• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?

    Investor’s Business Daily writes:

    It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

    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.

    Instapundit reader Patrick Ying then responds:

    Investor’s Business Daily did not continue to read the bill to page 19. “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. ” It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.

    So who is right? IBD is closer to the truth. Ying is right in that the House plan will not outlaw all individual health insurance. But he neglects to see the importance of the phrase “Exchange-participating health benefits plan” in the passage he quotes above. In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must confirm to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all drive up the cost of health insurance. Furthermore, all these new regs would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage. Until, of course, it becomes too expensive and they just dump you into the government plan.

    So IBD is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed. But it will be effectively regulated out of existence… which is effectively the same thing.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    44 Responses to Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?

    1. Dennis - Indiana says:

      Thanks for this blog. I just shared it with a liberal who said I was wrong, but I was correct. I sent them the web address.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Isn't there a major conflict of interest regarding this whole topic? Government competition in free-markets? And they can't be sued for influential strong-arming of private businesses? Obamaomics grows uglier by the hour. Fact is, it's down right corrupt.

    3. Adam Smith, Kirkaly says:

      It would seem that the initial idea was to kill private insurance outright, gave way to a plan to allow private insurance companies to bleed to death. At the end of the day, the industry will be just as dead.

    4. Pam, RI says:

      The type of insurance one has will soon be a moot point if this passes. The most obvious and simple reason why the plan will not work is that there is no incentive for doctors who will work harder for less pay, and there is abundant incentive for illegal immigrants to arrive in droves for free healthcare. Let's see, more patients, fewer doctors…that spells trouble for everyone regardless of what type of insurance you have. What will prevent this from happening?

    5. me, washington dc says:

      Aside from the fact that IBD's lazy, incompetent journalism completely misstated the facts, your attempt to backtrack and claim that private plans will be regulated out of existence is just silly and unsupported. Nice try.

      The funny thing is that Heritage supported the exact same idea, on the state level, a few years back:

      "The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange"

      http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm123

    6. Joe Citizen says:

      Actually, no.
      IBD is wrong, period. (not much of a surprise actually).

      Your attempt to salvage the situation for them by claiming that regulation will put them out of business anyway is pretty lame.
      Even if true, which it obviously isn’t, it would not represent “making insurance illegal”.

      Why cant you bring yourselves to admit the obvious?

    7. Pingback: Jason’s Blog » Does the House Plan Outlaw Private Insurance?

    8. Joe E. says:

      To the naysayers slamming IBD and Heritage…

      You pull the "You're lying!" card but offer absolutely no other interpretation of:

      "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.

      They've rightfully admitted the technicality that the public option doesn't "OUTLAW private insurance," but if you're too naive to extrapolate the inferred meaning from the bill, your vision is clearly being blurred through those rose-colored glasses.

      How about instead of regurgitating the ad hominem schtick, you defend the literature of the bill and explain how the exact wording ISN'T an eventual drowning of private insurance?

      IE: if you have health insurance through your job, you quit / get fired, start up a small business, decide not to work for a year, whatever… the only "option" you have is the public one unless you're willing to pay the exorbitant fees tacked on to a private plan that is required to meet the "Exchange-participating health benefits" regulations.

    9. Pingback: Secondhand Smoke — A First Things Blog

    10. Pingback: » Financial News Update - 07/16/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

    11. Pingback: Sorry, Chickens Little, Healthcare Bill Doesn’t ‘Outlaw Private Insurance’ « Daily Dose

    12. Pingback: – Health Care: Part One, The Overview

    13. Matt, Denver says:

      Investors Business Daily got this wrong. Way wrong. The section in question defines which insurance policies will be grandfathered in under the bill. If a policy is grandfathered in, it is not subject to the onerous restrictions on private health insurance that are set forth in the bill. For our sake, I hope that IBD's story isn't quoted by too many people because it will make the bill's opponents look bad.

      However, the provision in question should be scrutinized for other reasons that demonstrate why conservatives have a problem with the bill. Very few policies will remain grandfathered in and all new policies will be subject to the absurd rules that the bill lays out for private plans. This will SEVERELY drive up the costs of private insurance, which will make the "public option" a much cheaper alternative. I can only imagine the extent to which the bill will operate as a massive transfer of persons from private to public plans (at a great cost to taxpayers). So, while the bill doesn't outlaw private insurance, it does almost everything it can to eliminate it.

    14. Pingback: Common Sense 2020 » Blog Archive » Democrat Health Care Bill Will Outlaw Private Insurance

    15. Jean, Iowa says:

      However you read this section, I have 2 problems:

      1. If it is unintelligible to the people who supposedly know what is going on, how can this bill ever be legislated? Who is going to figure all this stuff out? It sounds like a whole new regulatory agency (a la EEOC, SSA) will be needed, at a hugely expensive cost to … yes, … the taxpayer.

