What was that bit that B.O. was saying about choice still being a part of healthcare reform?
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.
Will we the sheeple swallow this poison pill?
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.
Oh, joy. What ELSE is buried in this 1000+ page monstrosity? The Chief shudders to imagine the possibilites…
This post is a complete lie. The bill does not ban private insurance at all; it relies on it. I’m waiting for your retraction… oh, but I forget: you’re all macho bull and no commitment to the truth. It must a be pretty weak worldview if you have to defend it with outright lies.
You’re welcome to complain and dissent all you want, but at least have the honor to be honest… and admit when you are wrong.
Seriously, the comments are based on examining the language of the House proposal…since we haven’t totally converted English into NewSpeak a la 1984, I’ll stand with my original post.
I also expect to see a retraction. I’m not asking you to remove ideology: I’m asking you to correct a clear mistake. Pull the post, or slap an update across the top stating very clearly that you got your facts wrong.