IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage"
SUMMARY: Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
In a July 15 editorial, subsequently highlighted by Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial later stated that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." That assertion is false; the bill will not "outlaw individual private coverage."
In fact, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.
In the editorial, Investor's Business Daily claimed:
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.
In fact, the paragraph in question states in context (emphasis added):
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.-Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-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 Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.-Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
Sec. 102 subsection (c) states that "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."
According to the House committees' summary of the bill, the Health Insurance Exchange "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."
Cancer patients over the age of 65 will be euthanized.
You will be limited to one MRI, one X-Ray and one prescription per year.
People who change their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat will be given a one-time 50% reduction in their premiums.
You will be required to see Canadian doctors.
I am sure there is more that Obama is hiding from us. ;>)
I heard you'll get one IV drip per visit and Obama will force you to pledge allegiance to him before you can be treated.
As an aside,I am shocked to see few, if any rebuttals to the "just die already" aspect of Obamacare; instead, we get "you heartless bastard" type of talk from the socialized medicine pushers.
Sure, EasyTRW, to regular people it's unnecessary.But I'm noticing as the Republican Base demographic skews more and more towards the Pee-yer-pants-Crazy demographic, rebuttals are being demanded for hallucinations, tinfoil hat conspiracies and all other assorted delusions.
Birth certificates supplied on demand to every hillbilly in the country who asks (original copy in their hands), proof that a colorful chart illustrating the Dem health care plan (but created by the GOP) is "not true", and apologies from a Supreme Court nominee for any statements she's made in the past that can possibly be misunderstood and taken out of context by drooling morons.
The GOP has invested decades and billions in the deliberate dumbing-down of America, and it's paying off for them. What would have had somebody assigned to "special class" at one time is now just an equal opposing opinion that deserves a polite and respectful response. Some are catching on, but, unfortunately, the people most susceptible are also the worst at figuring out how to use birth control.
It's anybody's game, the future.
The government wouldn't have to be brilliant at crunching numbers to undercut private insurers -- afterall, this is the government we're talking about, it can, has, and will operate in the red (presumably moreso than ever with the democrats running the show) and still remain operational.
A government subsidized healthcare plan, unlike a private plan, would not be set up for profit, so there is no overhead whatsoever that factors into the premium, making it excruciatingly easy to undercut the cost of every single private plan in existence.
So the legitimate worry here is that if too few restrictions are placed on "Obamacare" and, furthermore, if everybody could have it if they wanted to... the rates would be *so far below* what private healthcare providers offer, that most private companies would have no choice but to reduce their premiums below an operational profit margin, leading to a private sector collapse. It's a worst-case scenario, sort of like global warming... but, both are legitimately rooted.
M. Rotten Levin is a worthless pathological liar who should be disbarred and banned from radio.
IBD purports to give its readers economic and financial information. Assuming (and that's a big IF) that IBD didn't intentionally misinterpret the health care bill to make political points, why should any reader trust any "analysis" coming out of this publication?