I’ve started reading the health care bill (H.R.3200), and one thing that has caught my attention already is the position of “Health Choices Commissioner,” referred to throughout the bill as simply “Commissioner.” The Commissioner would be appointed by the President to head up a newly-created, “independent agency in the executive branch of the Government” called the Health Choices Administration.
The Commissioner would have broad, sweeping powers. “Commissioner” appears 203 times in the bill, so I can’t list everything, but here are just a few of the Commissioner’s powers:
- Establish qualified health benefits plan standards, including the enforcement of those standards.
- Establish and operate a “Health Insurance Exchange” in which private health care plans will have to participate.
- Define the terms “employer,” “employee,” “full-time employee,” “part-time employee,” and “dependent” for the purposes of the bill.
- Access financial records of private health insurers and companies who self-insure and report it to Congress. “Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”
There are many more things the Commissioner gets to decide. In fact, a lot of the language in the bill is vague, and the Commissioner is given the power to define the specifics. If you thought the Department of Homeland Security had too much power (and gave the Executive Branch more power than the other branches), just wait until this takes effect. It will take — what is it, something like 13% of the U.S. economy? — and put it under the direct control of the Executive Branch. And this one person, whom the President will appoint, will have nearly unfettered authority to define terms, and establish and enforce standards.
it’s totalitarianism, plan and simple. If you wanted to vote for dictatorship, you should love this. If you want to live in a free country, you should be horrified.
I want to live in a country where an insurance company doesn’t decide if you live or die. I want to live in a country where you don’t have to file for bankruptcy if you get seriously ill.
The only thing you left out CJ were the Death Panels. What’s next? No birth certificate.
Mouse: bet you have health insurance.
I have to agree with Emtronics on this one.
How are the non-union Caterpillar workers feeling about the news in the PJS today? They will be given $3,000 but asked to find their own insurance–which possibly won’t be quite as good as they were used to getting, especially since their previous insurance included dental and optical. Cat says this move won’t save them money–then why are they doing it? I know a retiree from Keystone–where all retiress lost their insurance (with no lump sum to buy their own). How many situations like this will it take for the current “haves” to understand the insurance needs of the “have-nots”?
The concentration of power in one individual is concerning, but “the Commissioner” would be answerable to the president and to Congress. Last time I checked, those positions are elected, so the Commissioner would be subject to political pressure from the electorate. Totalitarianism is an extreme & ridiculous charge.
Randall is perhaps too dismissive of your concerns regarding the concentration of power in one individual, C.J. However, as it stands now, for-profit insurance companies are presiding over your life & death, so I have to agree with the spirit of Em’s objection. The dying & suffering are bad for the bottom line, so insurance companies will use any arbitrary excuse to completely deny coverage. I had a patient rejected for coverage recently because they had an acute infection with no long-term consequences. The insurance companies essentially have monopoly power in most circumstances since health coverage for individuals is insanely expensive in comparison to employer-provided coverage. Some companies will go to bat for their employees, but many won’t rock the boat because they don’t want their own costs to increase. It’s an utterly absurd system, and there must be change.
The Commissioner will not be a Senate confirmed position much like The FCC, SEC, and all the CZARS. Can you say Van Jones.
According to HR 3200, Section 141 (p 41):
SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division
referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
(b) COMMISSIONER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC.—The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commissioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.
Section 142 (pp 42 – 46) outline the duties in greater “detail.” Among them are “Promoting Accountability” which includes Compliance Examination and Audits, Sanctions, Recoupment of Costs, and Data Collection.
“appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
So you would be wrong, Precinct Committeeman.
Hey PC: “Can you say Van Jones.”
Sure. Can you say Joseph McCarthy? Can you say William Randolph Hearst?
What do you know about about Van Jones? You know about 1 remark he made in jest at a partisan gathering some years ago. And you know what, he was right, He just had the group misidentified, It isn’t Republicans, it is the Neo Con republicans.
I stand corrected.
But even those confirmed by the Senate are no guarantee that they will be the best for the job or until another Administration appoints a different one to take the position.
Look at the cabinet secretaries of Labor or EPA over the last 30 years and see the difference in policy enforcement or lack there of.
Emtronics — “I want to live in a country where an insurance company doesn’t decide if you live or die. I want to live in a country where you don’t have to file for bankruptcy if you get seriously ill.”