      2. How does anyone in Congress think any of this legialation will lower health care costs for ANYONE? Or don't they care?

    16. Ron, Belleville, NJ says:

      If this version of socialized health care is so great, why is there buried in the enabling legislation a provision that Congress and all other Federal employees are to be exempted from the plan for the first five years?

      If the plan is that good, let's turn it around and use all Federal employees as test. After five years, those that are still alive will have the privilege to vote the plan up or down.

      Bet there are no volunteers for this experiment.

    17. Don Smith 83843 says:

      How do the proposed health care changes

      affect retired veterans?

    18. R. Brossman says:

      "It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal…"

      Why doesn't anyone ever demand to speak to the back-room boys who actually write these boondoggles?

      Our illustrious congresscritters are too self-important to actually do the skut work of composing these monsters, and the boys that actually dream up the bill language need to be exposed for a little ridicule, or worse.

      The back-roomers are actually running the country.

    19. harv, Pa says:

      I'm retired and don't have to worry about my Health Care. They already made it illeagle for me to get Privete Health Insurance if I want to continue to receive SSI. When is someone in tte Republician Party going to STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! The Constitution has been walked over enough. IMPEACH!!!

    20. Tom, Illinois says:

      I am retired as well, age 66. Preliminary information indicates. the elderly, pending baby boomers, etc. will be subjected to edits formulated by the government concerning treatment. Consider this. A serious illness or injury could leave the elderly as subservient to the state concerning whether or not treatment is rendered or perhaps (i.e the unthinkable – ignoring the physicians Hippocratic oath) the elderly patient is considered as having fulfilled his usefulness and treatment would be too costly. Result: Prepare to die. Sad indeed. Take note: In Canada, age 55 is considered elderly. I like to believe I have at least a few decades to contribute to society and more importantly my family, grandchildren, great grandchildren. . I oppose any health care reform involving government. History suggests Socialism does not work. Government power is excessive already. Does anyone really believe government will somehow get Healthcare right? Give me a break. I'm dubious.

    21. Jim, Michigan says:

      It definitely will being tilting the table in favor of the "public option". Either way it is the foot in the door moment for governments progression to single payer. Even president Obama says he wants a single payer system in this link; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E

    22. Beth, Maryland says:

      The United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

      What NICE has become in practice is a RATIONING BOARD.

      For example:

      In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs — including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 — that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients.

      In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other.

      NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.

      Other NICE rulings include the REJECTION of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis and AVONEX, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

      As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients." Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.

      The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions.

      The Administration's new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE.

      But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

      Mr. Obama claims that he can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done.

      The inevitable result of this plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

    23. Rich, PA says:

      I understand your point of citing Patrick Ying as your source for correcting the misinformation being spewed by IBD.

      However, he was not the only one who noticed it and proved it wrong. Look at the first comment under the original article from IBD and on Investors.com, and tell me it doesn't say USMCRich82… plus the numerous others. You should probably have said, "bloggers, commentators, and concerned citizens."

      http://usmcrich82.blogspot.com – The Angry American

    24. Pingback: HoodaThunk?: Obama promises things he admits he knows nothing about

    25. Pingback: Fix Health Care Policy | Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill

    26. Pingback: Up » Blog Archive » Obama Says He Won’t Sign Democratic Health Care Bill!

    27. Pingback: Obama does Sgt. Schultz | Hoystory

    28. John, Tampa says:

      But the IBD editorial was not about "onerous restrictions." That is certainly subject to debate, and I'm sure will be throughout the process. Their editorial was about "outlawing" private insurance, which is patently false. This attempt to salvage it is quite sad, and will only make opponents of health care reform look bad.

      This piece simply uses the misinformed IBP editorial as a springboard to more anti-regulation rhetoric, and does little to set straight the hysterical among the right. You guys blew it.

    29. Pingback: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty

    30. Pingback: Obama admits he’s “not familiar” with House bill | SmallGovTimes.com

    31. Voice of Reason says:

      This is too important to fall prey to fear mongering and conspiracy theories that are particularly noted on many Fox cable news programs as well as on conservative radio. All should realize that the giant Health Care Industry in American has increased spending with more paid lobbyist on both sides – GOP and Dems alike to stop health care reform in America. Note below the ranking of the world’s health systems provided by the World Health Organization. Strangely, how the Government option or single payer healthcare appears on the top of the list. Wonder why, The US Health Care 800 billion dollar a year industry is shelling out 1.5 million dollars a day with anti reform commercials. The record earnings of these US Health Insurance companies with one company posting a whopping 155% increased profit over last year at this time is astounding, but still, seeking more profits by raising premiums.

