Hannity falsely claims under reform bill, "you can't get" private insurance through employer
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely claimed of the House health care reform bill: "[I]f you don't have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can't get that later on from your employer."
During the July 20 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "if we look at the provisions of the bill, it's pretty astounding. For example, if you're not -- if you don't have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can't get that later on from your employer." In fact, section 311 of the tri-committee House health care reform bill allows employers to meet coverage requirements by offering employees "coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312."
From section 311 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
SEC. 311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:
(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE. -- The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.
(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE. -- If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.
(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE. -- Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313.
Section 312 states that an employer "offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan." It also provides that the employer must contribute a certain portion of the costs of the plan.
From section 312:
SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:
(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE. -- The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.
(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION. -- The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.
(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION. -- The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.
(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES. -- The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).
The bill defines a "qualified health benefits plan" as "a health benefits plan that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public health insurance option." Title I of the bill does not prohibit employers from enrolling employees in private plans.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Hannity previously cited an Investor's Business Daily editorial citing section 102 of Title I to falsely claim that "if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company." In fact, that provision 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.
From the July 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Now he said -- he did say tonight, I think it was on the Jim Lehrer show --
DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Jim Lehrer, yeah.
HANNITY: OK, he did say tonight that he's willing to push off or he believes it's inevitable that this --
SCHOEN: Let it bleed a little, I think [inaudible].
HANNITY: -- artificial deadline -- but the more people become aware of what's in this thing, if we look at the provisions of the bill, it's pretty astounding. For example, if you're not -- if you don't have private insurance the year that this bill is passed, you can't get that later on from your employer.
BETSY HART (Chicago Sun-Times columnist): Yeah, Sean, you know, I mean, if anybody should want a universal health care coverage plan, it's me.
The "Uh Oh" Moment in the New Health Care Bill
Now don't get me wrong... I want to see private insurers wiped out completely. I hate them with a passion so deep I can taste it in my balls. (And yeah, I'll admit that I'm NOT AT ALL an objective voice on this matter. Seeing your two childeren denied coverage when you HAVE (a family plan) insurance will do that to you!)
And it seems to me that long term, that is EXACLY what this part of the bil will do - as people change jobs, etc... More are more will be on the public plan. Now... I thank that's great. And while Hannity's still a total baffoon, is he actually wrong/lying in this case?
(Or is the IBD piece inaccurate?)
The link goes to an "anti-reform" website; I wouldn't be surprised if they did a little cherrypicking to make their point.
(And the funny thing? I actually hope they're RIGHT!) LOL.
BUT, if there was a public plan in case that reimbursed the providers at a fair market rate to cover the uninsurable, and you could find coverage for your kids, wouldn't that be better than a system where it was the public option only? What will you do when the only option left denies coverage or treatment?
Among the things they'll need to do:
Stop denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Stop raising rates by 30% every year.
Stop dropping customers who get sick and file large claims.
Stop making people jump through hoops to get procedures covered.
Stop raking in obscene profits and paying their CEOs eight-figure salaries.
Will they do any of that? Not unless they are forced to.
Now, do you support the public option only reimbursing the providers at medicare rates, which are significantly less than what private insurers reimburse at?
Would you allow the de-regulation of "what must be covered" for private insurers, since you apparently can get everything covered by the public plan?
On your second question, I'd say yes.
On the flip side, if there's no "public option" would you favor forcing Insurance Companies to cover pre-existing conditions?
Let's give the money to the people who provide us the care, not the people who profit by preventing us from getting it!
Healthcare should not be a business!
Possibly, but then WHY would I want to pay for a premium then?
Let's see: I can get 4* care for "free" - and I'm still paying for it either way, taxes and all - or I can get 5* care some of the time for a couple hundered a month.
Why would I ever pick the latter?!
And if the gov't is just going to pick up the tab for whatever ins. co's don't cover, guess what the LT trend for coverage is going to be! At some point we'll be paying the ins. co's for basically nothing.
LET'S JUST SCRAP THE BROKEN SYSTEM NOW.
