• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Pelosi Plan Would Give Health Czar Super Powers

    Among the fallacies in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill is the pretense that bureaucrats are smarter than the rest of us. An unelected bureaucrat would be given czar-like control over our lives, our health, and our pocketbooks. Even super powers.

    This new all-powerful “health choices commissioner” would be entrusted with more power than most superheroes. The laundry list of that special power is proof that it’s a government takeover of health care.

    This presidential appointee will both control the new government-run insurance plan AND decide how private insurance companies are to operate, by creating the standards for their coverage and enforcing compliance. Likewise, employer-run health plans would answer to super-czar.

    In other words, this health czar will control both the government plan and all of its competition. So much for claims about a level playing field!

    Rather than having Medicare dictate payment amounts to doctors and hospitals (as Pelosi originally intended), her new 1,990-page bill says the czar will “negotiate” rates. That will take an an awful lot of staff. America has 788,000 active doctors and 5,708 hospitals.

    But that’s not all. The new czar would also:

    • Oversee the millions of Americans who would qualify for insurance subsidies
    • Audit the country’s 1,300-plus health insurers
    • Have power to collect whatever data the office deems necessary, which could involve review of medical records
    • Assess fines
    • Define our terms for us. This commissioner/czar would dictate all the definitions used in health insurance policies. After all, if you control the language, you control the debate
    • Appoint a national health ombudsman to examine consumer complaints, but only in “a linguistically appropriate manner”

    As we pointed out about the earlier version of the House bill:

    “The House health care reform bill would establish a new entity called the Health Choices Administration, headed by a presidential appointee to be called the Health Choices Commissioner. Sounds wonderful, right? A government official whose only job is to make sure you have health care choices, right?

    “No. If you read the bill, . . . it turns out that the Health Choices Commissioner’s job is, essentially, to make your health choices for you.”

    The new super-bureaucrats may not be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. But they can put a lot of tall barriers between each of us and our doctors.

    Cross posted at The Conservatives.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    19 Responses to Pelosi Plan Would Give Health Czar Super Powers

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Nancy Pelosi,

      Why – she is just the smartest, personable, caring, giving, sincere, articulate, professional politician we could possibly hope for!

      Trust her judgement. It'll be good for you.

    2. dennis.... florida says:

      Everytime one of these idiot's gets in front of a microphone, i have to roll my eye's and shake my hear. Even a fool, when they keep their mouth shut, can appear to be wise……….. I guess they just can't help it.

    3. dennis.... florida says:

      I ment to say "shake my head". not my hear. sorry.

    4. Richard L. Whitford says:

      Why? Everything I read about this bill tells me we would be worse off than with the free enterprise system we should have in its place. At 84 I am vulnerable to the forecast unavailability of medical care. Under free enterprise I am vulnerable to a lack of funds but there is always a possibility of Charity.

      Under the Pelosi system there are still all kind of crack for people to fall into. As far as I can see more people will fall into the Pelosi Cracks that the current cracks and the free enterprise cracks will be the smallest of any. That is on the medical side. I have medical probles and I believe they will be best served by free enterprise. The Pelosi system reeks of fraud, corruption and deals with the drug companies that we don't need.

      On the insurance side and the bureaucrat side it gets worse.

      >Oversee the millions of Americans who would qualify for >insurance subsidies.

      What about these insurance subsidies? Isn't that equal to a false promise of free medicine? If I don't pay for the insurance and the insurance pays my medical bill what is that but free medical care? Twist it any way you want but can you made it different? The cost will come out of our production which will be restricted, dry up and blow away. The end result will be something we don't want to go through.

      This is a misrepresentation of the purpose of insurance. Insurance is a financial risk management system where we hire the insurance company to take the financial risk and they spread it over many policies so the resulting policy is within reasonable reach. It costs more money than the direct loss would if you covered it yourself because you owe wages to the insurance company for their service. But for those who suffer the catastrophic loss it is a bargin. There is neither reason nor justice in forcing me to have insurance.

      Why is the government trying so hard to sell us this system? It fails the compassion test where our health would be the main concern and has no discernible benefit to anyone who is a producer with dead beats being the most likely to gain.

      If I have fire insurance and no fire the insurance company gains but if I have a fire the insurance can cover some of the monitory loss according to the policy but it cannot insure against the loss of keepsakes and other valuables. We should not misconstrue the function of insurance like this.

      There is no need for more federal bureaucrats but less. If we cut back on government interference we will cut back on the concomitant bureaucracy and save enough tax money to get out of debt. If we go back to our constitutional free enterprise then we will have more and better production which will add up to a higher living standard than any other system can provide. The list of benefits is too long for this comment but they are there. They do require personal responsibility which the government wants to usurp.