      Note three video clips from the PPS’s Bill Moyers Journal in depth news regarding US Health Care industry. Second clip is an interview with Health Care Insurance executive, Wendell Potter with the truth behind insurance in America. You'll have to copy and past link in a new browser.

      Bill Moyer: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch…. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch3.html,

      World Health Organization, Ranking by order:

      1 France

      2 Italy

      3 San Marino

      4 Andorra

      5 Malta

      6 Singapore

      7 Spain

      8 Oman

      9 Austria

      10 Japan

      11 Norway

      12 Portugal

      13 Monaco

      14 Greece

      15 Iceland

      16 Luxembourg

      17 Netherlands

      18 United Kingdom

      19 Ireland

      20 Switzerland

      21 Belgium

      22 Colombia

      23 Sweden

      24 Cyprus

      25 Germany

      26 Saudi Arabia

      27 United Arab Emirates

      28 Israel

      29 Morocco

      30 Canada

      31 Finland

      32 Australia

      33 Chile

      34 Denmark

      35 Dominica

      36 Costa Rica

      37 United States of America

      38 Slovenia

      39 Cuba

      40 Brunei

      41 New Zealand

      42 Bahrain

      43 Croatia

      44 Qatar

      45 Kuwait

      46 Barbados

      47 Thailand

      48 Czech Republic

      49 Malaysia

      50 Poland

      51 Dominican Republic

      52 Tunisia

      53 Jamaica

      54 Venezuela

      55 Albania

      56 Seychelles

      57 Paraguay

      58 South Korea

      59 Senegal

      60 Philippines

      61 Mexico

      62 Slovakia

      63 Egypt

      64 Kazakhstan

      65 Uruguay

      66 Hungary

      67 Trinidad and Tobago

      68 Saint Lucia

      69 Belize

      70 Turkey

      71 Nicaragua

      72 Belarus

      73 Lithuania

      74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

      75 Argentina

      76 Sri Lanka

      77 Estonia

      78 Guatemala

      79 Ukraine

      80 Solomon Islands

      81 Algeria

      82 Palau

      83 Jordan

      84 Mauritius

      85 Grenada

      86 Antigua and Barbuda

      87 Libya

      88 Bangladesh

      89 Macedonia

      90 Bosnia-Herzegovina

      91 Lebanon

      92 Indonesia

      93 Iran

      94 Bahamas

      95 Panama

      96 Fiji

      97 Benin

      98 Nauru

      99 Romania

      100 Saint Kitts and Nevis

      101 Moldova

      102 Bulgaria

      103 Iraq

      104 Armenia

      105 Latvia

      106 Yugoslavia

      107 Cook Islands

      108 Syria

      109 Azerbaijan

      110 Suriname

      111 Ecuador

      112 India

      113 Cape Verde

      114 Georgia

      115 El Salvador

      116 Tonga

      117 Uzbekistan

      118 Comoros

      119 Samoa

      120 Yemen

      121 Niue

      122 Pakistan

      123 Micronesia

      124 Bhutan

      125 Brazil

      126 Bolivia

      127 Vanuatu

      128 Guyana

      129 Peru

      130 Russia

      131 Honduras

      132 Burkina Faso

      133 Sao Tome and Principe

      134 Sudan

      135 Ghana

      136 Tuvalu

      137 Ivory Coast

      138 Haiti

      139 Gabon

      140 Kenya

      141 Marshall Islands

      142 Kiribati

      143 Burundi

      144 China

      145 Mongolia

      146 Gambia

      147 Maldives

      148 Papua New Guinea

      149 Uganda

      150 Nepal

      151 Kyrgystan

      152 Togo

      153 Turkmenistan

      154 Tajikistan

      155 Zimbabwe

      156 Tanzania

      157 Djibouti

      158 Eritrea

      159 Madagascar

      160 Vietnam

      161 Guinea

      162 Mauritania

      163 Mali

      164 Cameroon

      165 Laos

      166 Congo

      167 North Korea

      168 Namibia

      169 Botswana

      170 Niger

      171 Equatorial Guinea

      172 Rwanda

      173 Afghanistan

      174 Cambodia

      175 South Africa

      176 Guinea-Bissau

      177 Swaziland

      178 Chad

      179 Somalia

      180 Ethiopia

      181 Angola

      182 Zambia

      183 Lesotho

      184 Mozambique

      185 Malawi

      186 Liberia

