imagine how expensive it could be to “fix” someone who likes to eat junk food 24/7, or who likes to juggle running chainsaws, or do their own body piercings at home.
If you open the door to letting the government force you to do something, eventually they will start opening other doors into your life and barging in.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Only if the public plan is cheaper, which if they are so inefficient will not be the case. I’d love to see members of Congress get on the public plan, that would be a nice insurance policy of our own.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM
No you don’t. You love the way the Swiss do things. Go move there, moron.
You do love lying. We have the best health care system in the world, without any question.
I don’t care what switzerland is or has. If you love it, go live there, you POS.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM
“Analysis.” LOL
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 9:57 AM
Cheaper? Have you ever bought anything in Switzerland? Everthing is urber expensive. The healthcare price is in everything that you buy.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Oh, this is wrong too. The only insurance you are required to carry is liability (at least here in Minnesota); there is no requirement to protect your own vehicle’s potential damage costs.
Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Two quick stories:
1. Remember Stella Lesbeck? She was the woman who spilled hot coffee on herself and won a 2.8 mil verdict. Later reduced by Judicial order, but still…
2. Man from Florida, severe diabetic, needed to undergo bilateral leg amputations. Due to the potential shock to his system, it was decided to remove one leg, wait 6 weeks and then remove the other. Well, the doctor removed the left leg instead of the right leg. Patient was a drain on society, lifelong welfare and medicaid recipient. $12m verdict upheld. Doc lost his license.
But no, Tort Reform is not an option. Nuh uh. No way.
/screw Slowbama.
Key West Reader on July 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Jonknee — The public plan WILL be more inefficient AND cheaper. The government will ensure its unfair advantage by passing ever larger PUBLIC SUBSIDIES.
Insurance companies can’t game the competition by doing such a thing!
You must be dense.
Taxes will go up and up so that the government’s INEFFICIENT system will stay CHEAP in every way you can name.
Except it will be damned expensive, because we will be footing the bill in ways we cannot see, in the form of ever and ever higher subsidy taxation.
GET IT???
Edouard on July 16, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Not to mention that we pay for Switzerland’s defense.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM
No, they drop you when you quit paying your premiums.
You hope that others will pay your taxes for you so that you can have everything you want, everything you feel entitled to and that you presume to deserve, while their children go without?
That was never Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. That most certainly was never the American Dream.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Why do they need “very strong regulation”?
The point is that it won’t be a ‘Level playing field’ as the Statists always say. A ‘for-profit’ enterprise will have to be efficient with resources in order to stay in business.
Government can simply hold a gun to a taxpayer’s head and demand more.
How is that fair?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Why does the best system in the world need to strive to be worse?
Look, Switzerland has a fraction of our population and they actally enforce immigration laws. The Swiss also have different demographics. The same is true for every country.
We don’t need to copy anyone, our entire system of government has brought us incredible wealth and greatness. Their is absolutely no need to abandon any part of it, for any reason.
reaganaut on July 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Do you look for the cheapest doctor?
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM
There’s a reason that pre-existing conditions cause significant increases in the cost of a policy – they’re far more expensive to insure because you’re far more likely to incur significant costs. The average 20-year old in good health can get by in many cases with $0 in medical expenditures in an average year. The average 20 year old with leukemia could easily cost a million dollars over the course of a year.
The “pre-existing condition” clauses would generally force private companies to take a huge known loss on a new individual with such a condition by forcing them to assume “risk-pool” pricing for someone with a far higher expected cost structure. What you’ll see is that the healthy individuals will start on the cheapest plan (provided that it’s less than the fine for no health care) and will move to better plans when they get sick (which is what’s being seen in MA with Romneycare). The “comprehensive” plans will slowly go out of business because only the government plan can sustain such a long-term loss and remain solvent. We’ll then hear about how private insurance has “failed”, the claims being similar to saying you can’t swim because you drown when thrown into the Balitc in mid-December with a weighted diving vest and one hand tied behind your back.
Government has always proven to be the highest-cost, lowest quality provider of services, I don’t see why this should be any different.
On a side note – anyone know where to stock up on tar and feathers?
alchemist17 on July 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM
No it’s really not. Every thing spent on health care is added up and divided by the number of people it is spent on. This includes private and public dollars. That number is smaller for Switzerland than it is for America. (Well and every other country, but hey)
Glad you’re so open minded.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:02 AM
we need to properly define the terms.
