Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Health care clause creates alarm
Conservative talk radio is all abuzz after Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial that alleges a provision in the House’s health care legislation would essentially make individual private medical insurance illegal. The scrutinized provisions–”Limitation of New Enrollment” and “Limitation on Changes in Terms or Conditions”–reside on Page 16 of the more than 1,000-page document. They state:
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.
Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
After reportedly consulting with the House Ways and Means Committee for help in deciphering the meaning of the clauses, IBD said it learned:
… 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. …
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
The editorial notes that it only took 16 pages to uncover the questionable provisions: “It’s scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we’ll come across in the final 1,002.”
back to top24 Comments to “Health care clause creates alarm”
The whole world seems to be moving away from one-size-fits-all, wait-your-turn govt-allocated health care.. except the USA.
Quite paradoxical when you think about it.
As some have noted quite rightly in my view, until we get a true firm count and grip on the illegal alien nation we’ve permitted ourselves to become, all talk of govtal issued health insu is ill-advised at best.
Friedman was right: A welfare state is incompatible with open borders. You can have one but not both.
Report comment to moderator
None of this will affect our Cognressmen and Senators.
Didn’t I also hear that the government body which calculates what things will cost on a bill has concluded that Obama’s bill will cost the country MORE in health care and with less services? Didn’t I hear that briefly, once, on the news?
Report comment to moderator
“…a provision in the House’s health care legislation would essentially make individual private medical insurance illegal.”
Of course. “Private” is always a bad thing, unless of course you are claiming a privacy right to “choose” to KILL human beings rather than heal them.
But for the most part, if we let private individuals control their actual lives, that means less control for politicians. That cannot be tolerated.
Report comment to moderator
This whole “health care crisis” is a sham and an affront to the American people. It really speaks volumes on capacity of critical thought in our nation when ANY BODY can be sold this travesty.
I just don’t understand how health care reform equals more jobs and a cornerstone to getting out of this recession. That’s like stopping to help a lady with a flat tire by offering to clean her windshield!
It all really makes me sad for my country, that my fellow citizens can actually fall for this line of reasoning. I would understand if we were talking about a bunch of pre-pubescint children falling for this, but grown adults!? PATHETIC.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad someone is reading these massive pieces of legislation. I hope this does not lead to violent revolution. Obama is moving way too fast if he wishes to “change” us to a socialistic nation. He shows his lack of wisdom. If he made one change every year, we would probably not even notice. As it is, his haste may be his downfall. (We can only hope!)
Report comment to moderator
Genuine questions: Who wrote this? How many committees? Who was the editor? Does anyone know what’s in the whole thing? Was it deliberately written in such obfuscating language? And if so, why?
Report comment to moderator
It doesn’t “outlaw” private insurance, but as the article says, it makes private insurance unprofitable. They are competing against government. Only those with the right connections can make money.
The private insurer will just wither away.
What does anyone think this is about?
But we have to do this quickly, it’s a crisis.
Report comment to moderator
While we’re at it, why don’t we stat providing healthcare for visiting foreigners? Whether they be legal or illegal? Oh, I guess we already do that…maybe that’s where all the money is going in health care. THAT AND THE LAWYERS.
It’s funny how the trial lawyers support the Democrat Left. TORT reform! NOW!
Report comment to moderator
There’s good commentary today over at the WSJ Opinion Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779717982855785.html
A Reckless Congress
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779697143755743.html
Obama Needs to ‘Reset’ His Presidency
Mr. Van Dyk was Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years. He is the author of “Heroes, Hacks and Fools,” (University of Washington Press, 2008).
Report comment to moderator
Big Brother Obama and his minions are after us again.
Report comment to moderator
Norm P
his would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.
If you include …. the phase out of …. are weasel words here. deductions/exemptions get phased out and rewritten all the time. The WSJ is assuming that every high income earner qualified for the exemptions and deductions previously and thus would have “the largest rate increase”
The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD.
From 48 to 52 where’s the missing 4%?
Second, what is the cut-off for the highest income tax bracket in Denmark, Sweden and Belgium? If its anything like Canada its not $350,000 which is the lowest level for the income surtax in the US. In Canada its $123,184 for federal tax, $72,041 provincially and the provincial health premium tax (Ontario only) highest bracket is $200,600.
In the current US proposal the highest tax bracket in terms of the surtax is over $1 million
The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
From this I would conclude that only those making over a million dollars a year would pay more taxes than an upper middle class Swede.
Report comment to moderator
Those making that much will game the system. Middle income tax payers will pay through transparent taxation or something akin to VAT.
Report comment to moderator
None of this matters, since the thing will be voted on before it will have been read or studied, and maybe even before it is finished being written.
All the majority who vote yes are interested in is verifying that their payoff is included. Congress does not legislate any more.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a crisis in critical thinking in America. I think we need to raise taxes another .5% on those dastardly rich to educate the masses on how to use the common sense that God gave them.
Report comment to moderator
If this charge is accurate, then I’m concerned.
I want to see a public option, or a single payer system. But I do not want mandates (which I see as nothing more than a huge handout to an insurance industry which I despise), much less complicated rules saying that because I already have (crappy, expensive, catastrophe-only) private health insurance, I cannot put myself and my family on the public plan.
