Provision in HealthCare Bill would make Private Insurance Illegal

by politisite | July 16, 2009 at 01:14 pm

3261 views | 43 Recommendations | 22 comments

President Obama has assured Americans that they can keep their private insurance if they want to but, he didn't mention the process by which to do so. He also didn't mention that those with Individual private coverage cannot make any changes once the option is chosen. This is a very good reason why we should not count on our legislators to read and interpret Bills for us. We must be pro-active and read the bill ourselves even if it is 1,018 pages long.

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

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.

Please click on the source link to read the wider article.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

eastvanray

at 14:49 on July 16th, 2009

Welcome to Canadian health care.....the specialist will be in to see you in 6 to 12 months. But it's "Free"!

QueensHart

at 16:39 on July 16th, 2009

I pray for the Blue Dog Democrats to save us from this catastrophe. Obama is absolutely

going to be the worst President there has ever been . Perhaps in the time of the Spirit he

will get his due and the ones who follow him in their ignorance will be glad he is not a real

American Citizen and we can kick his skinny ass out of our country.

Graywalker (not verified)

at 17:13 on July 16th, 2009

LIES!!!

Please take note of how all the articles don't tell you that the bill is online as H.R. 3200 and the line they quote is in Sec. 102 of the bill.

They quote H.R. 3200 Sec. 102 (a) (1) (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."

Which, taken alone, could be scary and might support their claim. However, taking note that Sec. 102 (a) is "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined", it kind of throws their whole claim right out the window of credibility.

Here is the full section 102 (a) (extra emphasis is mine, refer to http://thomas.loc.gov for the full text of the bill)

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 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 (IE `grandfathered health insurance 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.

Not tackling any other claims, merits, flaws or anything else about the Health Care Reform, the articles shouting about the bill making Private Insurance illegal are a load of crap.

albertacowpoke

at 17:25 on July 16th, 2009

You're link doesn.t work

eastvanray

at 18:11 on July 16th, 2009

It would appear that this makes anyone wanting a NEW health insurance policy unable to purchase private coverage. That effectively puts a sunset on private health care insurance and creates 2 classes of US citizens: those with access to private health insurance and those without.

Mike Ortiz (not verified)

at 20:24 on July 19th, 2009

The bill you speak of is an old dead bill. The bill this story refers too does not have an official HR # yet as it has not been made official.

albertacowpoke

at 18:33 on July 16th, 2009

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters now at least somewhat oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 46% at least somewhat favor it, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just two weeks ago, 50% were for the reform plan, and 45% were opposed.

The “nays” also continue to have the edge in terms of intensity. While 22% strongly favor the Democrats’ health care reform plan, 38% strongly oppose it, up four points from the previous survey.
Among those voters who have health insurance, opposition is even higher: 43% favor the plan, but 52% oppose it. Those who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly favor it by two-to-one – 40% to 20%.

The_Cynic

at 21:58 on July 16th, 2009

I don't understand ACP - from your name I am assuming that you're in Canada - if not I apologise - but you have free heathcare and you're batting for the insurance companies?

The fight is now a matter of if te insurance companies win - the US citizens will pay more and more and more for less and less coverage until they simply cannot afford it, businesses go bust because of it - or more likely just not offer the benefit of health coverage.

Why is it that more and more Americans will have no coverage at all and that is OK with people?

In Canada you can still go bankrupt if you don't have the right, or any prescription coverage, and that is wrong in itself. In the UK any prescription costs 14 bucks - for anything that your doctor prescribes if you are working and above a certain income level. Other than that you pay zero - even Richard Branson pays the same as me.

What is it that people, and a nation that says it is all about being American - where, with healthcare there is such division?

The US is the ONLY industrialised nation on the planet that doesn't have universal healthcare - is human life worth so little that insurance company profits come before all citizens being able to see a doctor or having the ability to have access to healthcare what you need it?

Sad indictment of the US if that really is the case. Because of a simple fact as of today and under both Bush and Obama - Iraq has a universal healthcare system paid for by the American tax payer.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

eastvanray

at 22:29 on July 16th, 2009

As a Canadian I want to make this perfectly clear....our health care is not FREE!!!!! We pay huge taxes and suffer through a sub-par system that see people dying on waiting lists. Is this what the US really wants?