      187 Nigeria

      188 Democratic Republic of the Congo

      189 Central African Republic

      190 Myanmar

    32. Voice of Reason says:

      This is too important to fall prey to fear mongering and conspiracy theories that are particularly noted on many Fox cable news programs as well as on conservative radio. All should realize that the giant Health Care Industry in American has increased spending with more paid lobbyist on both sides – GOP and Dems alike to stop health care reform in America. Note below the ranking of the world’s health systems provided by the World Health Organization. Strangely, how the Government option or single payer healthcare appears on the top of the list. Wonder why, The US Health Care 800 billion dollar a year industry is shelling out 1.5 million dollars a day with anti reform commercials. The record earnings of these US Health Insurance companies with one company posting a whopping 155% increased profit over last year at this time is astounding, but still, seeking more profits by raising premiums.

      Note three video clips from the PPS’s Bill Moyers Journal in depth news regarding US Health Care industry. Second clip is an interview with Health Care Insurance executive, Wendell Potter with the truth behind insurance in America. You'll have to copy and past link in a new browser.

      Bill Moyer: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch…. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch3.html,

      World Health Organization Ranking in order: 1 France, 2 Italy, 3 San Marino, 4 Andorra, 5 Malta, 6 Singapore, 7 Spain, 8 Oman, 9 Austria, 10 Japan, 11 Norway, 12 Portugal, 13 Monaco, 14 Greece, 15 Iceland, 16 Luxembourg, 17 Netherlands, 18 United Kingdom, 19 Ireland, 20 Switzerland, 21 Belgium, 22 Colombia, 23 Sweden, 24 Cyprus, 25 Germany, 26 Saudi Arabia, 27 United Arab Emirates, 28 Israel, 29 Morocco, 30 Canada, 31 Finland, 32 Australia 33 Chile, 34 Denmark, 35 Dominica, 36 Costa Rica, 37…….. United States of America, 38 Slovenia, 39 Cuba, 40 Brunei, 41 New Zealand, 42 Bahrain, 43 Croatia, 44 Qatar, 45 Kuwait, 46 Barbados, 47 Thailand, 48 Czech Republic, 49 Malaysia, 51 Dominican Republic, 52 Tunisia, 53 Jamaica, 54 Venezuela, 55 Albania, 56 Seychelles, 57 Paraguay, 58 South Korea, 59 Senegal, 60 Philippines, 61 Mexico, 62 Slovakia, 63 Egypt, 64 Kazakhstan 65 Uruguay, 66 Hungary, 67 Trinidad and Tobago, 68 Saint Lucia, 70 Turkey, 71 Nicaragua, 72 Belarus, 73 Lithuania, 74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 75 Argentina, 76 Sri Lanka, 77 Estonia, 78 Guatemala, 79 Ukraine, 80 Solomon Islands, 81 Algeria, 82 Palau, 83 Jordan, 84 Mauritius, 85 Grenada, 86 Antigua and Barbuda, 87 Libya, 88 Bangladesh, 89 Macedonia, 90 Bosnia-Herzegovina, 91 Lebanon, 92 Indonesia, 93 Iran, 94 Bahamas, 95 Panama, 96 Fiji, 97 Benin, 98 Nauru, 99 Romania, 100 Saint Kitts and Nevis, 101 Moldova, 102 Bulgaria, 103 Iraq, 104 Armenia, 105 Latvia, 106 Yugoslavia, 107 Cook Islands, 108 Syria, 109 Azerbaijan, 110 Suriname, 111 Ecuador, 112 India, 113 Cape Verde, 114 Georgia, 115 El Salvador, 116 Tonga, 117 Uzbekistan, 118 Comoros, 119 Samoa, 120 Yemen, 121 Niue, 122 Pakistan, 123 Micronesia, 124 Bhutan, 125 Brazil, 126 Bolivia, 127 Vanuatu, 128 Guyana, 129 Peru, 130 Russia, 131 Honduras, 132 Burkina Faso, 133 Sao Tome and Principe, 134 Sudan, 135 Ghana, 136 Tuvalu, 137 Ivory Coast, 138 Haiti, 139 Gabon, 140 Kenya, 141 Marshall Islands, 142 Kiribati, 143 Burundi, 144 China, 145 Mongolia, 146 Gambia, 147 Maldives, 148 Papua New Guinea, 149 Uganda, 150 Nepal, 151 Kyrgyzstan, 152 Togo, 153 Turkmenistan, 154 Tajikistan, 155 Zimbabwe, 156 Tanzania, 157 Djibouti, 158 Eritrea, 159 Madagascar, 160 Vietnam, 161 Guinea, 162 Mauritania, 163 Mali, 164 Cameroon, 165 Laos, 166 Congo, 167 North Korea, 168 Namibia, 169 Botswana, 170 Niger, 171 Equatorial Guinea, 172 Rwanda, 173 Afghanistan, 174 Cambodia, 175 South Africa, 176 Guinea-Bissau, 177 Swaziland, 178 Chad, 179 Somalia, 180 Ethiopia, 181 Angola, 182 Zambia, 183 Lesotho, 184 Mozambique, 185 Malawi, 186 Liberia, 187 Nigeria, 188 Democratic Republic of the Congo, 189 Central African Republic, 190 Myanmar

