You WILL Lose Your Private Health Insurance --- thanks to socialists my insurer has informed that because of the socialist agenda they're going to have t!o raise my rates
thanks a lot Obama! On Dec 10, 8:54 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > RealClearPolitics - You Will Lose Your Private Health > Insurance<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/10/the_sheer_arroga...> > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/10/the_sheer_arroga... > > *You WILL Lose Your Private Health Insurance* > *Robert Tracinski, RCP.com* > ** > *Before Thanksgiving, the Senate voted to opening debate on President > Obama's health-care bill, and that debate has begun in earnest this week.* > ** > *Well, if they want a debate, let's let them have it. But let's not get > distracted by the sideshows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has planned > for us.* > ** > *Forget about abortion. Of course the left will accept restrictions on > funding for abortion, because they want to keep moderate Democrats on board > for the goal they know is really important: giving the government a dominant > role in health care. Everything else is just details, and funding for > abortions is an issue to which the left can return at leisure later on-once > government is firmly in charge of everything.* > ** > *And don't bother debating the "public option," either, because it's already > dead; enough Democratic senators have come out against it. But Harry Reid is > all too happy to have a debate over the public option so he can make a show > of "compromising" and giving it up. And while we're having that fake debate, > he's hoping that we won't be challenging everything else in the bill.* > ** > *So let's get straight what the real essentials of the bill are-and how > disastrous they are.* > ** > *Three provisions constitute the vicious heart of the Democrats' health-care > overhaul.* > ** > *The first is "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." This is the > requirement that insurance companies have to offer coverage to people who > are already sick, and that they be limited in their ability to charge higher > rates for customer who pose a higher risk. The extra expense to the > insurance companies of covering people with pre-existing conditions will get > passed on to existing customers in the form of higher premiums. But why > spend years paying these inflated premiums for insurance you're not using, > when you can get exactly the same benefits by waiting until you actually > fall ill? The obvious result is that million of people, especially healthy > young people, will quickly realize that there is no reason to buy health > insurance until they get sick.* > ** > *Rather than increasing the number of insured by making health insurance > more affordable, this bill makes health insurance more expensive and > increases the incentive to simply drop your insurance until you need someone > to pay for your medical bills. It is an attempt to turn health insurance > into what the left really wants: another welfare program in which everyone > is entitled to free benefits, mandated by the government. But this would > wreck private health insurance, making the whole industrial financially > unsustainable.* > ** > *Following the usual pattern of government intervention, the health-care > bill offers another intervention as the solution for the problem created by > the first. The "individual mandate" requires everyone to buy health > insurance and subjects us to a tax if we fail to do so. But this is an > especially onerous new tax, the first tax not tied to any kind of income or > activity. It's not a tax on stock-market profits, say, or a tax on buying > cigarettes. It's just a tax for existing.* > ** > *So fearing a public backlash, Congress didn't have the guts to make this > new tax very large-only $750. Yet actual insurance can cost more than $3,000 > per year-and as we shall see, this legislation goes out of its way to drive > up those rates by mandating more lavish coverage. So we end up getting the > worst of both worlds. This provision won't actually drive anyone to buy > health insurance and prop up the risk pools for those who are insured. All > it will accomplish is to create a brand new form of tax.* > ** > *But the biggest power-grab in the bill is the government takeover of the > entire market for health insurance. The bill requires all new policies to be > sold on a government-controlled exchange run by a commissioner who is > empowered to dictate what kinds of insurance policies can be offered, what > they must cover, and what they can charge.* > ** > *Right now, your best option for reducing the cost of your health insurance > is to buy a policy with a high deductible, which leaves you to pay for > routine checkups and minor injuries (preferably from savings held in a > tax-free Health Savings Account) but which covers your needs in catastrophic > circumstances-a bad car accident, say, or expensive treatment for cancer. > This is the kind of coverage I have.* > ** > *But the health-insurance exchange is intended to eliminate precisely this > kind of low-cost catastrophic coverage. Its purpose is to force > health-insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage that pays for all > of your routine bills-which in turn comes at a higher price. So under the > guise of making health insurance more affordable, this bill will restrict > your menu of choices to include only the most expensive options.* > ** > *So there we have the real essence of this bill. It restricts our choice of > which insurance to buy and pushes us into more expensive plans. At the same > time, it destroys the economic incentive to purchase insurance in the first > place and replaces insurance with a free-floating tax on one's very > existence.* > ** > *By all means, let's debate some of that in the Senate.* > ** > *When you understand what this bill does, you can see why the Democrats > would be happy to compromise and drop the public option-for now. This bill > so comprehensively wrecks private health insurance that pretty soon a > "public option" will seem like the only alternative, and they will already > have put into place one of the new taxes needed to pay for it. If the left's > goal is to impose socialized medicine in America, this bill does it in the > most callous and destructive way possible. It smashes private health > care-then leaves us stranded in the rubble, at which point we will be > expected to come crawling back to the same people who caused the disaster > and ask them to save us.* > ** > *That is the final and perhaps most compelling reason to kill this bill: the > sheer arrogance of the whole enterprise. It is the arrogance of stampeding > an unwilling public toward a monstrous 2,000-page piece of legislation while > admitting that it still has huge problems, but promising that it will all > somehow be fixed later on. It's the arrogance of selling us a bill that > expands government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while telling > us that it will reduce the deficit. It is the sheer unmitigated gall of > appointing a bureaucrat to run a government-controlled insurance market that > takes away all of our health choices-and then calling this bureaucrat the > Health Choices Commissioner.* > ** > *That's the kind of government arrogance that has to be smacked down hard, > and that alone is reason to demand that your senator reject this vicious > bill in its entirety.* > ** > *Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor > of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.* > ** > ** > ** -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