Matthew — “I had a patient rejected for coverage recently because they had an acute infection with no long-term consequences. The insurance companies essentially have monopoly power in most circumstances since health coverage for individuals is insanely expensive in comparison to employer-provided coverage. Some companies will go to bat for their employees, but many won’t rock the boat because they don’t want their own costs to increase. It’s an utterly absurd system, and there must be change.”
My question is, why can’t these problems be solved by congress and the president via changing the rules which the game is played as opposed to the congress and the president allowing the government be a participant in the game? I mean, can’t the laws be changed so that everyone is included and no one is excluded, that the companies aren’t allowed to drop or reject coverage…..and the other issues?
What would prevent the government in years ahead, for example, from telling you if you are 30 lbs. overweight, that you must go to the gym twice a week or be fined a percentage of your wages? What would keep them from telling you that you must stay away from carbs and lower your blood levels or face a fine? What would prevent the government from banning all sunbathing due to increased risk of skin disease? Yes they would increase your premiums but what happens when even your increased premiums are not keeping the program afloat? What would keep the government from running roughshod into your personal life?
Are you asking why can’t the private insurance continue to do business and take their profits while the government controls their business affairs?
Sounds to me like you want to have it both ways… profit for a business that can’t ethically operate on its own and a government bureaucracy to oversee this private business.
What happened to the claims of ethical capitalism and unethical government?
“What would prevent the government in years ahead, for example, from telling you…”
Who do you think this “government” is? What do suspect might prevent the government from doing anything? (like invading a country under false pretenses)
The answer is the media. Objective, non-commercialized journalists doing their jobs without threat of sponsors objecting, or having licenses suspended or revoked. Not entertainers and rumor mongers, not screaming demagogues practicing the gentle art of self aggrandizement, not uneducated mouths hacking their latest book, t-shirt and bumper sticker website and not paid political hacks representing special interests.
When the US lost its independent news broadcasts and allowed the selling of advertising on those programs, we lost our free, objective journalism. There are still a few voices that attempt to remain above it all… but they are difficult to find.
I don’t understand people that support the government running the Health Care system.
The main argument against this plan, and one that trumps all others, is that this is 100% unconstitutional. SO, for all of you that want government run health care, fine, you need to propose an amendment to do it. Our government operates with the Constitution as a blue print, and last time I checked there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to regulate health care. Moreover, the Constitution is what grants the people the right to vote, not the Federal bureaucracy. Once you allow the government to tread on the Constitution (which has happen in abundance in the last 40 years) there is nothing that is not up for grabs, including the right to vote. I would worry more about that.
Never forget governments exist to control, nothing more. The Founders knew that, that’s why the Constitution exists. Those that want government run health care, want federal control of their health care.
Lastly, you think death panels are a joke, or scare tactics? When the government starts cutting, they have to go somewhere. Over the past week I have heard nothing but complaints how they are cutting essential city services, and leaving the hotel project alone. What makes you think this isn’t going to happen to equivalent projects at the Federal level? Cut health care to make a point? You want to raise income taxes to 60%, or my access to health care gets cut? No thanks!
Right now we have a system that works, the only problem is price. This is a result of a non-consumer driven system. Insurance companies right now are the middleman. With this proposal, the government will soon become the middleman. The bill going though Congress really changes nothing, except it puts the Federal Government in charge, as appose to insurance companies. I think most people agree that anything the Government does they screw up, so this is a horrible idea. The solution is putting the consumer back in charge. Put money in the pockets of consumers. Let the consumer decide what doctor to see, and let the consumer save the money by shopping around. That is the same force that drives all other consumer purchases, and it should drive health care. Any law that stops the consumer for making decisions for themselves is unconstitutional, since the foundation of the Constitution is freedom to the people.
GWhy – it’s called the Commerce Clause and it’s in (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) the Constitution.
Wait, Jon are you proposing that the clause authorizes the federal government to institute a nationalized health care system?
The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce – e.g. health care. The General Welfare clause would allow the creation of a nationalized health care system (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
Are you going to argue that Social Security, Medicare, FDA, etc. are unconstitutional as well?
How do you come to the conclusion that any insurance, let alone health, constitutes interstate commerce? Insurance is currently regulated by each individual state so policies are not transferable across state lines, and this is the case for nearly every line of insurance imaginable.
Also using the general welfare clause is about the weakest argument I have heard yet. Anyone can claim nearly anything falls in that clause. I could just as easily say the long term economic viability of our country is more important to the general welfare than extending the national debt several trillion more dollars than it already is and increasing the likelihood of going into default.
