Conservative media run with false IBD claim that health bill outlaws private coverage
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity and David Asman echoed false claims from an Investor's Business Daily editorial, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
Following conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Fox Business' David Asman echoed false claims in a July 15 editorial by Investor's Business Daily, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." In fact, the bill does no such thing.
On the July 16 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity stated:
HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.
And on the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, during an interview with Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Asman stated:
ASMAN: There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."
Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?
Cassidy responded: "Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, 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 its 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 Ways and Means Committee's 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."
From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: There were actually, if you look at the bill -- Investor's Business Daily had a great piece today -- and under the Orwellian headline, "Protecting the choices to keep current coverage," they actually go into very specific detail, and what they -- they put in here: "If an individual, for example, a health insurer, if you don't enroll the individual in such coverage in the first effective date of coverage" -- if it's on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law, you cannot go into a private plan. Does that eliminate private insurance and competition?
[...]
HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.
From the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:
ASMAN: Now, let me ask about this 1,000-page document that Democrats came out with earlier in the week that include all these tax measures and everything. There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."
Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?
REP. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly.
"And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs," Mr. Elmendorf said.
Not sure how you can explain this away...
"Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
What part of that statement isn't clear to you?
The point is that healthcare companies can't enroll any new individuals to existing policies except the dependents of existing beneficiaries! Is that not a big deal to anyone?
Any new coverage has to be offered as a "Exchange-participating health benefits plan". I don't know what the Health Insurance Exchange is, yet, but I smell government bureaucracy.
The bill forces new coverage to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.
Hannity said "that will end private insurance." Asman said it "suggested" that the government "wants to outlaw private insurance." Cassidy said it would. But nobody used the specific word "illegal," so that's supposed to make a difference?
I've read it
You have? All 1100 pages? Well good for you! Did you also read War and Peace and the full works of Shakespeare all in the past week, too?
if you don't have private insurance on the day that the bill becomes law, then you will not be able to get it
Ooops. So much for your reading skills. It says individual health insurance coverage, not private health insurance coverage. Private health insurance, such as group plans through an employer or organization will still be there, enrolling people. How come the particular word "illegal" was so important but the difference between "individual" and "private" is ignored?
this devistating public option, which will weed out the 1300 private insurance companies
So a government plan is so "devistating" [sic] that it will destroy the entire health insurance industry? There's a certain temptation to say "Good!" but that's born more of bitter experience than rational judgment, so skip that and go to the central point: Are you saying that private companies - the very essence, the very body, of the "Free Market" pbui - can't compete with public enterprises? We'll remember that the next time one of your ilk gripes about the "inefficiency" of government and the "efficiency" of the private sector.
People will act in their own self interest. Since this slanted approach nets Hannity million$ each year, and he is constantly told what a "great American" he is by his swooning listeners, I don't think he has a financial incentive to change his ways anytime soon.
You know, if you have to fight with lies, you'd think that SOME of these people would start wondering why they are fighting at all.
Oh yeah- it's because all they care about is money. And yes, Health Care Reform WILL cost the rich more (not sixty percent more, but more.) Kind of like public schools, workplace safety and pollution standards, and all that other tree-hugging liberal crap costs the rich more money.
Pigs.