Health ‘insurance’ no longer exists. Health insurance has morphed into a ‘healthcare payment plan’
‘Insurance’ historically is reserved for out of the ordinary expenses, NOT for the expected things which occur.
And a single-payer plan will only make matters worse.
Best solution IMO -
Allow more competition (less state to state regulation)
Allow high deductible plans to encourage people to make better health care decisions for the ‘every day’ events
Setup a healt co-op for the illegals so they
participatepay into the system.Extend tax benefits regardless of who pays
Don’t mandate maternity coverage on all policies
Allocate some public funds to help low income taxpayers receive health insurance vs. paying ER bills for them
gatorboy on July 16, 2009 at 10:02 AM
He’s not being paid to get it.
But you are right. And once they drive private insurance out of business, then the rationing and eugenics sets in.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:02 AM
You call this DNC propaganda you’ve been spouting “analysis?” It isn’t even coherent rational thought. You are claiming that universal healthcare would be cheap, efficient, without any additional costs to any entity that pays into the system right now. That’s utter crap and if your “analysis” says otherwise, you are a fool.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM
The real intent of this legislation is not to provide a safety net, it is income/wealth redistribution. Companies that choose to offer private insurance to employees will be required to add this benefit as taxable income resulting in a net lose of disposable income to the employee and a revenue gain for the government. Employees who join the free plan will see an increase in their gross incomes, which will provide yet more taxable dollars to Uncle Sam. Companies that opt out of private insurance will add those operating cost savings to their gross income, which is already massively taxed by the government. It’s a win – win for the government and a total F-over for working, tax paying citizens. nObama and the Democrats don’t give a rats ass about freedom, rights or indivdual choice, its all about the power!
dmann on July 16, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I’m more than a bit skeptical of the Blue Dogs’ staying power. After they caved on the National Energy Tax, shouldn’t they be considered the Blue Puppies until they prove they’re willing to tell Prime Minister Pelosi where to stick her orders?
LFRGary on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
And the only reason they can have that system is because we subsidize their national defense and provide all the new medical drugs and technology. We’re a different country, and need a different solution.
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
You believe the federal government can run it efficiently and fairly? Please name a federal government program that is run more efficiently than a private alternative.
DarkCurrent on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Yes. I had a cut that needed stitches earlier this year and I called around to check prices before going to an after hours clinic. Got a deal too.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Rhetorical question (this sh*t just pisses me off to no end), but why do liberals hate liberty so much???????
WashJeff on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
He wishes he were Swiss. They are sooooo great in Switzerland. Sooooo great.
jonknee thinks that Switzerland is the source of many medical advances that their system uses, too, evidently. The typical leftist attitude – inventions just appear, free, out of thin air.
Leftists are the only morons on Earth who still believe in perpetual motion machines, and they think that public policy should be based on the idea. Leftists are the worst disease humanity has ever seen, and they might well be fatal.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
I hate to say it, but you’re absolutely right…
Dark-Star on July 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
That’s why I said I don’t care who runs the plan–if the market can beat the gov’t they should do so and I’ll reward them with my business.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM
A new high water mark in the search for empirical evidence.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 10:06 AM
He’s not being paid to get it.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Braindead determination at the voting booth.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Blue Dogs are the same leftist scum as the rest of the Dems.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM
You must have gone to a different Switzerland than I have.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Empirical evidence? He asked if I look for the cheapest doctor and I said yes I do. The question was about me and I answered it personally.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
That is the crux of the problem…the private sector cannot beat the government when the government controls all.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Ah … Too bad you won’t be able to check around for prices and get a deal after communist health care takes hold. No doubt you were seen right away too.
After communist health care your wound will probably be healed by the time you get seen.
BTW, why don’t you have insurance?
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Another good point. Perhaps jonknee can tell us about the new medical drugs and technology the Swiss have developed. But then again, the drone can’t tell us how many pages of the 1000 page bill he purports to have read. It is above his pay grade.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Jeez, no s***, Sherlock. Having trained in a big city ER with THIS gang member shot through the chest and THIS gang member stabbed 5 or 6 times and THIS kid on a crack high and THIS 2 year old shot in a drive by —- it will be a pleasure to treat altitude sickness and the occasional ski or cow-milking related injury.