On a related note…..I hear that OSF may be purchasing Proctor Hospital.
Stay tuned……
Jon wrote: The commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce
“Regulate,” not nationalize. Big difference.
David, what was the constitutional justification for nationalized health care for seniors (aka Medicare)?
Jon, was there a huge market of companies looking to insure senior citizens that I don’t know about? Especially since a lot of senior citizens have become entirely dependent on their monthly social security checks for their livelihood and have limited means.
Jon wrote: David, what was the constitutional justification for nationalized health care for seniors (aka Medicare)?
I’d like to know myself.
There’s always a market – it just depends on price. Do you think the majority of the 50 million people who don’t have insurance can actually afford it, but don’t want it? That unlike with senior citizens (ignoring, too, all the private companies that sell supplemental insurance to senior citizens), the private market is adequately addressing the needs of those 50 million uninsured?
Well, David, Medicare has been with us for over 40 years, and if during that time it hasn’t been ruled unconstitutional, I hope you’re not banking on a national government health care option being banned on constitutional grounds. I guess the “big difference” between “regulate” and “nationalize” hasn’t been that big of a difference to any Supreme Court since 1965.
You and 11bravo are arguing against history. Presumably, on the basis that you don’t interpret the Constitution to allow “big government” on these matters. Funny how some people read the same thing and interpret it very differently (like you and kcdad on the Bible).
50 million? Jon says 50, some say 40 the President has said 30… You guys need to get your numbers straight. Also private insurance companies can provide supplemental insurance on top of Medicare since the government is bearing the brunt of any costs, which is why its called a supplement.
Jon you also seem to be completely missing the point that David was making. Medicare is intended to provide health care to senior citizens who otherwise would not be able to afford it within the current system. Which means that it doesn’t nationalize anything, so yes big difference.
Jon if government run health care is so great then why is it that we have the 50 million uninsured you claim exist. Isn’t Medicaid supposed to be the program that allows the government to insure those who can’t insure themselves? Fine job its doing… If one dysfunctional government program can’t fix it lets just create another one.
“You guys need to get your numbers straight.”
What if it is 100? What if it is 1? Does it really matter what the number is?
Why are you defending that “institution” that NO ONE respects, or likes… INSURANCE?
Everyone (I am not hyperbolizing) knows that insurance is a scam and the only people who like it are the ones who exploit it for thousands more than they pay in. But even they realize it is unfair. That is, those that allow other policy holders to pay their bills.
Who is funding this anti-public option movement? The Insurance Companies? Why? Because they can’t stand the competition. What? I thought competition was good in Capitalism… and whose money are they using to fund this protest movement? Duh.. The policy holders’. How stupid can the public get? So the insurance companies are using YOUR money to keep you from getting competitive insurance coverage… and YOU, 11bravo, support that.
I wish I were as politically, socially and economically aware as you.
11bravo, I guess it all depends on what you mean by “nationalized”. If everyone agrees Medicare is not “nationalized” health care for senior citizens, then I guess everyone would have to agree that the current bill certainly is not “nationalized” health care either. So why the argument?
Medicaid is for the very poor – it can’t help the 50 million uninsured (I rounded – the 2007 Census Bureau reported that there were 46 million uninured, about 10 million were illegal aliens)
You can’t tackle health insurance piecemeal. Everyone needs to be covered for it to be effective. Whether you get it from your existing carrier, or a government option, everyone is covered (well, except for those illigegal aliens, most of whom come to this country, live, work and pay taxes – but that’s another issue).
Because by nature if the government becomes involved in an industry it eventually leads to a non-competitive environment because it gets to set the rules and has a temporarily unlimited amount of money it can use to bail itself out. That leads to nationalization of the entire industry.
kcdad, its incredibly amusing that you of all people are so spiteful towards insurance. After all, it is probably the closest thing that capitalism has to a communist industry. Everyone pays in, and regardless of how much you give you only get back when you need it. Regardless of whether it is private industry or public the basic principle remains the same as well (except that the government doesn’t have to worry about profits or rules) so even if you get your public option are you still going to be so resentful of the system?
I wish you were as politically, socially, and economically aware as I am too, kcdad it would save everyone a lot of wasted reading through your under-developed comments.
11bravo, what U.S. industries have been nationalized in the manner you described?
Nationalization in the US is a rarity, thankfully. But that still doesn’t address any of the other points that I made regarding competitiveness.
