The End of Private Health Insurance
We all know by now that the end goal of the health care “reform” bill proposed by the Obama Administration and Democratic leadership is to eventually run private insurers out of business, so we should be at all surprised by this gem that is tucked away in the 1,000+ page proposal, which you can read here:
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.
Democrats and advocates of the “public-option” have been repeating the talking point that they just want to introduce some competition to the market place. As has been explained here before, that is a crock and they know it, and this language on page 16 is the smoking gun, as if we needed anymore evidence to prove the end game here is.
This language is almost like a grandfather clause. You can keep what you have now, but if you ever lose it, you’ll will not be able to switch to another plan, forcing you on the so-called “public option,” which isn’t really an option at all.
Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.
So not only will we see a crowding out of private insurers because customers will be opting for the “public option,” which manipulates the market and is entirely funded by debt and taxpayers, they won’t be able to seek new business.
This is nothing short of an eventual government takeover of private health care, do not let anyone tell you different talking points of “competition” or “reform.” This proposal will end private health insurance, as has always been the goal for Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress.
United Liberty








GOD I LOVE THE INTERNET!
Just downloaded and read the house bill that you mis-quoted.
Let’s see if I can explain so that your tiny brains will understand.
1. The new healthcare bill puts rules in place for what is acceptable or legitimate healthcare coverage.
2. Your current plan may not conform to those rules.
3. You can keep the plan you have.
4. If you change plans you will have to purchase one that conforms to the regulations.
5. If a company wants to provide additional coverage (ie. to liposuction your fat cans) it may, but that coverage has to be purchased separately and outside of the regular healthcare market.
Come on people. We have socialist police departments and yet private security and private investigators still operate. We have socialist schools and yet private schools have been a fact for generations now. We have a socialist postal system (set up by our founding fathers) that runs great and yet competes with some very healthy private shipping companies.
And please actually read the text before you write your blog posts.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/16/does-the-house-plan-outlaw-private-i…
Hmmm… private health insurance has lived under similar massive regulation in German since… 1887? (not exactly sure about that) but a LONG freaking time and that private insurance is doing very well.
So I still content that this is a false argument. But at least we’ve moved to a more principled question:
Can private industry continue to be profitable or effective under strict government regulation?
I’d say the lessons of reality show us that, YES, private industry can thrive under strict regulation. But then again, drawing lessons from the real world is why I’m not a libertarian.
Have you ever held a job in the insurance industry? I can promise you that if the risk pool decreases and more stringent regulations are put on insurance companies that prices will increase to the point that no one will be able to afford private health coverage.
That is real world.
Do you have any actual evidence for this assertion? No actual country in the real world pays more for health insurance than we do.
The U.S. pays almost twice as much per person than our European fellows. That’s real data you can look up. Like here: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
… just to pick one of the first 3 links on google.
Explain to me again how all that regulation is going to drive up cost? Already Americans pay an average 18% of their salaries for healthcare. The Germans pay 8%. I could afford to pay for laser eye surgery out of pocket if I lived in Germany.
Or perhaps you mean that no one will be able to afford “private” insurance? Here’s a link to the NPR reporting on the German system.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971406
You’ll see that there is the ability to opt out of the public system and buy private insurance. Hmm… over 100 years of socialist regulation and they STILL have private insurance.
So, can you cite a counter example? You’ve got a nice theory but does it live up to real world experience.
Of course libertarianism isn’t actually about real world experience now is it?
You give me Germany as an example and I can give you examples from the UK and Canada that show long waiting lines and rationed care. Germany also has extremely high taxes and spending as a percentage of GDP. They also have the economic growth and unemployment rates, even prior to the economic recession, that come with their economic policies.
The CBO and another study (can’t remember who it was right now) have show that this plan will cause many people to leave their private plan and join the public option due to it being funded off the backs of taxpayers.
Logic says that this will make private health insurance that much more expensive by diminishing the risk pool.
It’s not rocket science.
Not sure where you’re getting your data. As long as the wait times and rationing are in Canada and the U.K. the U.S. is worse.
I do wonder what you must think of my country if you don’t think we can do better than Canada? Are we a bunch of semi-moronic sub-humans?
I digress.
In terms of percentage of GDP, it’s pretty simple:
Cost of taxes and healthcare in Germany = 40.6% of GDP.
Cost of taxes and healthcare in the US = 28.2% (taxes) + 17% (healthcare) = 45.2%
I’m not good at math, so you can tell me which percentage is the LOWER percentage, 40.6% or 45.2%
By the way, if you look at that site you linked to, in it’s index of economic freedom the U.S. comes in #6. Behind 5 countries that have socialist healthcare systems.
The federal government is the largest purchaser of health care and health care costs only went up dramatically with the introduction of Medicare.
Nice try, but let’s at least be honest about it.
You are also over calculating the problem. We’re still lower than Germany, once you cut health care spending in half, which is about what the government spends. You don’t add in what is already in the cost of taxes and spending.
Oh, and my wife worked for a health insurance claims adjustment company for 3 years. … just so you know.
And I’ve been doing it for seven years and am seeing it with my own eyes.