Marcus on July 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM
But you extrapolate from that one incident how the “system” should be run in toto.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The drone actually thinks we are influenced by this stale talking point.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The fact that is anathema to them makes it even more annoying that they like to use that false labeling for themselves – it’s like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I wish people would stop referring to them that way, I would prefer leftist or Statist.
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
As long as any subsidies can be used for any insurance plan (private or public) the public plan will have to stay competitive or die.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The government must untie their hands. They can’t operate smothered under tons of regulation.
Secondly, rid the country of moochers and illegals.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Actually, they are staticists, which is worse than anything.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM
No I didn’t. I said, “Yes. I had a cut that needed stitches earlier this year and I called around to check prices before going to an after hours clinic. Got a deal too.” That’s all. Yes, I look for the cheapest doctor. No I didn’t state anything else about that incident or how the system should be run.
If you needed a service provided and it could cost $100 or $1000 I’d assume you would call around too. It’s not a brilliant move, just common sense.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Not if it is mandated, under law, to exist ad infinitum…and not if those who own private health insurance will be taxed for that ownership. And the government plan…paid for by all of us, whether we like it or not, by our tax dollars. You do pay taxes, don’t you?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
You mean like a red tide comrade…I am a bit confused about the reference to democracy. Nothing democratic in removing freedom or choices or in stealing from the productive to give to the useless in exchange for the useless’s votes. That is more ‘Mobacracy’..
JIMV on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
You can’t name a single federal program that is more efficient than a private alternative, yet think we should spend massive amounts of tax payer money to establish a superbureaucracy that will be naturally incentivized to marginalize private alternatives. Good thinking.
DarkCurrent on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
LOL. Name the last public program that died. None of them do, they just run outrageous deficits and kill the rest of us.
Switzerland called. They want you. Your ticket is at the airport. Bon voyage.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Well, I had to have a major surgery (a “Whipple”). I found the best surgeon that I could. He was more expensive, but he was very busy with patients from all over Europe. When you want the best you go to the U.S..
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Sorry, but you’re going to waiting a long time for an answer to that question, right jonknee?
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/15/quote-of-the-day-531/
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Call around?
No. If serious, I hit the ER at a hospital of my choosing. If less serious, I go to a doctor of my choosing. I get treatment. My private insurance pays for it (after my annual deductible is reached…$500 presently)…but at no time do I nor my kids need to “call around”…we are not shopping for a new boogey board.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I see. So if insurance companies are free to engage in competition without interference and mandates from government then the consumer could easily do the same thing? And get great deals? Competition … nothing works better.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM
We’ll take up a collection to send you there if you want.
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Obama’s shill:
Ever have to find a doctor for something more complicated that a cut?
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. – Peter Singer
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM
What’s to stop Congress from changing the rules down the road once it becomes apparent the public plan is less efficient and provides less coverage?
Answer: Nothing.
BadgerHawk on July 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Yes. I had a cut that needed stitches earlier this year and I called around to check prices before going to an after hours clinic. Got a deal too.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM
You’re a liar.
This past year, my spouse’s scalp was scraped by a filthy hanging shelf in a WalMart aisle (after retrieving oil stocked on the bottom shelf). WalMart wouldn’t provide first aid, but sent us on our way to submit medical charges to their insurance claims after getting treatment, which they denied covering after all. The point here is, no emergency clinic would provide treatment, referring us directly to the hospital emergency room to get stitches for over $1200. You can’t call ahead to get a quote on how much it will cost to treat an injury. Too many ifs. Same goes for calling for a quote on getting a filling for a tooth that aches. It depends.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Can you say VAT?
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I bet tucked away in the communist health care bill is language for the Old Folks Graveyard. That’s where they send people who are denied life saving treatment because well, they’re just too darned old and it’s not cost effective to keep them around. They’re just a burden on the state.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM
After reading most of your posts on this thread, I think the best (and quickest) way to fix this country once and for all is to prevent government-schooled, economically illiterate stoopd sheeple like yourself from voting in our elections.
Hopefully, we can do it before you and your fellow American-Idol watching, People Magazine reading dumbMasses vote to send us head first onto the ash-heap of history.
Of course, it is very possible that you and your fellow ignoranuses may have already accomplished that with the votes you cast last November.
