The "true" cost of healthcare?

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
And if one can't afford that .... then what? Your problem is that you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, the fact that there are some people that just don't have means to pay for more than food/lodging/necessities and are living paycheck to paycheck and can't spare the ~$150 a month for shitty bottom of the barrel coverage.

So how about you and I sponsor a short and specific reform bill that simply gives those people coverage?

Six months from now, we can draft another short and specific bill to regulate rising costs.

Then, six months after that, we can draft yet another short and specific bill to stop the practice of denying coverage or treatments.

etc. etc.

Baby steps to rational and reasonable healthcare reform FTW.

I'm not associating myself with you in any way, shape, or form. Thx, but no thx.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And if one can't afford that .... then what? Your problem is that you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, the fact that there are some people that just don't have means to pay for more than food/lodging/necessities and are living paycheck to paycheck and can't spare the ~$150 a month for shitty bottom of the barrel coverage.

The coverage you can get for 150/month is pretty good. Go look up plans.

And if they can't afford health insurance, how the hell can they afford to get car insurance or put a roof over their head? It's part of your cost of living, you don't just skimp and not get it (well some people do, but very few are because they can't afford it).

How are they paying electric bills? Water? Cell phone, cable TV, eating out if they can't pay or refuse to pay for insurance?

I am not nor will I ever condone being responsible for people making poor decisions.

Quite a few of those listed examples aren't exactly what one would call necessities. You're painting broad strokes in classifying everyone in that group as being in their situation because of "poor decisions".

I see the answer to my earlier question was that you just don't realize the difficulties some of our fellow citizens deal with.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

No I wouldn't be ok with it. But since that isn't in any of the proposed plans, I guess I don't have to worry.

actually, it might be. Your old bullet-proof plan will instantly become "grandfathered," and then it may or may not remain on the Government's list of approved plans after five years.

Then what?

Welcome to the LCD brutha!

I'm quite positive my plan will be just fine. Thanks for your concern though.

What makes you so confident? The language of the bill itself does not support that level of confidence, so it must be something else...

The fact of the matter is that, if the current bill passes, the Government will control whether or not you get to keep that plan, period.

That bothers me tremendously; because, like you, I too have a bullet-proof plan for my family that I've worked very hard to obtain.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
And if one can't afford that .... then what? Your problem is that you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, the fact that there are some people that just don't have means to pay for more than food/lodging/necessities and are living paycheck to paycheck and can't spare the ~$150 a month for shitty bottom of the barrel coverage.

So how about you and I sponsor a short and specific reform bill that simply gives those people coverage?

Six months from now, we can draft another short and specific bill to regulate rising costs.

Then, six months after that, we can draft yet another short and specific bill to stop the practice of denying coverage or treatments.

etc. etc.

Baby steps to rational and reasonable healthcare reform FTW.

I'm not associating myself with you in any way, shape, or form. Thx, but no thx.

Hear that sound? It's the sound of reason and the point flying right over your head.... :roll:

 

[Pens1566]

For one, the circumstances of my employer make it utterly impossible that they would cut their plan(s) and opt for the fines. And would also make it ... difficult for any sort of govt. interference on the acceptability of said plan(s) as well. Oh, and I could pretty much afford any of the options I'd be forced to choose from in the govt. exchange as well

About the "Government will control whether or not you get to keep that plan" ... exactly what part of the proposed plans are you basing this on? I just want to be sure.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
And if one can't afford that .... then what? Your problem is that you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, the fact that there are some people that just don't have means to pay for more than food/lodging/necessities and are living paycheck to paycheck and can't spare the ~$150 a month for shitty bottom of the barrel coverage.

So how about you and I sponsor a short and specific reform bill that simply gives those people coverage?

Six months from now, we can draft another short and specific bill to regulate rising costs.

Then, six months after that, we can draft yet another short and specific bill to stop the practice of denying coverage or treatments.

etc. etc.

Baby steps to rational and reasonable healthcare reform FTW.

I'm not associating myself with you in any way, shape, or form. Thx, but no thx.