Ideally, I would like to see the government provide basic health coverage for all citizens, paid for by tax dollars. If people would prefer private insurance, they should have an option to purchase that on top of their national coverage. There should be no rules saying you can’t purchase private insurance, or can’t get on the national plan if you already have private insurance, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Our new Overlords in the current administration really do think we’re so stupid as to believe what they tell us (even though anyone with a lick of common sense and a brief bit of life experience know it is all baloney).
Report comment to moderator
$3.5 billion per vote for cap and trade, but the rate just might go higher with this one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/sweetener-helped-sway-vote-on-house-climate-bill/
Report comment to moderator
JJF – there are neither enough dollars, nor enough doctors for it to work. Besides, what is basic? Coughs and colds? Broken arms? Cancer? Diabetes? ADHD? What would be left for private coverage? What you want is a fairly tale.
Report comment to moderator
JJF – “Basic coverage”? Would that include contraception? Abortions? Gender reassignments? Depression? Drug abuse treatment? Methadone? Every other thing that some group lobbies for in an election year?
Report comment to moderator
The chief budget director for Congress states that the health-plan is too costly. It also violates the Declaration of Independence, which states that we have a right to life. If this bill passes, it will be the biggest expansion of abortion since 1973. It will mandate abortion as federal law and override any state laws that limit abortion. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists and hospitals that presently have a conscience protection, will now be forced to be abortion providers. Our health insurance premiums will go us as our employer health insurance will now be required to provide abortion coverage. Where funding is increased for abortion, there will be more access and therefore, more babies destroyed in the womb. Is this the life- diagnosis we want for a health-care plan?
Report comment to moderator
RKG:
It’s working well in other countries. I have no reason to think such a system is uniquely unworkable here.
KRM:
Good questions. I will point out, though, that they will be questions under any system. Private insurance does not cover most of those.
Report comment to moderator
There’s no surprise that with a bill of this size, which no one will read to the point of fully understanding, and that involves so much money, they’d find these little lies. A typical feature of this administration.
On a related aspect of resisting this attempt to pass this healthcare “reform”, I was speaking with a missionary friend presently stationed in Nigeria. He said something chilling, which shined a bright light on exactly what our American concept of liberty—allowing/requiring individuals to provide for and take care of themselves—is really up against with these “government provides everything to everyone” programs and the people who want and vote for them.
He said that there is a custom—a fundamental mindset—shared by the average person in Nigeria, as well as in other parts of Africa. This custom is that it is perfectly acceptable to walk up to a total stranger on the street and ask that person for money—flat out, no qualms. It is very common and there is absolutely no shame involved in begging money from another, especially if the other person appears to be a person of means able to give something. Race means nothing, just the appearance of means. As an American white man, seemingly solely because he is white since he definitely isn’t “of means”, this happens constantly in virtually every aspect of his life unless among friends.
Now, as great the shame of begging from total strangers may seem for any proudly self-reliant American with a smidgeon of confidence in his own ability to earn what he needs, in Africa such shame isn’t even a consideration where everything anyone has comes from the largess of government. In fact, it is fully expected that a person of means should/will/must share equally of what he has because what he has isn’t truly his since it must have come from the government. Somehow, the person with things, must have taken more than his share thus depriving others which isn’t fair—and this isn’t coming from any teaching of sharing/helping in a Biblical sense. The notion of liberty allowing one to work to earn, or someone working to achieve a better position that provides more, for the most part, is totally foreign. ‘Living’ means you gather what you presently need, by whatever means—the best means being those requiring little effort—and that is all that is required.
Additionally, since gained property must be secured by personally provided force—as government connection through bribery is required to get any other which then isn’t reliable and legally holding title to anything means virtually nothing—there is little incentive to achieve/gain/provide adequately or excessively for oneself and family.
The problem with this is that since governments of men are eternally corrupt and since he who controls the government—because he has the guns—controls everything, the people have had little option but to develop this mindset about possessions/required sharing. You can’t blame them. It’s what they’ve learned from how it is—pointing fingers at the origins being another discussion entirely—and how they now cope.
Our problem is that this mindset is still spreading throughout the world as fast as, or faster than, our idea of liberty. Since those controlling our present government, and leftists of like mind everywhere, constantly export this notion at every opportunity—as well as teaching it in our schools directly or when they don’t teach the truth about liberty and what it means—there is little reason to think there will be any change in the direction we seem headed.
When immigrants, illegal or not, come here and vote—not presently understanding, nor being instructed daily through the media about what liberty is/allows/requires—they think their vote means they now control how government gives them things—especially since they know the guy with the guns isn’t involved.
They think the government—through the face of Obama—is the guy of means since he always speaks of having/spending unending numbers of dollars, speaks of the incredible need of the people, and speaks of his desire to give them everything they need. Obama fits the mold precisely to give them the lives they’ve always wanted—and the best part is that he never speaks of any work being involved.
Report comment to moderator
Do you ever get that feeling that they want to assimilate you like the Borg? I do. They want to add our individual distinctiveness to their own and make us part of their collective.
Any of you read anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that establishes a collective?
Report comment to moderator
Old people are toast. I guess since treating them isn’t cost effective, the least we can do is help them off themselves. Dems are so sensitive to the needs of the elderly aren’t they? And where’s the AARP on this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2295165/posts
“One of the most outrageous mandates in the Democratic health care bill is found on page 416. [Mod note: try pp 425-426] On this page, you will see mandatory “end of life” counseling for seniors every five years. With this counseling, they will be spoken to about the different end of life choices that can be undertaken.”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!