A two and a half page article at Bloomberg titled, "House, Senate Health-Care Legislation: Side-by-Side Comparison," offers up the evidence that Congress has provided us with a health care reform bill that does not provide for any health care reform.
Most noteworthy is the fact that the article mentions "insurance," "insurers," "policy," "coverage," and other terms related to insurance 18 times. Not once does it mention medical care, which is what we need, and which is the opposite of insurance.
This is a classic case of begging the question. It presumes that insurance is the best source of medical care, and ignores the fact that it manifestly was not, is not, and will not ever be that.
Instead of comparing the House and Senate versions of the bill, let's compare the health care reform bill system to the current health care system.
Health care reform bill system:
No public option
No Medicare buy-in
Those under 65 dependent on private insurance
About 15% without insurance.
Medicare
Medicaid
Current health care system:
No public option
No Medicare buy-in
Those under 65 dependent on private insurance
About 15% without insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
As you can see, the proposed system and the current system are the same. With one diabolical exception. From the Bloomberg article: "The House and Senate plans require individuals to get health insurance or pay a penalty."
What this so-called reform bill actually does is leave the insurance companies in charge of everyone's health care that they are already in charge of and adds the premiums of about 46 million people to their income.
In my state we're required by law to have auto insurance or pay a fine if you're caught driving without insurance. The new health care bill has a penalty for you living without health insurance. I never thought I'd see the day where just living would be illegal unless you buy a certain company's product.
The Bloomberg article reports that the new health care plan will cost $871 billion over ten years. Since under the new bill the insurance companies are going to be paying for everyone's health care costs out of the premiums they receive, then what is going to cost the government $871 billion? Supposedly that's over and above the cost of the current system, which already includes the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, so that can't be it. So, what is that $871 billion for? Who knows where that money will go? It can't be for a new health care system, because we'll still have the same one we have now.
The article also reports that, "Insurers would no longer be able to reject new customers with pre-existing medical conditions." Not to worry, the insurance companies have gotten around that by having written in a loophole in the bill.
SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).
The insurance company can't reject you for a pre-existing condition, but they can require you to list all of your pre-existing conditions on your application before enrollment, and then they will issue you a policy. But then, when you file a claim, they can say that you didn't report on your application that you had diaper rash when you were six months old, and that's fraud. Under the terms of SEC. 2712 they can cancel your insurance.
Want to bet the insurance company won't do that? I'll be glad to take your bet.
The key thing that's left out of that section prohibiting rescissions is who legally determines the fraud. Fraud is a legal construct. It is a crime and criminal determinations can only be made in a court of law. As the section reads, the fraud determination is left up to the insurance company. The foundation for the insurance company's authority to determine fraud is in the wording, "as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage." In other words, it's in the policy. In doing that, the insurance companies would be taking over the role of the courts in determining what is a crime.
As the section reads the insurance company determines that you have committed fraud, and you have to bear the burden and expense of hiring a lawyer, filing a suit and going to court to prove your innocence. Guilty until proven innocent. Very few people will be able to do this, and the insurance companies know this. They are still free to cancel your insurance for just about any reason they want to, just as they can now.
That part about requiring you by law to buy the product, as in health and auto insurance, of a company appeals to me in a perverse way. I'd like to set up a company, say Ed's Hamburgers, and get a law passed that everyone has to buy my hamburgers. One each per day sounds about right.