Hear that sound? It's the sound of reason and the point flying right over your head.... :roll:

Yeah, sure it is.

Hows that 40.4% bracket working out for you?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
For one, the circumstances of my employer make it utterly impossible that they would cut their plan(s) and opt for the fines. And would also make it ... difficult for any sort of govt. interference on the acceptability of said plan(s) as well. Oh, and I could pretty much afford any of the options I'd be forced to choose from in the govt. exchange as well

About the "Government will control whether or not you get to keep that plan" ... exactly what part of the proposed plans are you basing this on? I just want to be sure.

Pages 16 and 17 of the latest version of the House version of the bill.

On those pages, you'll find:
Your current plan WILL instantly become "Grandfathered Health insurance Coverage" for a period of "up to five years." During that time, if your plan changes any aspect of their coverage, which happens almost annually for some plans, then you will immediately lose said coverage and the plan would lose its "grandfathered" status.

At the five-year mark, even if you're still lucky enough to have it, you will lose said coverage instantly.

Once you lose the "Grandfathered" coverage, for any one of the reasons above, or the other reasons listed in the bill, you (or your employer) will only be authorized to choose coverage from the Government-approved plans that are listed on the mysterious "Health Insurance Exchange."

The "Commissioner" and his staff will come up with the criteria for HIE qualification some time in the future AFTER the bill is passed. If your company's current plan does not meet those criteria, you'll be off to select one on your own from the list -- which, given the much higher costs of paying for your own coverage, will likely end up being the "public option."

Whatever the case, qualification for the HIE will be completely at the whim of the Government. If, at any point in the future, they decide to disqualify EVERY listing on the Exchange, except for the "public option" of course, they will be completely free to do so without citizen interference.

Later in the bill, it states that if you choose not to elect a HIE plan, you (not your employer) will be subject to a 2.5% Federal Income Tax penalty every year -- a rate that is once again at the whim of the "Commissioner."

Fun stuff, eh?

It would help tremendously if you'd read the actual bill... but, as i stated above, if this version of the bill passes, the Government will control whether or not you get to keep your current plan, period.

 

[Pens1566]

Uh, I have read that part. It only lists certain qualifications needed to continue on, as either part of the exchange or not. Very easily met conditions I might add. Ones that my plan already covers. In case you're interested, it's subtitle C in section 121 that lists the conditions. Next.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
For one, the circumstances of my employer make it utterly impossible that they would cut their plan(s) and opt for the fines. And would also make it ... difficult for any sort of govt. interference on the acceptability of said plan(s) as well. Oh, and I could pretty much afford any of the options I'd be forced to choose from in the govt. exchange as well

About the "Government will control whether or not you get to keep that plan" ... exactly what part of the proposed plans are you basing this on? I just want to be sure.

Pages 16 and 17 of the latest version of the House version of the bill.

On those pages, you'll find:
Your current plan WILL instantly become "Grandfathered Health insurance Coverage" for a period of "up to five years." During that time, if your plan changes any aspect of their coverage, which happens almost annually for some plans, then you will immediately lose said coverage and the plan would lose its "grandfathered" status.

At the five-year mark, even if you're still lucky enough to have it, you will lose said coverage instantly.

Once you lose the "Grandfathered" coverage, for any one of the reasons above, or the other reasons listed in the bill, you (or your employer) will only be authorized to choose coverage from the Government-approved plans that are listed on the mysterious "Health Insurance Exchange."

The "Commissioner" and his staff will come up with the criteria for HIE qualification some time in the future AFTER the bill is passed. If your company's current plan does not meet those criteria, you'll be off to select one on your own from the list -- which, given the much higher costs of paying for your own coverage, will likely end up being the "public option."

Whatever the case, qualification for the HIE will be completely at the whim of the Government. If, at any point in the future, they decide to disqualify EVERY listing on the Exchange, except for the "public option" of course, they will be completely free to do so without citizen interference.

Later in the bill, it states that if you choose not to elect a HIE plan, you (not your employer) will be subject to a 2.5% Federal Income Tax penalty every year -- a rate that is once again at the whim of the "Commissioner."

