Obama Equivocates On Health Insurance


'White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally'

President Barack Obama made another promise this week that you can take to the bank. Well, you can take it there, but forget about cashing it. Like so many of Obama promises, it’s just another lie. Speaking to the American Medical Association Monday, the president insisted that his health care plan will let Americans keep the coverage they have:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

It sounded so nice, he said it more than twice:

“If you like what you’re getting, keep it,” Obama said. “Nobody is forcing you to shift.”

As with much the prevaricator-in-chief says, those periods he punctuated his assurances with have morphed into commas, followed by a lot of buts, howevers, and excepts.

Legislation the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress are conspiring on would make radical changes in how Americans pay for their health care. In their attempt to put the brakes on cost increases and extend coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured, the Dems will force employers to rethink the health plans they offer to their employees:

Americans could be headed for a frugal era in which doctors order fewer tests and procedures and insurers monitor medical decisions more closely.

Few are predicting a stampede by employers — especially major companies — to drop coverage. But some just might, to avoid the hassle of dealing with insurance companies, and take advantage of the fact that some workers would qualify for new financial assistance from the government.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office took a look at the health care plan being cooked up by Senate Democrats, and its preliminary analysis is that an estimated 10 million people would have to find new insurance if it goes into effect, because their employers would no longer offer coverage. Those workers would have to shop for new plans for themselves and their families through new insurance purchasing pools called exchanges. Some 160 million to 170 million Americans now get coverage through their employers.

Dallas Salisbury, the head of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, characterized the president’s promise as “an aspirational statement”:

“If he was a king, he would deliver that, but he’s not king,” said Salisbury. His group is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse on health and pension benefits.

So how does the White House handle ramping down a “promise” into an “aspirational statement?”

Easy:

White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.

Of course it won’t. Just like it doesn’t interfere in the operations of the companies it has taken over, unless you count firing a CEO as “interfering.” Just like it closed Guantanamo Bay on the very first day The One went to the office to start his on-the-job training. The White House offered further “clarification” of what Obama said:

“The president is committed to enacting reform that will lower costs, protect choice of doctors and plans, and assure quality and affordable health care for all Americans,” said Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for the White House health reform office. “He has made it clear that we would not support a reform plan that would require people to leave their current insurance plans.”

Ah, but simply because Obama assures you that no one will take away your coverage, no matter what, that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. GOP health policy expert Gail Wilensky, a former Medicare director, is now a senior fellow with Project Hope:

“Until we see details, we can’t say how likely it is that the plan you have now will be around going forward. They may not force you to leave in any direct sense, but they could put rules and procedures in place that make it impossible to continue what you have now.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and the House Republicans have a plan (PDF) of their own. Unlike the snake oil Obama and the Democrats say will cure your ills, the GOP plan is designed to let you keep your current coverage if you are happy with it. It beats what the Obamunists are preparing to ram down our wallets in all respects.

Caveat emptor is Latin for “Let the buyer beware.” It is a warning that Americans should take to heart before they allow the Democrats to take us down the crooked path which leads to the sort of socialized medicine that has been such a miserable failure in Canada and Europe. If only more American voters had taken it to heart before they voted for the big liar in the White House…

- JP

Category: , , ,

RSS feed | Trackback URI

18 Comments Leave a comment

When I was younger

skey Friday, June 19th at 5:15PM EDT (link)

and in fairly good condition, for a number of years I kept no health insurance at all. I was making decent wages and had money in the bank to cover routine expenses. I wonder, would the Obama plan have allowed me to keep doing that?

Somehow I doubt it.

 

Obama said he wouldn't take my Chevy

bobojake Friday, June 19th at 5:41PM EDT (link)

and he destroyed Chevy. I don’t trust obama with my Healthcare one iota. obamas Healthcare will obomb just like his obamanomics did.

"the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally"

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 10:48AM EDT (link)

Actually that is the first true statement I have seen from this Abomination, I mean administration. Since day one he has been saying one thing and doing quite another.

I read “shouldn’t be taken literally”, as “the man is blatant liar and will continue to be so.” In that respect they put an honest caveat in their statement.

Regards

Obamises always have an expiration date (nt)

Neil Stevens Saturday, June 20th at 10:48AM EDT (link)

Want to run for conservatives? Give.
There Is No Crisis

 
 
 

Obama said he wouldn't take my Chevy

bobojake Friday, June 19th at 5:41PM EDT (link)

and he destroyed Chevy. I don’t trust obama with my Healthcare one iota. obamas Healthcare will obomb just like his obamanomics did.

I don't know...

snewb098 Saturday, June 20th at 11:30AM EDT (link)

with the SEIU union to run healthcare it should
be well organized.

 
 

The feds never "forced" speed limits on states either!

Common_Cents Friday, June 19th at 5:45PM EDT (link)

They just hold the check book.

“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.” Napoleon - Well, unless he is ruining your country! Common Cents

A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.[1] Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.

