Bill does NOT make Private Health Insurance Illegal!

Thanks for your article and your explanations.  sometimes articles are written to provoke folks to read the bill as you seem to have.  The title of my article was provocative and designed to initiate discussion.  There indeed are provisions in the bill that would compel enrolling in the Govt program based on several scenarios. 

Sure, the coverage you have now may be grandfathered in...just as Obama said...If you like your health coverage, you can keep it.  But what happens if your employer stops offering your health insurance benefits?  What if you don't want the public insurance option?  Would you be able to opt out of the public option and purchase an individual policy?  It seems as though you would be stuck with the public option...like it or not.

Most people will go with the government plan if the Insurance companies keep their prices so inflated.  I'm sick of hearing people say they don't want the government between them and their doctor.  They would rather allow their Insurance to be between them and their doctor.  What's the difference?

No, you are not at all wrong to question the bill.  Heck, I don't like the Exchange setup, the Tax on people who don't have 'sufficient' health coverage, etc.  I just wanted opposition to the bill the be grounded in Truth.  If you support a blatant lie as your talking point, everything else that is said is tainted as unreliable.

I see your point about from the frying pan to the fire.  I am teetering on the brink of ruin, so that may make me a bit desperate for some kind of a fix.  Still, I don't think that we really have the time to get it all right the first go round - people need some relief.

I suppose I see it as a Failure of Man (Insurance/Medical establishment) to adequately regulate himself (not get too greedy).  I don't think the people who caused the problem are going to make a sudden turn and self-correct - at least not any time soon.  I don't have the money to enact some of my ideas (not-for-profit Health Insurance Co-Operative?).  So, government intervention seems the only option.  Lesser of two evils at this point.

I completely agree with the need for a Moral society. Question is, how to go about spreading morality?  My moral base is Truth, Justice and Liberty.

I would have been a conservative in the 1950's - Ayn Rand kind of man.  I don't think the standards are the same today.  Today, the conservative mantra seems to be "Conform! Leave things as they are, do not change!" I suppose I would be a liberal-leaning moderate with conservative streaks.

I do think people are way too dependent.  They already expect to be given way too much.  Unfortunately,  I see a lot of this sense of 'entitlement' in the upper echelons of business. "I have a right to my bonus, even though I've bankrupted the company and in part the Country."  I know of one man who bought a business this woman had spent her life building, got the paperwork done, then filed bankruptcy - screwing this woman out of her life's work.  He thought he deserved it.

Apparently you failed to realize one of the key points of the IBD article.  Private health insurance can not compete with government insurance and thus,  like medicare,  it will put all private insurance out of business.  That is in fact the intent.  The government wants complete control over all your health choices.

The reason why private insurance can not compete is not because government insurance is better or more efficient, but because it's taxpayer funded and therefore not accountable to consumers,  stockholders etc. etc.  For those of us who have experienced the type of  'managed care',  that supposedly mitigates costs (e.g. large HMOs),  you come to realize that your care is rationed, it is inferior and that your providers would prefer that you just die. 

Moreover your treatment options are limited to that determined by a select cabal of health care monopolists,  the AMA and their buddies the pharmaceutical companies.  Hence Obama care is a type of corporate fascism, actually that institutionalizes Big Pharma's profits.  Why do you think they are in favor of this?

Grandfathered, eh?

What happens if you leave your employer (and, thus drop your current coverage) and begin work at a new place if this sham of a bill passes (God forbid!)? I'll tell you what will happen. You'll be forbidden from initiating new coverage with a new provider. That's what...

That would be, in a roundabout way, making ANY new coverage illegal. Yes, it may allow you to keep EXISTING coverage ("grandfathering") available for people, but prohibits NEW coverage. What will happen to my freedom of choice? I'll tell you what will happen. It will no longer exist.

Do you think Social Security is an efficiently-run, penny-pinching, well-managed government entity? Do you think Medicare is an efficiently-run, penny-pinching, well-managed government entity? Do you think the V.A. is an efficiently-run, penny-pinching, well-managed government entity? Do you think Medicaid is an efficiently-run, penny-pinching, well-managed government entity? If you answered "Yes" to any of those questions, then you are delusional. The only thing our Federal government is efficient at is wasting money (and our time).

Private healthcare cannot compete with government healthcare, much the same as automakers cannot compete with the new GM (Government Motors). Who do you think the government will go to when selecting contracts and bids for vehicles from now on? Ford, or their own automaker which will put money into the government coffers?

Can you say "monopoly"? Can you say "socialized medicine"?

Interesting, the writer encourages us to actually read the bill.  I've looked at it, which is very probably much more than my liberal congressman will do.  At the end of the day, the plan is to eliminate private health insurance.  Every citizen of this country will be at the mercy of liberal, federal workers put in place by Obama.  We are trading freedom and liberty for some false sense of security.  Want to read, go check out the facts on the so-called 47 million uninsured.