Fun stuff, eh?

It would help tremendously if you'd read the actual bill... but, as i stated above, if this version of the bill passes, the Government will control whether or not you get to keep your current plan, period.

AND THIS IS THE CRAP THAT MAKES ME ANGRY!

I wish the politicos would honestly bring up this caveat when they talk about "You can keep your plan, the others are lying" This is a half-truth.. They should say "You can keep your plan for 5 years, after that you're on our plan hehe"

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Uh, I have read that part. It only lists certain qualifications needed to continue on, as either part of the exchange or not. Very easily met conditions I might add. Ones that my plan already covers. In case you're interested, it's subtitle C in section 121 that lists the conditions. Next.

You are lying.

Everything I wrote is there in black and white on pages 16 and 17.

Everything I wrote is in the bill.

 

[spidey07]

I love the 2.5% tax. Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than 250K. Obama lies again.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Uh, I have read that part. It only lists certain qualifications needed to continue on, as either part of the exchange or not. Very easily met conditions I might add. Ones that my plan already covers. In case you're interested, it's subtitle C in section 121 that lists the conditions. Next.

You are lying.

Everything I wrote is there in black and white on pages 16 and 17.

Everything I wrote is in the bill.

I think you're mistaken. Again. That section is obviously (at least to me) there to prevent plans from slashing coverages while meeting absolutely acceptable criteria for coverage.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Uh, I have read that part. It only lists certain qualifications needed to continue on, as either part of the exchange or not. Very easily met conditions I might add. Ones that my plan already covers. In case you're interested, it's subtitle C in section 121 that lists the conditions. Next.

You are lying.

Everything I wrote is there in black and white on pages 16 and 17.

Everything I wrote is in the bill.

I think you're mistaken. Again. That section is obviously (at least to me) there to prevent plans from slashing coverages while meeting absolutely acceptable criteria for coverage.

People can read it for themselves.

(For those who may not know, "Y1" is the next calendar year immediately following the passage of the bill. So, if it somehow passes in November of this year, then Y1 = 2010)

Enjoy...

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.?Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ??grandfathered health insurance coverage?? means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.?
(A) IN GENERAL.?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 Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.?Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.?Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.?The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

(b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.?
(1) GRACE PERIOD.?
(A) IN GENERAL.?The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.?Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111?5).
(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.?During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.

(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.?
(1) IN GENERAL.?Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.?Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

Most of what I described above is right there in black and white (the tax penalties show up later in the bill). I even made some of my favorite parts bold for your reading pleasure.

This portion of the bill certainly wins the Misleading Section Title of the Year Award. :laugh:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

LOL I posted this in someone's facebook article link who linked to a Blog talking about losing private coverage is a myth.

What did I get? A deleted comment and a reply saying "your conservative viewpoints are not welcome." LOL. The text of a bill is not welcome because why? HAHAHAHA. Sad liberals.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

Yes, that is the REAL kicker and people need to read it, understand it and speak out against it.

So far the only rebuttal we have is "well the gubment is just making sure individual plans are acceptable!" Acceptable to whom? Acceptable how? Why is citizen control over their own destiny such a problem?

umm, yeah...umm, I don't want to entrust those decisions to a commissioner/czar/federal entity.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

LOL I posted this in someone's facebook article link who linked to a Blog talking about losing private coverage is a myth.

What did I get? A deleted comment and a reply saying "your conservative viewpoints are not welcome." LOL. The text of a bill is not welcome because why? HAHAHAHA. Sad liberals.

Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with us.

 

[Overgloc]

BlueCross

Me,wife,2 kids(4mont and 3 rs old) Health and Dental and Vision, $3600 yrs on highend plan $15 Deductible. Not Complaining

 

[Carmen813]

spidey,
Find me a plan that I can buy for $300 a month for my wife and self. Here's our health history for you.