    5. Rich,Chicago,IL says:

      This has to be stopped and fast.These people must think we are idiots.It's time to call a rally none stop in Washington and force some resignations. I want congress to hacve this exact bill with pelosi first and her millions of dollars will not help her.She is not a AMERICAN

    6. Pingback: Pelosi Bill Would Create Super-Powered Czar - ejistook’s blog - RedState

    7. Bobbie Jay says:

      THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CONVINCED? NOBODY CAN THINK FOR THEMSELVES? THEY WANT NANCY AND HER SUPER CZAR* TO LEAD THEIR LIVES AND FREE THEM FROM THE BURDEN TO THINK AND CHOOSE FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL HEALTH? THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY ARE HELD TO NO ACCOUNTABILITY, INCLUDING EXPENSES, AS GOVERNMENT LEADS BY EXAMPLE.

      TIED BY UNKNOWN LAWS, YET CONVINCED IT'S FREEDOM.

    8. Bobbie Jay says:

      IS IT OKAY TO COMPLIMENT PELOSI ON HER TAX PAID FACE JOB?

    9. Kate, Watkinsville says:

      Why – she is about the most arrogant, elitist, ignorate, secretative, scary, uncaring about the poor and insecure politician in DC. She and her philosopy (health care) will take away more of our freedoms than any other politician in Washington. Agreement with her will NOT be good for anybody because all will be taxed out of work – so where will the money come from then????

    10. JM Hanes says:

      I assume we are now talking about HR 3962. For those of us wading through the actual bill, it would be really helpful to have a citation to the specific Section(s) under discussion!

    11. B. Johnson, USA says:

      With all due respect to the Heritage Foundation, why aren't conservative blogs emphasizing the following MAJOR constitutional problem with Nancy Pelosi's misguided plan for a health czar?

      Given the federal Constitution is silent about public healthcare, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate and lay taxes for such things to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress.

      In fact, Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored, which appropriately limits the power of the feds to lay taxes.

      "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824) http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

      So not only is misguided Obama's proposed healthcare constitutionally unauthorized, but based on Justice Marshall's official words, Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund such a program in the first place.

      Getting back to Nancy Pelosi's health czar, again, just as with constitutionally unauthorized Obamacare, why aren't conservative blogs emphasizing that Nancy Pelosi has no constitutional authority to implement her misguided health czar plan?

      What's going on with Constitution-ignoring "leaders" like Pelosi is the following, IMO. State sovereignty-ignorant voters have been electing lawmakers to both the state legislatures and the federal senate who are as state sovereignty-impaired as the voters are. Consequently, these lawmakers have not been doing their jobs to protect state sovereignty by protecting citizens from illegal federal taxes and unconstitutional federal government interference in their lives as evidenced by illegal Obamacare.

      In fact, the following link should help give people an idea how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

      http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199

      Finally, the next time that somebody gets an opportunity to publicly ask Pelosi questions about the constitutionality of things like a health czar, instead of giving her an opportunity to side-step the issue by merely asking her if such ideas are constitutional, please ask her the following. Ask her why she should not be charged with treason for promoting federal legislation based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

    12. frances r. campbell says:

      Pelosi et al are dismantling the greatest health care delivery system in the modern world. Once dismantled–cannot be put back together. Why o why do they not legislate this bill in several sections over time? Why no torte reform–why no sales of ins. Across state lines,. Why sweetheart deals with big pharma? We already have socialized the program for children.. The politicos want the kiddies to get used to free govt. Care. The cut off for the kiddies free care –their parents have to make over 84,000.00 bucks a year. Can anyone explain why folks making under that amount cannot pay for their own kids ins.? It is just easier for the folks now to get a 70 inch plasma tv and other electronics–but the gods of socialism will smile down on all of this nonsense. We will be like england where if you are elderly and have poor leg circulation–they just amputate rather than spend the money on the old folks to fix the legs and i am not speaking about someoune who has developed gangrene where an amputation would be necessary. For the first time in my life– iam frightened for my country, my countrymen and myself. I am too old to go out and earn it over again and i fear we will end up like the elderly in china under mao and soilant green. Will they grind us up and feed us to the chickens?

    13. Robert L. Kantor, MD says:

      The adminstration talks about medical care being chosen on "time proven results."

      If we have "concerns" about the government controlling health care, we can apply the same rule "results" i.e. Post office, Medicare, Medicaid,

      And now we are going to give it to a "Czar?" How scary?

    14. Linda Hardoin, Sacra says:

      I will go for their plan when all of Congress and the President and past Presidents are required to have the same insurance plan…..no exceptions. I am a Federal Govt worker and I do not have what they seem to think I have. By the way my hospital insurance is going up 8.8% in 2010. I am one person and pay $64.05 every two weeks.

    15. Freedom of Speech TX says:

      Dear Kate, Watkinsville,

      Some things said are "tongue in cheek".

      Easy girl!

    16. Pingback: On “Health Care Reform” « Pond’rings

    17. Pingback: U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare : Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 – Conservative News & Politics

    18. Pingback: U.S. House Votes in Favor of Obamacare | Conservative Principles Now

    19. Pingback: Morning Bell: A Six-Hour Infomercial Can’t Save Obamacare | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    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.

    ×