I'd rather have EVERYONE'S taxes increased, but have that offset by NOT having to pay ANY premiums, or out of pocket expenses. At the end of the day, my take-home pay changes little, possibly not at all, and the only people who get "screwed" are the same healthy people that get screwed now, paying for coverage that they don't use! (Which of course still beats the hell out of being sick!) ;)
The good news is that taxes to pay for this bill are aimed mostly at the very,very wealthy in this country. That's a step in the right direction because not only do wealthy individuals have rights, they have duties and responsibilities to the people they've built their fortunes upon.
Also, why settle for half measures now and "play politics" later as you put it? I for one am sick of liberals giving away half the battle before they even take the field to fight.
But that's about balancing the budget in a broader sense, while this is about providing health care in a way that doesn't make the budget any worse, and can't be dismissed by the right (and thus hammered home by the media) as tax-n-spend or rob-the-rich-pay-the-poor, the way these things always are.
Plus, there's just something principled about being willing, yourself, to pay for your share of something you want the gov't to do for your benefit. I'm perfectly willing to pay close to what I'm paying now. (Give or take some small amount.) I don't want something for nothing, I just want more for my money. And I truly believe that we can have achieve that universally. And if we can start by doing that without 90-some% of people's take home being impacted at all (and those that are impacted will simply be paying for something that they'd already be, if they had the opportunity) then there's a much better chance that this gets a fair trial, in eyes of the public.
And (to proove my liberal cred) I also think that the rest of the tab should be picked up by corporate taxes... But again, in a revenue-nuetral way. IOW - figure out what every company in total is currently paying for health ins. Then raise the corporate tax rate enough to cover THAT cost, but structred as a tax instead of as a flat payement as it is now. Right now, GM (for example) is getting killed becuase they have to pay their health care costs whether they make a profit or not. The way I'm proposing, a struggling firm (like GM now, but in the future it could be anyone) gets automatic help by not paying the tax (since they aren't making a profit) and they'd get help from the ExxonMobil's of the world. (Who in turn, would be helped in the same way, should they ever have a tough year at some point in thier future - and every company will at some point, it's inevitable)
The reason I keep saying "revenue-neutral" is to drive home the point that this does not necessarily need to cost any more that it does now. So I say, Let's get everyone covered and paid for NOW. And if you want to address the deficit or some kind of societal economic disparity, DO IT. Just don't jeopardize health care when you do.
But this fear of being labeled tax and spend is just ridiculous. There is no reason to play defense on the issues. When we talk about the issues from our core values, in the rich tradition of progressive orators from FDR to MLK, the majority of people are on our side when it comes to everything from equal rights and abortion to taxes and healthcare. Ceding ground to Republicans by coding our values in conservative language is dangerous. We are progressive Democrats and we believe in a government for the people, so why hide behind words like revenue neutral? Why fear republican attacks when they have no fresh ideas? We should put those republican ideologues on the ropes.
Don't be afraid of jeopardizing healthcare because you fear the stale old conservative attacks, that's the same wishy washy Democratic stance that has doomed progressive policy for thirty years. Now is the time to bust those inflexible rightwing ideologues right between the eyes.
I don't disagree with the broad principles you are laying out. I am just of the opinion that starting out by spreading the costs as broadly and as widely as you can, so has to have as minimal impact as possible on as many people as possible, is just a more principled and defensible answer to the "who's going to pay for it?" question. But it certainly an issue that's open for debate. And I for one am not going to say that you're wrong.
Let me ask you though: What are you currently paying for health care? (You don't have to answer that, but...) Would you be willing to continue to pay that (give or take 5% or so) if it meant that we'd not only have universal coverage as a country, but the you personally would have (basically) NO additional out of pocket expense, ever? (As someone who's paying off about $1800 in unplanned (un-budgetted for) medical expenses, I can say that I sure as hell would!) :)
Plus, and this is why I differentiate the budget deficit issue versus the health care issue when it come to taxation, we may need to soak the rich ANYWAY to clear out the DEBT that their heores (Reagan & Bush) created. (And to be fair, also the debt that my/our hero (Obama) is contributing to.) Until I know we can do both, I still say that we should ALL be willing to put in (at most) what we're putting in now and take pride in paying our share. Once the budget is balanced, and the national debt erased? You can bet MY preferred tax plan would exmept and lower rates for those at the bottom first, and go far enough to improve the standard of living for the middle and upper middle class before I'd TOUCH the tax rates of the super-rich. But until then, I still say we should go "revenue neutral" from an individual's POV.
To answer your question about my insurance coverage, I'm one of those millions of Americans lashed to a job I really don't like because my employer provides a decent insurance plan. I can't afford, nor would I trust, paying premiums on a private plan. I would love to have reliable coverage I could call my own and take with me from job to job. I too would proudly pay a little more in taxes if it meant a greater degree of peace of mind for so many millions of Americans in the same situation as me.
From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Sounds like a good philosophy lets run with it!
I am in awe of your mighty socialist taunt!
That was such a fresh reply highliter, it's not like conservatives have said the same thing to Progressives over and over and over again throughout our history as we have fought to expand rights and form a more perfect union.
As for the whole "competition" thing... There's plenty of ins. plans out there now. There really isn't any lack of competition. The use of insurance to pay for health care fails for two reasons:
1st off - the only way to make a profit / keep costs down IS to deny coverage to your customers. And people are constantly being fooled into resisting "government mandates" for coverage becuase they're told about costs of premiums going up. But what's the point of paying a little less for a premium, if it means that you get disproportionatley less covergae (or none) when you NEED it?! WHAT ARE YOU PAYING FOR?! "Competition" has only resulted in cheaper ways to get more screwed by these jokers.
The other reason the "free market" model (which I assume is where your coming from) is that cost controls in the Free Market Model rely not only on competition for the same good/service (in this case - INSURANCE) but also from alternatives. And that's the problem - the alternative to getting medical care is DYING. And as that's the alternative, people's demand curves for medical care are basically FLAT. They'll pay ANYTHING becuase they don't want to DIE. So the opportunity to gouge for profit is just too great. And this involves EVERYONE - insurance co's, drug co's, doctors, hospitals, etc... The only thing that keeps cost down at all is the little competition we have, and the fact that no one can pay what they charge anyway. So when the hospitals give the care they are required to by law to the unisured (who then don't pay for it) they end up passing the costs on to us (the insured.) And it ends up being a even bigger mess becase no one is really paying for what they're consuming anyway.
Bottom line: The free market allowed med costs to get so high that we needed insurance ot afford them in the first place. The market for insurance then got so steep that NO ONE could buy their own, and needed their employers to cover it. Now the costs are starting to bankrupt even mulit-national corporations and at the end of the day 70% of medical bankrupcies are for people who HAVE INSURANCE!!! It hasn't worked, and has consistantly been treding worse (higher costs, more uninsured) for 40+ years now.
Would it be nice if it worked? Sure would. But there's no evidence that more of the same would result in anything but more of the same. I really do like the free market for a lot of things, it's a profoundly powerful force, and can do a lot of good. But it's just not well designed to provide health care.
Your building your question on a premise that has been shown false in the lives of people who work more and more for less and less. Your premise has been shown false by decades of wretched corporate behemoths swallowing whole communities of family businesses in one competition killing gulp. You're living in a fantasy land if you still believe that conservative free market fundamentalist garbage.
More competition indeed! What else? More tax cuts? Cons have been spouting that dogma forever and still refuse to believe, despite the colossal failure of their social and economic policies, that they are flat wrong. The market will not fix healthcare, it has not fixed healthcare. The situation is screaming for intervention on behalf of the people.
The IBD piece is dishonest - even Limbaugh's favorite source says so.
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.
That's my cue to stop reading your post.
Even Rush Limboy's source says that Hannity and IBD are full of it.
Yes, attack the coverage a person gets through employment. After all, nothing else has really worked yet.
Aren't they getting tired of hearing themselves talk about this, yet? Or is it that they don't even pay attention when they speak?
You know, come to think of it...they probably don't. That's probably why they repeat themselves so often.