1. me

25 years old, non smoker, exercise once a week, white male, hodgkin's lymphoma survivor



2. wife, 24 years old, white female, non smoke, acute myeloid leukemia survivor


We currently make $1500 a month. Rent is $560, utilities about $200. Find me a private plan we can afford and I'll buy it right now.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

For myself and wife

Aetna PPO 90/70 premium, Delta dental crappy dental plan with $200 ded and $1200 annual max

Me
$320 x 26 = $8320

Employer paid $13000

Total $21,320


And through our group policy all employees pay the same rate per level of coverage regardless of age.

The real kicker is I,m a healthy old fart and don't cost them anything and most of my wifes care is not covered for various stupid reasons the insurance company made up, and my 19yo isn't eligable for the plan so we have to carry a seperate high deductible plan for him because thats all we can afford.


I think part of the problem is the mean age of our company of roughly 200 employees. It's probably in the 40's somewhere. We have some young folks working there but we have ALOT in their 40's, 50's & 60's

IMHO that is the reason we need cradle to grave coverage that is not employer based. Health insurance should work more like SS, you pay in reasonable rates over your entire working life and you most likely use the bulk of the bennies in your older years.

But just because you start a business or change jobs in your 40's or 50's, or work for a demographically old company shouldn't mean you have to pay astromonical rates. And all premium paying insured shouldn't have to bear the burden of the uninsured like we currently do, thats why requiring everyone to have insurance is critical


The current system of private insurers insuring working age people and raking in billions in profit then packing them off to Medicare on the taxpayers dime in the retirement years when the bulk of medical expenses naturally occur is just evil

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
spidey,
Find me a plan that I can buy for $300 a month for my wife and self. Here's our health history for you.



1. me

25 years old, non smoker, exercise once a week, white male, hodgkin's lymphoma survivor



2. wife, 24 years old, white female, non smoke, acute myeloid leukemia survivor


We currently make $1500 a month. Rent is $560, utilities about $200. Find me a private plan we can afford and I'll buy it right now.

I am not qualified to answer that question or find a plan/insurance for you. I am not an insurance broker, I would suggest talking to one. Your income and conditions as described should be covered by medicaid. If you are not covered by medicaid (and you are), which is a gubment program, why would you think it will be better?

I feel for you, but there are other options out there.

 

[Carmen813]

No, there are not other options out there.

I'm on Family Health Plus, which is a type of Medicaid. However, the income requirements are more stringent than I think you realize. It is in part the reason why our income is kept low, there is a "cliff" where we aren't making enough to afford insurance (even through an employer) and are simultaneously making to much money for public options. There is no private insurance available to us, it does not exist in any sort of reasonable payment platform.

Here's the problem. I'm moving in a week to a new county. In NYS, the County pays for medicaid, even though its managed by an HMO (in my case bluecross/blue shield). Since I'm moving to a new county, I need to re-apply, you can't transfer it (apparently, I'm working on that). So that means for about 2 months (60 days for application to go through) my wife and I wouldn't have coverage. HealthyNY, the next step above FPH, costs about $450 a month for 2 people. It's out of our budget range.

My wife requires prescription medications to manage chronic pain. Without them, she is basically bed-ridden and disabled. With them, she can maintain a somewhat normal life, including holding down a full time job. They cost about $200 a month without insurance.

If you are curious as to why we are moving, it was because I worked hard and received a full scholarship (worth about $28,000 a year) to get a Master's degree. I am not lazy, and neither is my wife. I could buy graduate student insurance, but the plan my university offers is not adequate for someone with my medical history. I have a CT scan scheduled for September, a requirement to make sure my cancer hasn't come back. The idea is to catch it early if it does, so I have a chance to survive. Of course, these scans cost $4,000 or so, well out of my ability to pay without some type of assistance.

So, put on my shoes for five minutes and tell me what to do. Find me the free market solution you've advocated throughout this thread. The problem I have is not with the health coverage I've received with FHP, it's in fact been fantastic, but rather the difficulties in the way NYS has setup its payments (something my friend in Ohio tells me he doesn't have to worry about).

