- Home
- About Us
- Issues
- View All Issues
- Freedom Agenda
- Other Issues
- Top 10 Lists
- Join
- States
- Alabama
- Georgia
- Maryland
- New Jersey
- South Carolina
- Alaska
- Hawaii
- Massachusetts
- New Mexico
- South Dakota
- Arizona
- Idaho
- Michigan
- New York
- Tennessee
- Arkansas
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- North Carolina
- Texas
- California
- Indiana
- Mississippi
- North Dakota
- Utah
- Colorado
- Iowa
- Missouri
- Ohio
- Vermont
- Connecticut
- Kansas
- Montana
- Oklahoma
- Virginia
- Delaware
- Kentucky
- Nebraska
- Oregon
- Washington
- D.C.
- Louisiana
- Nevada
- Pennsylvania
- West Virginia
- Florida
- Maine
- New Hampshire
- Rhode Island
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Take Action
- Blog
- Contact
- Make a Donation
After reading just 16 pages of the healthcare bill unveiled by House Democrats this week, the Investor’s Business Daily found
…a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
Skeptical that that could not possibly be truth, they
…sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
And, unfortunately,
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage.
The relevant language, which you can find your self on page 16 here, in a section talking about “grandfathering” current private insurance, says
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.
And their conclusion nails it:
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It’s scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we’ll come across in the final 1,002.
Not pleased by this news? Neither are we, which is why we:
1. Set up this action page
2. Made it easy here for you to send a letter to the editor of your newspaper
3. Created a Health Care Action kit we sent to our members over July 4th recess
4. And hope you know about the September 12 Taxpayer March on Washington
Digg
Reddit
Comments
July 16, 2009 - 9:37pm
Some posters here have FINALLY got it!!
Sickle, I Love You Man!! :D
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-299075 and http://my.nowpublic.com/world/bill-does-not-make-private-health-insuranc…
July 16, 2009 - 7:08pm
Market-based policies are more cost effective for the government - and therefore the taxpayers- than publicly funded healthcare. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2005, if every uninsured individual was covered by a government program such as Medicaid, the cost to the federal and state governments is approximately $2000 each. If, however, low-income and modest-income Americans could purchase their own health insurance by utilizing a $1000 tax credit, the federal government would save 50% of that money. With over 45 million uninsured Americans, that savings would be substantial indeed.
Market-based insurance would not only be more affordable health coverage, it would also provide consumers with more choice. Because savings come from a tax credit, the option to choose insurance companies, policies and doctors is left to the person who purchases the insurance, not a group of politicians. Health insurance needs vary widely from one individual to the next and having the ability to choose the options that work best for an individual’s circumstances is fundamental to quality health care.
Several different market-based solutions could help low and modest-income individuals and families find affordable health coverage. Tax credits, tax deductions, health savings accounts and high-risk pools are all market-based options to make affordable medical insurance a reality for uninsured people who are working, but cannot afford medical insurance.
Tax credits allow people to keep more of their income on a monthly basis in their pay so the can purchase coverage. Because tax credits enable people to make their own choices of providers, plans and doctors, they are considered to be a preferred market-based solution for affordable health coverage. Tax credits enable working people to pay for their own health insurance without having to fall back on Medicare or other government health programs. Because a tax credit would cost only half the amount of Medicare per individual, the burden on all taxpayers is also reduced, saving everyone money.
Private health insurance can be affordable health coverage for every working American. By working with market-based solutions, health care reform can be a workable solution to the millions of Americans living in fear of a medical crisis because they have no medical insurance.
July 16, 2009 - 7:05pm
The USA became the most powerful and innovative nation on earth because of free market principles. Socalist policies will be the demise of the USA.
Market-based medical insurance policies look to the private sector for insurance coverage rather than the government. Supporters of market-based policies believe they are the only way to give the consumer control and choice, as well as fostering competition to keep costs down and quality high.
July 16, 2009 - 5:37pm
Because this is where I read it. And they’re not making an “argument,” they’re saying something that’s materially false. The bill does not outlaw private insurance.
July 16, 2009 - 1:01pm
You want to take a wild stab at what “…may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan” means?
July 16, 2009 - 8:23pm
Do you want to take a stab at what “Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined” means? They are DEFINING what the term grandfathered means you idiots. It cannot be considered grandfathered in if it enacted after a certain date. My god, don’t you pay attention?Only read what you want to further your political agenda and aid in destroying America. Nice. Morons.
July 16, 2009 - 12:13pm
This has been making the rounds, but let’s be accurate here. This provision does not “outlaw” private coverage. The very next page of the bill makes clear:
In other words, private plans are not outlawed. Old plans are grandfathered in, and new plans have to conform to the rules of the health care exchange. We can debate the merits of the exchange, but let’s be honest: the claim that the bill “outlaws” private insurance plans is false.
July 16, 2009 - 12:41pm
Why attempt to discredit the argument here? Why not take up your issue with Investors Business Daily, or better yet, the House Ways and Means Committee, who verified the claim.
Private insurance will be outlawed, because it will directly interfere with the government’s one-payer system.
Don’t miss seeing the forest because of the trees.
July 16, 2009 - 5:27pm
Look, guys, this isn’t that hard. Private insurance isn’t outlawed, it’s merely required to offer its plans on the Health Care Exchange after Y1. That’s what the bill says. It’s on the very next page from the one that’s causing all this hubbub.
It’s like the stock exchange. You know, buying and selling stocks through a licensed FINRA-registered broker, and those transactions have to occur on a regulated “exchange.” Same thing for health care now. Now health care plans will have their own exchange. So now, you can buy an insurance policy across state lines, something FreedomWorks wholeheartedly supports.
Post new comment