Gene's Footnotes

I have never been impressed by the messenger and always inspect the message, which I now understand is not the norm. People prefer to filter out discordant information. As such, I am frequently confronted with, "Where did you hear that...." Well, here you go. If you want an email version, send me an email.

July 17, 2009

The Eve of Destruction


Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

I wanted to read up on the IBD editorial which stated that after the new health law was passed, one could not leave a business and keep one's insurance. The insurance companies will not be allowed (I have no idea under what part of the Constitution) to sign up the former customers, this being a direct contradiction to the frequent Obama claim that you can keep your insurance. Let's be clear about that.

Also, it is clear that private companies will just move over to the "pool," or whatever the mess is, which will crowd out the private insurer. That is what the bill says.

WalMart is all set to go. Don't forget business want to save money and that takes precedence over long term thinking, like "there won't be much money to buy things."

What I found rather than the IBD editorial was a flurry of psychotic reaction to the IBD claim. I guess the emperor's clothes were missing. I won't even address this propaganda, no newspeak. Just read what the protest is, below. I will go "huh" for you now. It is drivel intended to convince those who don't read past the headline, being in full drone dress.

I don't think these people are as stupid as they write; this is disembling. It is an evil barking to the true believers.

The except, below, is from MediaMatters, an Alynsky etc group tied directly to Obama etc, so you can see why there is such hysteria. I guess the argument is IBD is full of lying scum because the bill doesn't use the word "outlaw" even thought that is what the bill does de facto.

It may be time to move back to Canada. At least there, you can figure out what the hell is going on. I am just amazed at how people are running with the lemmings.

If this bill becomes law, there is no going back to a representative democracy. It is that simple. The government will own everyone. Like the provision that a g-man swat team can enter your house and force a vaccination upon your children.

IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage"

July 16, 2009 8:49 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

17 Comments

In a July 15 editorial, subsequently highlighted by Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial later stated that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." That assertion is false; the bill will not "outlaw individual private coverage."

In fact, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

In the editorial, Investor's Business Daily claimed:

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.

In fact, the paragraph in question states in context (emphasis added):

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 [2013] 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 does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.-Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

Sec. 102 subsection (c) states that "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." {In other words, there is no private insurance anymore.}

According to the House committees' summary of the bill, the Health Insurance Exchange "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."

Right.

A final note. I was listening to an attempt to get an answer from Judge Sotomayor as to whether she thought a person has the right to defend himself, even in the home. There was no answer, she say, because this is legal question and it must be frustrating for people trying to talk to judges whose heads were in the law, or some such nonsense. She was pushed and refused to answer.

So, she would love to make it illegal to defend yourself, I suppose.

Tell me it is not the eve of destruction.

Labels: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home