I think perhaps this will help you understand why I cannot tolerate the status quo.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

Bear with me here, I haven't had time to study the complete bill to see how these things fit together but as I read sections 101-102, they say:

1. Employers have 5 years to get their plans into conformance. That is pretty much the way all legislation that affects companies works . I haven't read of a single employer that has any problem with any of that; companies change their plans every year or so anyway.

2. The individual insurance plans must conform immediately. Current subscribers can keep what they have while the insurance companies rearrange their plans. After 5 years, everyone will be in "Exchange" participating programs.

As I understand it, the purpose of this Insurance Exchange is to offer the benefits of risk pooling to individuals and small businesses. The Insurance is still offered by private, for-profit companies.

So what part of this is "Government controlled"? What is your objection to having a regulated insurance market?

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

Bear with me here, I haven't had time to study the complete bill to see how these things fit together but as I read sections 101-102, they say:

1. Employers have 5 years to get their plans into conformance. That is pretty much the way all legislation that affects companies works . I haven't read of a single employer that has any problem with any of that; companies change their plans every year or so anyway.

2. The individual insurance plans must conform immediately. Current subscribers can keep what they have while the insurance companies rearrange their plans. After 5 years, everyone will be in "Exchange" participating programs.

As I understand it, the purpose of this Insurance Exchange is to offer the benefits of risk pooling to individuals and small businesses. The Insurance is still offered by private, for-profit companies.

So what part of this is "Government controlled"? What is your objection to having a regulated insurance market?

The government is mandating the minimum requirements to be part of the exchange. Personally, I have no problem with this. I see it as no different than mandating minimum requirements for other forms of insurance.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
By the way, for those who may have missed the highlights above, the real kick in the balls arrives in paragraph (c)(1).

Welcome to 100% Government-controlled healthcare.

Bear with me here, I haven't had time to study the complete bill to see how these things fit together but as I read sections 101-102, they say:

1. Employers have 5 years to get their plans into conformance. That is pretty much the way all legislation that affects companies works . I haven't read of a single employer that has any problem with any of that; companies change their plans every year or so anyway.

The moment a single change is made to your plan by your insurance provider, *BAM* you lose your "Gradfathered" status and you must immediately choose an HIE option to remain covered. -- paragraph (a)(2)

If you join a new company on or after January 1st, 2010? -- paragraph (a)(1)(A) -- sorry buddy, the list on the HIE is your only option and no private insurance companies have had time to add their plans since we're all still waiting on the The Commissioner to publish the criteria... so, please choose between "public option" or "public option." What's covered in this so-called "public-option," you ask? WE DONT KNOW YET! But please enjoy the music while The Commissioner figures that out too.

lack of specifics FTL.

2. The individual insurance plans must conform immediately. Current subscribers can keep what they have while the insurance companies rearrange their plans. After 5 years, everyone will be in "Exchange" participating programs.

Exactly! The list will be entirely Government-controlled and at the whim of "The Commissioner." But, given the multitude of ways it can be lost, you'll be VERY lucky if your "Grandfathered" status lasts that entire five years.

As I understand it, the purpose of this Insurance Exchange is to offer the benefits of risk pooling to individuals and small businesses. The Insurance is still offered by private, for-profit companies.

So what part of this is "Government controlled"? What is your objection to having a regulated insurance market?

It's not merely regulated, it's completely Government-controlled. At any time, the Government can add or remove private companies on the HIE, at will.

Imagine what would happen if the NYSE or NASDAQ become government entities rather than the private competitive businesses they are today. So, instead of them being merely regulated by the likes of the SEC, membership on each exchange would become entirely Government-controlled.

Understand the difference now?

Will my current bullet-proof plan be on the list? Well, that's the fun part, NOBODY KNOWS! The qualification criteria is TBD at some time AFTER the bill is passed.

What if their standards suck? What if they're too stringent? Too lax? Why won't they list those requirements now?

Now, if they were merely proposing a House Insurance Commission of some sort to regulate some new private Health Insurance Exchange businesses -- as with the SEC and NYSE relationship -- then I'd probably give such a proposal a thumbs up!

But, sadly, that's not what they're doing here... they're reaching for total control.