Obama Plan would outlaw "New" Private Insurance?!

Thanks to @AaronKlein for pointing out this article. This is outrageous and unmasks the true intend of the Obama plan. Hopefully, this will kill it as dead as HillaryCare.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"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.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers...

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

The Biggest Enemy of Private Health Insurance? Insurance CEOs

I an very concerned about President Obama's clear desire to end private health insurance in favor of a comprehensive government-run health care system. This removes the profit motive entirely from medicine, and may lead to a brain-drain and a loss of the American lead in medicine and pharmacology. But it is hard to defend the current system amidst reports like this one.

A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.

....Late in the hearing, [Bart] Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

My father died of brain cancer, and I know that his insurance tried to drop him a few times. But luckily, they were unable to do so, so he got the best care possible.

Would Universal Health Care threaten personal freedom?

There are many reasons to be suspicious of President-elect Barack Obama's plan to introduce Universal Health Care: fears about corruption, lowest-common-denominator treatment, limitation of options, etc. But perhaps the most deep-seated is the fear that it may the first step toward legislating the behavior of citizens. After all, if I am paying for your health care, don't I have a say in how you live? This is not merely a "what if?" scenario, but a situation that many European and Asian democracies are dealing with today.

Government is always a balance between protecting freedoms and limiting freedoms in order to allow human being to live together peacefully and productively. As the debate over Universal Health Care begins in the next few weeks, we must remember the potential for evil in a system which is intended to do good.