My question is, "Which bill are you reading"? I went to a seminar last night on this bill and was informed that at this time there are five different bills being voted on in committee's. In fact, one of those committee's, House Energy and Commerce Committee, just took a break because of serious concerns over the bill they have. Only when they are all passed by the committee's they are in, will the five be brought together and combined to make the final version which will then be voted on and either defeated or passed to be given to the President. The copy of the bill you have, may not have this provision, but that does not mean that one or more of the other four does not and that the final version of the bill will not have this provision in it. This is how it works in Washington.

okay, some of you people say your "Stuck with what ever insurance option your employer has" right....   i disagree.  you're not stuck with anything at the moment.  you can always decline your employer health insurance and pay for a private health insurance out of your own pocket.  yeah it sucks, but thats life.  you don't like your employer health care, drop it and go to ehealthinsurance.com; then "Quote.  Buy.  Print"  it's that simple.

yay, free interprise!!  yay capitalism!!!

but under a government "public" option....  that choice is taken away.  you can no longer buy private health care since the bill prohibits new policies being made.  so lets say you have private health care, and your provider comes out with a newer, better plan than what you currently have.  well under this current healthcare bill, you cannot switch policies, so now your choices are limited to 2. 

1.  keep your current healthcare, in which the costs are more than likely to go up due to restrictions the government has placed on the company resulting in a loss of profits.

or

2.  the puplic option government controlled healthcare.

yeah, those are great choices to have aint it.  not o mention that if you keep your private health plan, you'll actually still be paying for the gov. option via taxes; so in reality your paying for two healthcare plans....

yay socailism!!!!   yay generational theft!!! 

what i find funny is that what the government can do to the private health care companies exactly what Walmart did to lots of small business owners.

yet...  the gov is the good guy and not creating a monopoly??  and Walmart is the devil....   talk about double standards....

Honestly dude, you need to get some anger managment issues taken care off.   First I was willing to listen to your point of veiw, but because you resorted to the tactics of a 5th grader by name calling other people besides myself who have differeing point of veiws on this issue, you are, in my mind, the intellectual equivalent of a 2nd grader and there for any "point" or "proof" you have or might continue to post is discredited.

honestly, if your going to attack people because they have different points of veiw, why even post something in the first place.  you notice i haven't called you any names for your "effing moron" and other rather hateful content of the above posts from you.   do people really still use the word "effing"??  wow....

do yourself a favor, and take an intrapersional communications class sometime, it may help you alot when dealing with people in a perfessional manner who don't hold your same views, that way you don't result to such childish antics such as name calling.

so now that i've had my rant, while the bill doesn't come out and say "Private Health Care is Illegal" it might as well be illegal once the gov. restricts this industry beyond any repair.  besides, the gov will monopolize the industry because no business can compete with the ability to draw on tax payers funds or printing money when needed.   the "grand fathering of policies" is just smoke screen and mirrors, because if the company can't afford to stay afloat they'll go out of business and you'll be stuck with the only other option. 

whether or not it's made "illegal" isn't really the issue; the real issue is the gov. taking over a private sector and eliminating the choices we, as the consumor, have; i don't know about you, but i rather like choices.

you argue that theres no other option besides a gov. take over, that insurance is way too expensive, that as a developed nation everyone should have healthcare.

i agree with all but one, there is another option besides gov. take over.  do you really want the people who are responsable for the state that Socail Security and Medicare are in, to be responsable for our healthcare as well.  SS will be broke beyond any repair just 60 yrs from when it was first started; how long before healthcare goes broke as well, seeing as healthcare will cover alot more people than SS, including Illegal immagrants that don't pay taxes.....

the solution lies in fixing the problems we have now, not throwing up our hands and giving power to an already bloated gov. thats irresponsible.   don't force hospitals to treat illegal immagrants, that alone will help dramatically.  instead of treating the illegals, ship them back to where they came from or drop them in the middle of the ocean, for all i care.  there in the country ILLEGALLY and therefore don not get the rights or privalleges(sp) of a citizen.

another part of the solution, pass a law against these frivalous law suits.  thats another major reason why healthcare is so high; because doctors and insurance agencies have to cover thier assets incase they look at a pateint wrong.

these two solutions alone would dramatically cut the cost of private health care.  the only involvement the gov has in this solution....  tax breaks for taxpayers with private health insurance, and tax breaks for companies who offer health care plans to both full time and part time employees.   that will serve as a major plus that will get people to buy healthcare and will also, in effect lower costs.  more plan holders = lower premium rates.  thats why the more people a company has, the lower the cost is.

but seeing as this is a common sense approach....  we know washington won't be involved with it.

