Sunday, July 26, 2009

HR 3200 Clarification for MORONS

There is a push for the IDIOTS of the left to slam home the point that HR 3200 does not make private insurance illegal. This is TRUE. NOWHERE in HR 3200 can you find the word ILLEGAL. Well, unless it is unsearchable.

However, if a bill makes something IMPOSSIBLE, doesn't that pretty much accomplish the same thing? (Remember, I have only read 200 pages of this Bill, so there might be a clause in there that says, "OH! About that first 200 pages? FUCK THAT SHIT!!! We were just kidding!" I am pretty sure that it doesn't, though.)

From HR3200, page 16, Line 11-16, says that a "Grandfathered" private insurer CANNOT enroll new people into their program after year one. So, if you are NOT in a private plan before year one is over, YOU CAN NEVER GET IN ONE. So, what does that do? It makes private insurance IMPOSSIBLE because they can NEVER sign up new clients. GET IT, MORON?

Plus add to that the fact that private insurers who DO have clients already enrolled in their plans, CAN NEVER INCREASE PREMIUMS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

No, HR3200 does NOT make private insurance illegal. But, it KILLS the industry by ensuring that they can never have any more clients or purchasers of their products. It doesn't make it illegal for private insurance to exist, IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE.

That is the exact same thing.

Please take the time to comment.

6 comments:

Skunkfeathers said...

I understand the three things that matter about this bill:

1. It's written by moronic Democrats
2. It's 1200 pages of all kinds of pitfalls and hidden trap doors for freedom and the private sector
3. A notable of the HuffPo (who's name I forget 'cuz she makes me sick) summed up the Left's 'tude on this: "it isn't important that people know what's in it; it's only important that it be passed quickly".

F*** 'em.

christinajade said...

I'm up around page 900ish - haven't seen that "fuck that shit" phrase yet. I have, however, seen "fuck the old people, we'll send someone over to talk to them before we let them DIE."

What you're talking about is EXACTLY what they are trying to do. There are COUNTLESS videos on YouTube of that Jacob Hacker (Political Science Prof at Yale) guy that basically say just that. He goes so far as to say that this is a Trojan Horse for the single-payer socialized system that the left has been yapping about for years.

The current administration and members of Congress KNOW that the majority of Americans oppose a single-payer health care system, so in order to try to win more public support for HR 3200. they are leaving the private insurance option in there. The catch is, insurance companies will not be able to compete, and be run out of business. When private insurance is no longer affordable or available, the only choice will be full Government control of health care with a single-payer system.

This bill is NOT the final product, ya'll. This is just a stepping stone. Kinda like a wolf in an evil sheep's clothing.

paul mitchell said...

Skunkfeathers, I hope that HuffPo person works for one of the insurance companies. She shall be unemployed in less than a year.

CJ, someone on Twittah posted yesterday that after age 59, no transplants are allowed. Have you seen that, because the search function couldn't find it.

christinajade said...

Paul, I have not seen that. OR if I have, it was lost in so much gobbelty-gook it was hidden in wording. The only note I have made on transplants is Sec. 1232, which talks about the medicines needed after transplants. That section does reference back to Social Security and Medicare acts, wonder if it is lost in the cross-reference?

Matt said...

I think you may be misinformed. Many bills use the term "grandfathered". In the case of HR3200 this just means that plans that exist before the passage of HR3200 will be "grandfathered" in and not have to adhere to new rules. This just means that an old plan (that doesn't have to follow the rules) can't take on new people after year one. So after a year, they have to follow new rules. Pretty simple and pretty common.

paul mitchell said...

I read the Bill, I am informed on what is IN THE BILL.

But, Matt, I think that maybe you do not understand Cause and Effect. If a plan cannot add any more people after the first year, and it must fully conform after FIVE years or be ended, is it still the same plan or is it one that is mandated and controlled by the federal government, with everything about the plan being, in actuality, NEW?

You might want to engage your widdle brain before you speak, you might appear smarter. The short cut to that is never say anything if you do not understand the topic on which you speak.

Sharp as a marble, we are. Just saying. Or maybe just an BELIEVER in Obamanomics, which have been proven to fail every time attempted.

Post a Comment