The_Cynic

at 22:41 on July 16th, 2009

Free at the point of use - no healthcare system is 100% free. You don't pay huge taxes - you pay less than any American pays.

There are more Americans dying because of private insurance than any universal healthcare system in any country that has it.

Strawman argument - and it is washing so thin you can see your reflection.

eastvanray

at 10:11 on July 17th, 2009

Not sure where you get your info from but it is wrong. When you add all levels of taxation Canadians pay considerable more personal and sales taxes than US taxpayers. According to the OECD the difference is 5% http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/38/43098708.xls

politisite

at 19:10 on July 16th, 2009

Thanks for all of your comments

QueensHart

at 01:22 on July 17th, 2009

"Strawman argument - and it is washing so thin you can see your reflection."

You need to do a lot more studying sir. Anyone can get health care in America right now,,

it costs...everything costs in all the countries you show...do you want to live in any of them?

The costs is not only in Dollars , it is in corrupt elites and the sheep.

Anonymously Given (not verified)

at 10:58 on July 21st, 2009

"You need to do a lot more studying sir. Anyone can get health care in America right now ..."

Did I hear you say that you are from Canada? If so, then that may explain the reasoning behind the quote at the top of my response.

I have been unable to secure reasonable health insurance for myself or for my family, for the better part of the past fifteen years, and am neither stupid nor living on a street grate on a high numbered New York Avenue.

I keep the company of fifty million similarly situated, uninsured fellow citizens. In the U.S.A.

AlvarezGalloso

at 10:04 on July 17th, 2009

This is scary.

mscottp (not verified)

at 15:31 on July 17th, 2009

decided to look up the specific language preceding this subsection ( section 102 )

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111ypLn5r:e21210:

This looks to be a standard grandfathering clause. It doesn't imply that no other private option is available. Only that the existing options can continue to exist until the last consumer turns out the lights.

Any new private policies would necessarily follow the othe provisions laid out in the legistation. But private options will continue to exist... or more accurately depicting my understanding... this section mentioned here does not make private insurance illegal.

I'm not a fan of the direction we are heading, but if we're to be taken seriously, we must not make fools of ourselves. Look at the specifics before crying too loudly.

Julie B. (not verified)

at 12:31 on July 21st, 2009

If you don't want Government controlled Healthcare, sign this petition: www.joinpatientsfirst.com/

Janice Grant (not verified)

at 12:33 on July 21st, 2009

That is NOT a standard grandfathering clause, that is an exclusion of private providers.

Ian Gregory (not verified)

at 16:43 on July 21st, 2009

Cynic - you are obviously one of the libs supporting this crap. This healthcare bill is like the other crap Obama is trying to force down our throat before we realise it tastes like sh*t. Wake up America - there's nothing in the constitution guaranteeing equal healthcare. If you want it work to get it and quit waiting for the annointed one to give it to you by steaking form the successful to pay for it. I want a new Corvette because my wealthy neighbor has one. Help me Obama and make my neighbor and his wealthy successful friends pay for my new Corvette!

westcoasthawk (not verified)

at 16:47 on July 21st, 2009

Coverage, that is all I hear anyone talking about. Coverage means nothing if you have no access. Universal Healthcare will lead to rationing by DC bureaucrats who will decide who is worthy of care and how often they may be seen. But, they will have coverage.

My mother in law died needlessly, waiting months for an MRI in Canada that she could have had - next day in the US. Oh yeah, and she didn't have to pay anything at the point of her non-service, unless of course you consider death to be a price paid.

snjmom (not verified)

at 18:29 on July 29th, 2009

Westcoast, why didn't you pay to have her cross the border and get one in America? Or why didn't she? If she couldn't pay for it, she ain't getting one here,either.

Namsain?

It's just like seatbelt law. Vehicles could still be driven that were purchased prior to the law, but after the law, ya better be able to buckle up. Considering that it affects all insurance providors, it should have 0 effect on the previous level of competition.