Private Health Insurance To Be Made Illegal If House Has Its Way
Do you happen to appreciate your current, private health care insurer? Fine, no problem at all — as long as you don’t switch jobs. Should you happen to do that, it will be ILLEGAL for you to go with anything but President Barack Hussein Obama’s state-run health care program if Congress (not the president — CONGRESS) has its way according to Investors Business Daily (“IBD“), who caught the fine print on page 16 of the bill and just to be sure they weren’t misreading the relevant paragraph, then sought a second opinion from the House Ways and Means Committee, which confirmed the IBD was right dead on the money in its assessment.
The “fine print” in question? This:
“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. …
Look — I’ve long been an advocate for socialized health care for those amongst us who cannot afford it — wade through years of my archives if you doubt it. On the other hand, I also believe in the finer virtues of capitalism or I’d be a hypocrite for charging so many folks to run their ads here at The Gun Toting Liberal™, wouldn’t I? Yes, yes I would. Indeed.
That said (and hopefully, clearly enough) I have a problem with private health insurance companies being shut out completely as one American Citizen after another retires, changes employers, or simply is born after the date of the passage of this health care reform bill, as written, gets signed into law by the president. I would hope President Obama would keep his PROMISE to America; the promise that We, The People, will be able to choose a private insurer over gub’mint-funded options anyday, any time. Although, a part of me believes he’d sign even this draconian of a version of a health care solution just to add it to his “legacy”. Hope I’m wrong; not counting on it.
I have fantastic insurance (as the consumer) but my insurer is surely a major part of the racket, rip-off, or whatever else you’d like to call the farce called “private health insurance”, so I guess I’m like most Americans — I wish to see legislation which favors my own situation. I get to keep my insurer, as well as my “socialized” other alternative as a disabled veteran at the Veterans Administration (“VA”) and I’m A-Okay. Unfortunately, the lovely Mrs. GTL™, who provides my non-socialized option, may just wish to seek employment elsewhere someday and BOOM — we’re freaking CRIMINALS should we continue to seek a private alternative? Really? Yer’ kiddin’.
Please, get back to the drawing board, Congresscritters. That particular provision contained within your page 16 absolutely, positively STINKS to Holy High Heaven.
***
Other bloggers chime in: Michelle Malkin (Right); Hot Air (Right)
Loading ...
11:52 pm on July 16th, 2009 1
GTL…hate to say I told you so…but…see my column “HealthScare Reform” on your very site. Didnt get the attention of the Michael Jackson media circus, or my last column, “Tribal parties”, but glad you see the light. The AMA bureocrats endorse this garbage, and like most of congress, probably never read the entire bill…welcome to the DMV of medicine, compliments of our “Physician in Chief”….God help us…
CLD
2:17 am on July 17th, 2009 2
You mentioned Mrs. GTL being a criminal potentially with this new bill. Is that her pictured in the article? I hate to be a judge of persons by their outward appearance, but I’d have to say you did well getting her. Are you sure she didn’t mistake you as Poker Playing Champion Daniel Negreanu? (The real one turns 35 in about 9 days)
3:11 am on July 17th, 2009 3
Just more change we can believe in. And hope…it gives us hope…hope that we don’t get sick…hope that we don’t need to see a doctor…hope that we don’t need emergency care.
3:11 am on July 17th, 2009 4
@CLD — I never disagreed with you on that post… completely, that is, brother
@Mike Hatcher — Nope, that isn’t The Missus — she’s MUCH hotter’n that (former runway model, still built like one, knows how to
walkSTRUT in high heels, has the ego to match)10:10 am on July 17th, 2009 5
What part of this wasn’t expected?
10:37 am on July 17th, 2009 6
My favorite part of this bill is that it lets one state receive higher payments for medical services than the others. I’m sure it is only a coincidence that it happens to be the home state of the House Chairman promoting this bill.
Chris is exactly correct. Our healthcare will be in the hands of the people that make the DMV and the Post Office such wonders of efficiency and customer service.
1:38 pm on July 17th, 2009 7
GTL- I had forgotten, you mentioned that earlier, (I can’t remember where)ah, I need an open thread. Ok, thanks for the approval.
Anybody, I hear this derogatory term used but I’m not clear about its definition. What exactly is a blog troll?
2:27 pm on July 17th, 2009 8
I think blog troll is relative term, Mike, depending upon the person making the judgment. To me, a blog troll is somebody who just swings through to blog something with no other intention than to make other readers/co-bloggers/commentators angry and eager to respond in kind. Perhaps somebody else will come through and in a non-blog troll sort of way give us some other definitions?