Well, rarity until the end of the Bush administration/beginning of Obama.
Rules…hmm, what kind of rules might the proposed public health option set up that would benefit it to the detriment of other private insurance companies? You’ll have to help me on that one, 11bravo – I have nothing to base it on since you haven’t provided any examples of nationalized industries. Oh, and “unlimited money” for a public health option that President Obama already said would have to rely on the premiums it collects.
It can’t rely only on the premium it collects because as you and others have already pointed out they supposedly can’t pay the premium for private insurance right now so how can they magically afford it under government control? And until it is expressly outlined in the bill (which it isn’t) he could say premiums will be paid in jellybeans and it wouldn’t make much of a difference. As for rules, for starters the legislation in the house already forbids lawsuits against a government plan I’d say that is just a little different then the environment private insurers operate under. Beyond that, the government regulates the insurance industry. I suppose you would be okay with General Motors writing law specifically governing Ford, right?
“What would prevent the government in years ahead, for example, from telling you if you are 30 lbs. overweight, that you must go to the gym twice a week or be fined a percentage of your wages? What would keep them from telling you that you must stay away from carbs and lower your blood levels or face a fine? What would prevent the government from banning all sunbathing due to increased risk of skin disease?…”
Many insurance companies ALREADY “penalize” people for these types of things. Many employers have instituted all sorts of contingencies on their policies. They can’t deny coverage, but smoking, weight, pre-existing conditions can cause one employee to have to pay a higher premium than others. I have a cousin who is an extraordinarily successful actuary who is paid handsomely to help insurance companies identify potential risks in any insurance pool.
But the fact remains that under a public option, if the individual can’t afford to pay for their poor health choices I now have to.
11bravo, here is what the current bill says in regards to premiums for the health care option as well as access to federal courts:
SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
(a) Establishment of Premiums-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner–
(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of–
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
and
(g) Access to Federal Courts- The provisions of Medicare (and related provisions of title II of the Social Security Act) relating to access of Medicare beneficiaries to Federal courts for the enforcement of rights under Medicare, including with respect to amounts in controversy, shall apply to the public health insurance option and individuals enrolled under such option under this title in the same manner as such provisions apply to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries.
So, the premium issue IS in the bill and the access to the federal courts IS in the bill (and you can sue Medicare, e.g.).
“it is probably the closest thing that capitalism has to a communist industry.”
Again, you show you don’t know what you are talking about. If it were communist, there wouldn’t be a bunch of rich executives stealing money off the top of the premiums. So, as usual you confuse capitalist greed and fascism with communism, humanism and ethical or moral policies.
Yes, insurance IS a communist idea, but no when it is run for profit. So, yes, Jesus would approve of national health care, and global health care.
“But the fact remains that under a public option, if the individual can’t afford to pay for their poor health choices I now have to.”
YOU ALREADY ARE. You are also paying for an individuals poor political choices, their poor economic choices, their poor religious choices, their poor sexual choices, their poor entertainment choices… DO you think your premiums ONLY pay for your risk?
I would just like to point out:
“it is probably the closest thing that capitalism has to a communist industry.
Again, you show you don’t know what you are talking about.”
“Yes, insurance IS a communist idea”
All you had to say was “you are correct”. I realize how painful that might be for you to take yourself down from that pedestal you’ve hoisted yourself onto (in your own mind).
a communist “idea”… “from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs…”
however, being the idea does not it make the PRACTICE.
I don’t believe you have the ability to be correct. You are too busy defending a losing proposition.
And who gets to decide those “needs” anyway?
The only thing I am losing is my sanity from arguing with a broken record.
“who gets to decide those “needs” ”
Are you seriously asking what “needs” are?
What are YOUR needs?
Let me spell it out for you and I will type real slow as well. WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT SOMEONE’S NEEDS ARE? Why don’t you just try to just straight-up answer a question for once.
Who decides for you what your “needs” are? YOU do. We all decide for ourselves… right?
The reason I don’t “straight-up” answer is you ask vile questions. You already have so many presumptions in your question there is no “straight-up” answer.
Are your “needs” any different than anyone else?
This may not be the best place to ask this, but I’m looking for a top rated insurance agency and I have no idea how to find them. Do you have any info on this insurance provider? It’s address is in Louisville, close to my home, but I can’t seem to find any reviews on them. – Braden Insurance Agency Inc., 3069 Breckenridge Lane, Louisville, KY 40220, (502)454-9191