What is truly amazing about mindless myrmidons such as yourself, is that you government-educated idiots think that the very same government that has run SS and MediCare straight into the f’ing ground, is going to somehow be able to take over our nation’s health care system and run it even remotely successfully.
Right.
Sorry, “comrade,” but you and the rest of the brainless Obamabot sheeple can take Medicare’s ugly sister, ObamaCare, and shove it up your collective a$$es.
-Dave
Dave R. on July 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM
That’d be great, can always use a vacation :).
Yep, I found another one who hates insurance companies and gives a deal if you pay in cash because it’s much cheaper for him and his staff. I have a high deductible plan with an HSA so that works perfectly.
And that’s something that should be addressed in the bill. I really don’t care too much about the public plan. If the private market can do it, more power to them.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Of course he is a liar. He’s getting paid to lie.
pearson on July 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
<blockquote>If you needed a service provided and it could cost $100 or $1000 I’d assume you would call around too. It’s not a brilliant move, just common sense.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Depends on the service I needed. If I needed heart or brain surgery, I wouldn’t call around to find the cheapest way to get it done. But hey, maybe you would.
I do agree with you on one thing. It definitely is not a brilliant move.
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
US Medicare program has a 3% administrative cost.
Any private US health insurance program has a 20-30% administrative cost.
greggish on July 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM
What I don’t understand is why they can’t be honest about who they are and what they want.
[Actually, I do know, but I meant that as a rhetorical question – IF they were HONEST, they would never attain power, right jonknee?]
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Call all you want. You’ll get no definitive cost answer.
maverick muse on July 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Two words: Rationing and Eugenics!
Whose brilliant idea is it to give the government total control of our lifestyles and healthcare?
That’s right..Leftists.
Seriously I know many conservatives are against the idea period but there has GOT to be a way to provide universal healthcare to the poor without all of us losing our freedom.
This plan is NOT good!
We need to stop this from passing at all costs!
MaximusConfessor on July 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM
\
“Soylent Green”.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I find that hard to believe. Have you ever seen local, state or federal bureaucrats work? It takes at least 5 to do the job of one. Not to mention the money and benefits paid to government workers.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Which functions better? Efficiency isn’t simply a matter of cost. Ever lived under a socialized medical system?
DarkCurrent on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Nor should you. No reputable health care provider is going to give you a flat rate quote over the phone.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Prove it.
Johan Klaus on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Switzerland’s government pays less per capita for health care than the US government already does so I fail to see your point.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 10:27 AM
You’re either being disingenuous or stupid — I can’t decide. Maybe both.
The market already DOES beat the government. Why do you think the elderly with any kind of means whatsoever purchase private Medigap insurance? Because Medicare falls short in many, many areas. Obviously you’ve got no experience with Medicare or VA or any of the government’s other health insurance programs, models of inefficiency, all of them.
I used to think the Swiss system made sense too until I investigated it a little more and discovered that, while “private” insurers are providing the plans, the Swiss government is meddling in the form of price controls forced on those insurers. How is that free enterprise? It’s pretty much government-run health care when the government is telling you how much you can charge for a policy, isn’t it?
NoLeftTurn on July 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I haven’t heard any talk about this clause. It sounds ridiculous.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
One could assume that the long term goal is reduction of the unwanted and unhealthy of society … and control of the rest.
Just sayin’
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
I agree that you’re right, in regards to medical care. I wasn’t clear that I was referring to “services” other than health care.
To clarify, my point is that my health is too important to call around to find the “cheapest” place to get care.
Puddleglum on July 16, 2009 at 10:28 AM
She Lives!
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Ditto. I have a high deductible HSA, which means I pay for the routine stuff and am 100% covered over that amount. The premiums are half what I used to pay for a PPO and since I pay out of pocket for most things, I choose any specialist I want without having to get a referral. Essentially it’s just like auto insurance, a system that generally works just fine.
Additonally, I can put up to $400 a month into a tax free account that I use for medical expenses.
This is very similar to Major Medical, which is what most people had many years ago until Gov’t started meddling in the health care system.
They are now offering us a solution to a problem they created.
RadClown on July 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM
That would be a one-way ticket, Statist moron.
(I know, that’s redundant)
Chainsaw56 on July 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »