About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Limbaugh falsely claimed House bill "prohibits the sale" of private individual insurance

October 30, 2009 5:36 pm ET — 11 Comments

Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that "page 94" of the recently released House health care bill "prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies beginning in 2013." In fact, the provision at issue states that private individual policies can be sold, but only through the Health Insurance Exchange and subject to its regulations.

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.

EMBED

Limbaugh: "In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited"

From the October 30 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Page 94, Pelosi plan, prohibits the sale of private, individual health insurance policies beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government. 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited.

Bill allows private individual insurance to be sold through Exchange

"Page 94" says individual coverage can be offered, but only through Exchange. According to page 94 of the recently-released House health care reform bill:

(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.-

(1)   IN GENERAL.-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.

Bill provides for grandfathering in of existing plans purchased outside of Exchange under certain conditions. According to page 91 of the bill, "individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before" before the bill takes effect can be grandfathered in and sold outside of the Health Insurance Exchange if it meets certain conditions.

SEC. 202. 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 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.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.-Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(2)   RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.-The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Limbaugh previously pushed similar false claim about House Tri-committee bill

Limbaugh advanced false IBD claim that bill would "outlaw individual private coverage." On the July 16 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh read at length from a July 15 Investor's Business Daily editorial that falsely claimed the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and "would indeed 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 Exchange.

— M.G.
Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 30, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
        6
      Thank you for holding my hand, miss Pelosi. You're sweet.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (October 30, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
      7 1
      Maybe El-Rushbo is worried he won't be able to buy health insurance with the Oxycontin rider, that was the pre-existing condition for his deafness.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
      5  
      ahhh, good 'ol rush. always right but never correct.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (October 30, 2009 8:51 pm ET)
      3  
      I have on occasion heard Limbaugh say some really stupid things where I've gotten the impression that he wasn't just making things up like he usually does, but that he was too uneducated and stupid to understand what he was trying to talk about.

      I once heard him mistakenly speak about the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law as though it was an environmental law...when in reality it was the extremely important legislation determining how the three regional Iraqi factions would share oil revenues. An educated, well-read man would know that.

      I recently heard him refer to Albert Camus as Albert Kay-mus...and he obviously had no idea who the French philosopher was. An educated, well-read man would know who Albert Camus was. Even George W. Bush (reportedly) read Camus.

      It's not just a cheap shot when I often remark about the lack of education that Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity all share. They can fake it...pretend they know something. But at the end of the day all three are just ueneducated BS artists.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (October 31, 2009 2:35 am ET)
      1 6
      "but only through the Health Insurance Exchange and subject to its regulations." -- Therefore, it's not private. Furthermore, the Secretary determines the features of the public plan and demands that private plans provide the same features. Public plan has no responsibility to stay in the black, despite what democrats say or even what the bill says. Progressives have shown repeatedly they will spend non existent money and change laws to allow it. Today's non-budget breaking words in Pelosi's debacle will tomorrow be removed by progressives.

      This law shares the same diseases with HR3200. Secretary makes rules and is beyond judicial review. Just wait until a far right wing Secretary says Senator Byrd will get no extraordinary medical care. How will that go over at mmfa?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (October 31, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
        4  
        Therefore, it's not private.

        Oh, that's sweet. By that "reasoning," any regulation of any industry makes that industry "public." Collision safety standards for cars? Makes the auto industry public. Food safety standards? Well, that makes the entire food-purveyors industry public.

        I rather suspect that's where a lot of this socialistic-government garbage that egb and his ilk so love to spew comes from--they equate any government regulation of any aspect of private business or industry as unwarranted government interference. So they obviously had no problems with Corvairs, exploding Pintos, and the excrecense-n-a-can that too often passed for meat packing in the Gilded Age...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 31, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
            6
          You're being dishonest about the miles of difference between a gov-run "health insurance exchange" and "regulation". He's right, you're wrong.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (October 31, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
            5  
            He's right, you're wrong.


            That's amazing! How did you type that with both hands busy plugging your ears as you chanted "Lalalalalalalala! I don't hear you!"

            Randy
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (October 31, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
            4  
            Which is of course why conservatives desperately fought, and still desperately fight, any regulation in any business or industry. Even when the the lovely people who gave us credit-default swaps as tradable assets managed to nearly destroy our economy, the first thing most cons screamed was that the financial-services sector needed less regulation, not more, even while we the people had to clean up their mess with our cash. So get back to me when you find a government regulation of business or industry that you actually support. I won't be holding my breath...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by lugita15 (October 31, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
                 
              There's absolutely nothing wrong with the government imposing regulations on health insurance companies, like making them cover people with pre-existing conditions. The main problem with the regulations that will come about as a result of the health care bill is that there will be some government body which will write a list of things which ALL plans in the exchange MUST cover. But what if some individuals don't really want a plan that covers all of these things? For instance, what if a young man just needs an insurance plan to cover his prescriptions, and doesn't really need it to cover hip replacements? Why would you want to prohibit insurance companies from creating these kinds of limited plans, when there is an actual market for them?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 31, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
            4  
            It's the public option. That's private insurance coordinated with government help, sometimes encouraged by tax credits or subsidies, but it's still private healthcare insurance.

            There's only one dishonesty being displayed here, and it ain't coming from my side!

            And let's remember what Limbaugh said - that the House bill prohibits the sale of private health insurance, and it doesn't.

            He just didn't read and comprehend well.
            Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.