3:03 pm on July 17th, 2009 9
Hmm…Lets see here, The Philadephia Converntion ran from May 25 to September 17, and produced a document, that, if set in 12 point Times New Roman font take up about 11 pages.
The former community organizer from Chicago wants to ram through a document of lord knows how many hundreds of pages in a few weeks? I don’t think any of the members of Congress could read it all in that short a time, much less understand what it is about and all the nuance of it.
Oh, by the way, that document that came out of the Philadelphia Convention is what we know as the Constitution of the United States.
3:17 pm on July 17th, 2009 10
Mike
Hi…I’m Chuck and I’m a troll. Man that felt good. The first step is the hardest.
I’d have to say the definition is someone that continuously and obnoxiously makes comments designed simply to irritate the other posters.
3:25 pm on July 17th, 2009 11
if Congress (not the president — CONGRESS) has its way
I keep saying……….Congress…..not Obama is the bad guy.
I think Barry “BudgetDeficit” Obama is trying to do a decent job given the fact hes never really had a real job and is from another country and really did sit in church for 20 years and didn’t listen to the preacher….Not once….
But hey….Its not girls gone wild!!!……….Its CONGRESS GONE WILD!!!
Im tellin ya folks…..dont attack Obama. Hes an okay dude….Focus on congress….they the real nitwits.
3:53 pm on July 17th, 2009 12
Thanks Chuck & GTL:
I figured there would be a component of extremism in there, but wondered if it was more of a
A: Make inflamatory statements about others.
B: Engage in empty, repetitive banter.
C: Post “talking points” in hit and run style much like spam advertising
D: All of the above
6:22 pm on July 17th, 2009 13
GTL
It may interest you that I linked to this article on my little baby blog. It’s still new so don’t go over and make it cry or anything.
11:04 pm on July 17th, 2009 14
‘Bout time ya got yer own blog started bro!!! Don’t get a big head and be a stranger ’round these parts though, please — still need the peacekeeper -slash- moderator around here now
12:34 pm on July 18th, 2009 15
How do I get a copy of the Obama’s Nationalized Health Care Bill to read. Is it posted online. If so where?
1:02 pm on July 18th, 2009 16
Barry
Call your Congresscritter. Technically it’s still Waxmans bill, since President Obama doesn’t like to soil his hands with legislation. Last I heard it still wasn’t out of committee, but I could be wrong.
GTL
I only started that blog to have a place to post rants and screeds. Should I ever write one you like, you have full permission to use it. Besides, I like tormenting you too much to stop commenting.
1:36 pm on July 18th, 2009 17
LOL Chuck — cool. I love the torment
2:29 pm on July 18th, 2009 18
I have a hard time believing nobody has corrected you on this, Guns. Here.
2:43 pm on July 18th, 2009 19
WOW… thanks, Steve — for the clarification! Leave it to a lawyer to figure it all out for us
2:43 pm on July 18th, 2009 20
Not me – Hilzoy, may she travel Africa in peace.
5:04 pm on July 18th, 2009 21
Testing my “gravatar” – Steve was already taken, go figure.
6:40 pm on July 18th, 2009 22
So where are all the dem’s and lib’s today? Why aren’t they here telling us how great the dem health care plan is?
Doomed: Don’t kid yourself, it’s BOTH. Obama is doing just as much harm as Comrade Pelosi and her minions, if not more. If he was half as good as he thinks he is, he’d take the bull by the horns and put an end to this non-sense.
1:48 pm on July 20th, 2009 23
Steve — You can use “Steve” — gravatars are determined by a specific email addy
1:48 pm on July 20th, 2009 24
Oh, and I love yer’ new grav’, dood! LMFAO!!!
6:01 pm on July 24th, 2009 25
You are misinterpreting the text, as did IBD. If you would like to actually read the text, go to: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hrdraft.pdf
The language you and IBD quoted is the definition for “Grandfathered.” Plans that are grandfathered in do not have to meet the improvements required by the bill. Your “grandfathered” insurance is 1) free to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions; 2) free to change your rates as you get older, simply because you’re getting older; 3) Free to cover only inadequate health care providers; 4) and a bunch of other things that make them richer and you poorer.
The language only states that if you want to keep inferior coverage, you are free to. Once the law goes into effect, all insurance plans will have to meet slightly higher standards. That’s all. Stop being crazy.