While section 102 does not outlaw private health insurance it does say that if you want it you must have it before y1 of the new program.  Effectively, that will eliminate all private health care through attrition.  If you leave your current employer you will not be able to sign up for private health insurance from another company, you will be required to take the government program or pay a healthy fine each year.

This bill is garbage will add 300 billion to the deficit in the next ten years and according to the CBO the costs will increase significantly in the out years (after 10 years).  Currently, we will be passing on to our children and grandchildren $205,000 in federal debt for every man woman and child in the US.  We should be ashamed of our greed.

a  better option would be to reform the health care companies.  About 20 years ago health insurance companies payout 90% of premiums in health care.  Today that number is closer to 80%.  If the government offered an incentive to companies to pay  out 90% of premiums say use a 5 year average and a tax credit to reduce outlay to 90% of premiums if the outlay is greater than 90% and to levy a tax surcharge on companies that payout less than 90% to bring their expenditures to the 90% level.  In order for a company currently paying out 80% of premiums to receive the same income at 90%  as it did at 80% it would need to double the number of customers.  That would create incentives for insurance companies to attract more clients and would greatly reduce premiums and increase coverage.

And there is no cost to us and no expansion of the federal deficit.

So technically, it doesn't outlaw private health insurance.  But it stipulates what new insurance plans will look like, effectively forcing private companies to offer a government solution in the guise of a private policy.  Do not believe this wolf in sheep's clothing.  Private insurance AS WE NOW KNOW IT will become illegal.  Think your private insurance is expensive now?  Just wait until this bill passes (pray that it doesn't) and see if you can afford it.  Some people will be able to hold out, but most average Americans will have no choice but to go for the government option.  How good will your new Obama insurance be?  Let's take a look at some wonderful examples of service and efficiency:  Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, Social Security....sorry, I'm too depressed now to keep typing.

Good information

I have just spent the last40 minutes reading this thread.  I have gained a lot of insight into this bill(H.R.3200).  I also have spent a lot of time trying to make sense out of the bill.  Its like reading a bowl of spaghetti!  There seems to be a lot of debate about what the bill actually states, and what is implied.  When evaluting the virtue of this bill, I think you have to consider both.  While the bill may not explicitly outlaw "private insurance", the type we know today,  the consequence of the bill's actions will in fact change the entire insurance industry. 

What I find interesting is that the one choice of health insurance that could really drive down health costs is not mentioned, or for that fact, even allowed by this bill.  I'm talking about catastrophic coverage combined with a Health Savings Account (HSA).  I say that it is not allowed under this bill beacause it does not conform to the essential benefits as defined by Section 122(b) of HR 3200.

Severeal people have commented on how dependent and entitled we have become.  I agree whole-heartedly.  If people were to have catastrophic coverage (CC) + HSA,  the decisions for your everyday health expenses (vision, denttal, well visits, annual physical exams) would be entirely in your own hands.  Since these expenses are paid for by you out of your HSA, you would probably be more inclined to price shop, and to closely examine your billing statement for errors or fraudulent charges.

HSA's are an extremely valuable tool.  They belong to you alone, they do not disappear when you change jobs or become unemployed, they are funded with pre-tax money, they are not subject to government whims and changes, they earn interest.  They are in effect your health independance.  If young people, in their 20's and 30's, who are otherwise healthy, would initiate and self fund these accounts, like IRA's, they would grow sufficiently to support their aging years. 

Think about auto insurance for a beater car.  You only insure the items you are required to by law. PLPD only.  You would not insure for collision of a car that is worth only $3000.  By the same reasoning, a younger person does not need to have health insurance for a plethora of procedures that are not applicale to them (i.e maturnity care for a single male).  That's where the catastrophic coverage comes in.  You would be only insuring for the unplanned incident (car accident, broken bones, heart attack,etc) not the things that you know you are going to encounter (annual exams, vision, dental care).

CC + HSA would radically change the insurance and medical provider industry.  If used on a large scale, it would force the providers to be more competetive with their pricing since people are now paying for the service from their HSA's.  Think about how much could be saved without all the paperwork that takes place between the provider and the insurance company.  But , unfotunately, HR3200 or any of the other bills being considered do not allow for us to be in charge of our own decisions.

They also ban cost shifting - treat it as racketerring.  Both the private sector AND goverment would be prohibited from such actions.   This forces everyone to pay equally.  So those paying in cash to have pick up the costs shifted off of the insured.

I completely agree with your analysis of this section of the bill. However, what this does is force every new policy to basically be the same - it must comply with the Bill. So this section does effectively eliminate private policies between an insurer and a consumer because every newly created plan is the same. This runs contrary to the claims of the President and the Congress that there will be a private option in lieu of a "QHBP". This section looks as if it was added to ensure that the "private option" is an option in name only.