    33. ickym says:

      I suggest that all of you who think nationalized Health Care solves our US health care concerns for all, read all 1,000 plus pages of the proposed legislation. A surgeon this AM said she did and was shocked at what a bunch of lawyers, who know zero about health care had written. For example, retirees like myself will be mandated to see a government death expert every five years to discuss our death options. Didn't anyone ever see "Soylent Green"? Our current government is scary and leading us all toward a form of government where we don't want to go.

    34. ickym says:

      By the way, AARP said they agree with the legislation – so I am officially cancelling my membership to that nut case group. If the AARP is all about death, then why would anyone want to belong? I want to live and enjoy retirement after 42 years of working 3,000 to 5,000 hours per year. By the way, salaried employees did not receive any overtime pay for you youngsters.

    35. Pingback: Searching for Easter Eggs in the Health Care Bill (Senate Version) « Johnny Constitution

    36. Greg, South Carolina says:

      I think that all Americans would love to see an honest health care and insurance reform, but this is a Frankenstein bill and needs to be defeated and a new effort started with the people involved and "intelligent regulation" in place. When you have some foundation damage or warped floors in your house, you don't tear the the entire house down.

    37. Birgit says:

      Greg is right call this a "franken-hellth-bill" to go perfctly with the Frankenfood"(GMO) they want us to eat, with frankenPharma standing by to finish it off.

      Google: soft kill methods

    38. Miller, Kansas says:

      My concern is how will the courts read this section. If congress isn't clear in how private insurance will be protected, the courts my end up outlawing private insurance when provisions of this bill end up in courts.

    39. FrankJ, Louisiana says:

      Unfortunately, most of what I hear from proponents of ObamaCare is how much money insurance companies make, how many lobbyists they employ, wasteful spending by them.

      I’m neither for or against insurance companies but I wonder why none of the proponents of ObamaCare demand that our government cleanup their act before demanding the insurance companies clean up theirs. Sure our administration system “NOT OUR HEALTHCARE” needs to be fixed. It’s not luck that we have the best healthcare in the world but if we pass ObamaCare, our high level of care will have to be sacrificed.

      What should be untouched in any reform are 2 things. 1) maintaining a system that will provide the same high level of care and 2) we have a choice of insurance providers.

      If Obama has his way, the brightest will no longer lend their talent to the healthcare industry and insurance companies will no longer exist for us to choose from.

    40. Rebekkah Los Angeles says:

      What I fail to understand is why the outrage of if premiums go up because you get sick.

      If I go to a cafe, and eat an appetizer, and someone else goes to the same cafe and eats a three-course meal, they have to pay more.

      If I don't have any accidents, my car insurance will be less than someone who gets in accidents all the time.

      If I only go to to the doctor once a year for a physical, my premium should refelct that.

      The person who is unfortunate enought to get a catastrophic illness SHOULD pay more; they are using more!

      They shouldn't be getting reamed, but they should certainly be paying more than a person who is never sick. That is just common sense.

    41. Pingback: HR320 : Division A : Day Two, Part One : 101 Dead Armadillos

    42. Pingback: The Top 7 Craziest Myths About Healthcare Reform | The Fact of My Ignorance

    43. Sean, Virginia says:

      Keep this in mind: the Health Insurance industry provides absolutely no value of any kind to anyone but its shareholders.

      With P&C and Life Insurance the participant uses their policy to offset risk; the insurance company uses sophisticated mathematic modeling to balance that risk, spreading amongst all policy holders.

      Health Insurance companies do nothing like this; they simply play middle man and take 30% of the money in the system out as their profit.

      When addressing cost (as with any business model) it's the profit that must be addressed first. We're talking about who takes our money, as insureds, and gives it to the medical providers (doctors, hospitals, pharma, et al).

      So, why in the world are we defending this industry??? To hell with them. It is immoral to profit off the sick and dying.

      MEDICARE FOR ALL!

    44. Pingback: Reagan on Socialized Medicine - Page 4

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×