 

Obama is already interfering with private insurance companies, see letter below

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 10:41AM EDT (link)

Letter from employer

The Center for Medicare Services has a new requirement of all participants on a group health plan. Effective July 1, 2009, it is mandatory that all insurers provide dependent Social Security Numbers (SSNs). Until the new requirement, all dependent information has fallen under the employee’s SSN for claims filing purposes, so it has not been necessary fro our TPA to have all SSNs.

Medicare has already taken charge of private insurance and began to order them around.
Guess they know how the (former) CEO of GM felt.

The Obamantion is already implementing the computer side of his nationalization of health care using the VA system as the excuse. (He announced this personally on a news story.)

What is next? King George, err Obama is obviously not bound by any law or court. The DOJ is headed by ‘O’’s personal protector, who has stated he doesn’t recognize certain SC rulings.

Congress, the bunch of wimps they are, appear to be the only recourse. Hoping for congress to save us does not leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Where does it stop?

Regards

Many employers/insurers do that on their own, olsmithie.

Achance Saturday, June 20th at 11:38AM EDT (link)

Positive enrollment for dependents is a good cost containment measure since it allows you to avoid insuring people who aren’t lawfully dependent. Having the SSNs allows cross-checking for co-ordination of benefits and avoiding multiple payments. It is especially an issue in today’s divorce ridden World where a minor child may have insurance eligibility from multiple sources and under different names. Many private insurers also make Medicare/Medicaid the primary insurer if the person is eligible for M/M coverage.

In Vino Veritas

The state made the insurance companies here stop

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 11:57AM EDT (link)

using the SSN on insurance cards and provide an account number instead a couple of years ago. (Call us hardheaded, its OK.)
In other words when I go to the doctor or hospital, my account doesn’t even have my SSN attached. They currently have no legal reason to need it other than to help their book keeping. If I give it to them it is a private transaction, unlike a bank or W-9 , etc. as you know. I just told them to enter whatever number they use for illegals who come in for services. (All nines at this hospital.)

I have no problem providing documentation of full time student status for grown kids, etc. (They have asked and received same in the past.) The carrier has been fine, not having SSNs for dependents, auditing by other means.

This is not being requested by the insurance company. This is being demanded by Medicare, whom I have no dealings with , whatsoever.

Providing them or anyone else info to go on fishing expeditions runs counter to my core values.
What I want to know is, since congress did not recently pass a bill requiring Medicare to catalog all Americans with private insurance, is this another case of Fearless Leader ordering it without any legal authority?

Regards

Can't use SSNs here either on IDs, licenses,

Achance Saturday, June 20th at 12:24PM EDT (link)

membership cards, etc. That said, having dealt with plan administration a lot because of bargaining H&W with unions, I support positive enrollment including requiring some form of distinctive ID such as the SSN for co-ordination and fraud prevention. When we adopted it for both our active employee and retiree plans we quickly found ourselves insuring some thousands fewer people.

In Vino Veritas

Makes sense to me.

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 1:06PM EDT (link)

Reducing fraud helps keep costs down, as you point out. Always in favor of reducing costs..

I still don’t see what business Medicare has demanding info from private insurance companies and ordering them around.

The SSN request would have made more sense to me if the private insurance company had asked for the info for the reasons you mentioned.
I can support those reasons.

I’m still missing something about the Medicare Center demanding customer SSNs from private insurers.
I hate to be dense, but what am I missing here?

Regards

I don't know with any authority,

Achance Saturday, June 20th at 1:36PM EDT (link)

but it would make sense that M/M’s plan administrators would want to coordinate where they could just like a private insurer would.

In Vino Veritas

That is probably the case

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 1:45PM EDT (link)

or, (donning tin foil hat) ‘O’ wants to go ahead and get all the privately insured folks into the government database.

Time will tell, I’m afraid.

Thanks for your indulgence!

Regards

 

Your instincts are good!

olsmithie Saturday, June 20th at 2:35PM EDT (link)

Found it!

Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 as it turns out, is the law that caused this reporting requirement.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep/Downloads
/CollectionofSSNsHICNsandEINsTINsALERT.pdf

Signed by some guy named “Bush” after a veto of an earlier version.

(Tin foil hat back in the closet…..)

Regards

right now government always wants to pay last

ohiobeagle Saturday, June 20th at 2:52PM EDT (link)

Medicaid is the payer of last resort. Medicare pays secondary when possible. This reporting requirement is supposed to identify dependents who are covered under a private plan so that Medicaid can pay secondary or not at all. Similar concept for Medicare. This is the government being responsible with our tax money.

 

Imagine the outrage

Adjoran Sunday, June 21st at 3:59AM EDT (link)

on the left and in the mainstream media (but, I repeat myself) if Bush had failed to sign the “bipartisan compromise” bill and allowed Medicare and Medicaid to go unfunded for even a single day!

The man had a Democratic Congress to deal with, and could either sign the best bill he could get out of them or allow these programs to go dry. This was only an option to the Ron Paul crazies.

Why isn’t the bill attributed to those who wrote it and passed it, the Pelosi House and Reid Senate?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Obama's "light touch" on health care

bk Saturday, June 20th at 12:54PM EDT (link)

Leave a Comment

 

Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.