You Will Be Able To Purchase Coverage From Private Insurers

IBD Editorials ^ | July 21, 2009 | NOSTRILUS HENRY WAXMAN

[Kaslin]

Letters: California Representative Henry Waxman responds to It's Not An Option, IBD's recent editorial on the impact pending health care legislation would have on private medical coverage. Read IBD's follow up editorial, Still Not An Option.Your July 16 editorial, "It's Not an Option," was factually incorrect and highly misleading.

The editorial incorrectly states that "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 editorial also falsely claims that the bill "will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law."

America's Affordable Health Choices Act will reform the individual health insurance market. It will create a transparent insurance marketplace that protects consumers and provides them with choices among quality, affordable health care plans.

Insurers will no longer be able to exclude individuals from coverage based on pre-existing conditions and will be prevented from selectively refusing to renew coverage or charging different premiums based on an individual's need for health care.

[hsalaw]

Waxman is a liar. BTW, I saw a picture of him today standing with some other people, and he looked about three feet tall. Is he really that short? Perhaps he has a complex about it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not a big waxman fan either - but if you start reading on page 14 of the bill, you’ll find that the author of the editorial was “reading challenged.”

If so, why did the House Wys And Means committee confirm their interpretation, and why did one of Obama's lackeys confirm it under questioning from Paul Ryan last week?

[the invisib1e hand]

You Will Be Able To Purchase Coverage From Private Insurers

Gee, what a revolutionary idea.

[Interesting Times]

It’s good to see that IBD’s editorials have sufficient clout that Waxman feels he must emit a few lies in response.

[reformedliberal]

By charging the 25-year-old the same premium as they charge the elderly, ill policyholder. Not only that, the elderly cancer patient will die ASAP, due to denial of non-cost-effective treatments aimed at prolonging their useless lives, therefore saving lots of *costs* to the system, while the healthy 25-year-old will continue to be forced to pay their high premium forever. To insure that the 25-year-old doesn't become a costly drain on the system, their lifestyle habits will be monitored, taxed or made illegal. Eventually, this will become a ban on various dangerous sports, such as hang gliding and rock climbing. Sitting in front of the computer will be limited via rationing of electricity and daily group calisthenics will become strongly encouraged. If the 25-year-old eventually develops an expensive disease condition, they, too, shall simply be denied treatments that exceed the mandated cost-effectiveness. Those born with such a condition will be allowed to die comfortably, since they have no hope of living a complete life as defined by the Health Boards.

Way to go, kids! You will feel so good about yourselves and your contribution to the State!

In the future, there will be no hope for any change, ever.

[RipSawyer]

“In the future, there will be no hope for any change, ever.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Oh, there will be plenty of change, growing old faster, dying young, going insane from stress etc. those are all changes.

[reformedliberal]

Not for the zerOids who will never know anything other than totalitarianism. All the things you mention will simply be *facts of life*. Until the inculcated hordes who have cheerfully voted for slavery understand on a personal level what their hope and change really mean, there will be none.

[rudman]

Sorry for the delay - have been away from the computer.

That section of the bill, starting from page 14 and continuing past page 16, discusses what qualifies as grandfathered insurance and provides a grace period for existing policies whose periods of enrollment extend past the date the law is enacted to cover what congress is mandating as minimum coverage.

That’s why I took umbrage with the original editorial. It is obvious they simply saw a sentence, and decided to write an article about it. I hate sloppy journalism.

Have a blessed day.

[rudman]

This is in response to the health care bill, where I took umbrage to the claim that page 16 outlawed competition to the government run health care insurance being driven through congress by the democrats, the AMA, and the usual suspects.

I got the following responses from y'all, and then didn't reply to you for a pretty long time. My apologies on that - have been away from the computer.

Mr. Silverback If so, why did the House Wys And Means committee confirm their interpretation, and why did one of Obama's lackeys confirm it under questioning from Paul Ryan last week?

tsmith130 Really, how so?

Cyber Liberty I have the bill in front of me. What are you talking about?

That section of the bill, starting from page 14 and continuing past page 16, discusses what qualifies as grandfathered insurance and provides a grace period for existing policies whose periods of enrollment extend past the date the law is enacted to cover what congress is mandating as minimum coverage.

That’s why I took umbrage with the original editorial. It is obvious the writer simply saw a sentence, and decided to write an article about it. I hate sloppy journalism.

Have a blessed day.

[EBH]

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 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.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- 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.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

---

Don’t see it in there?