Posted on 06/14/2010 3:39:13 AM PDT by Scanian
Late last week saw the first leaks of the administration's draft regulations for imple menting the ObamaCare law -- and everything is playing out just as the critics warned.
The 3,000-odd pages of legislation left most of the really important (and controversial) policy decisions to the regulations that government agencies were told to issue once the bill passed. Now that those regs are starting to take shape, it's clear that the Obama team is using its new power to exert tight control over the payment and delivery of all formerly "private" health insurance.
The ObamaCare law references the Secretary of Health and Human Services almost 2,200 times and uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725. Each reference requires HHS to set new rules on medical care, giving control to an existing federal office or one of 160 new agencies that the bill created.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who was once the Kansas state-insurance commissioner) has taken to these tasks with zeal. In some circles, she's now known as the nation's "insurance regulator in chief."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
At what level will this be tyranny? I say, it is there already.
OK, from what I understand ObamaCare will result in the elimination of private health insurance plans, those currently issued by private insurers. What I don’t understand is why the insurance companies are allowing this to happen. The private insurance industry and the money it generates and invests is a MAJOR part of our economy, and insurance companies have always wielded vast political and economic power. It doesn’t seem like they put up, or are putting up, much of a fight against something which would seem to threaten their very existence. What am I missing here?
btt
How much of a stretch is it to conclude that Obamacare will tie medical licensure to participation?
"Senate Bill 2170, filed by the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, would create an Affordable Health Plan for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. While the bill may sound well-intentioned, it unfairly burdens physicians while having minimal meaningful requirements for insurers.
The bill - which would be repealed on Jan.1, 2013 by a separate measure pending in the House - has two major failings.
One is that it ties a physician’s license to practice medicine to participation in this plan. The purpose of licensing, in any profession, is to ensure competency and protection of the public. No law should require physicians to follow the dictates of a health plan or risk the loss of their license. Physicians have a right to renew their professional license, and this right cannot be taken except for cause and after due process.
The Board of Registration in Medicine should not be mandated to revoke any qualified physician’s license on the basis of a contractual relationship with any insurer. Even Medicare and Medicaid do not make participation a condition of licensure.
The list, ping
American rage will be rising before November 2nd if the truth comes out.
I got letter from the Dept of Human services saying there would be no change to my Medicare Advantage . Except.... in the furture the amounts paid to my insureror would be reduced and we must rejoice in the savings. That of course forces the insurance companies to abandon Medicare Advantage.
I want blood on the street, heads on pikes.
All of the Indians will go home. And then we are really screwed.
Um, you’re on a government system that’s unaffordable. Why complain when it starts going out of business? The whole system’s going that way now.
The system is not uniform. My Medicare advantage program is the least expensive of many medicare options. The insurance company manages the account and when it is gone I will be forced to deal directly with medicare and know that is difficult and time consuming
BTTT!
How about ObamaCare = ZeroCare ?
I'm guessing they'll be forced to pay such ruinously huge [fees, taxes, penalties, whatever newspeak term it will be called], that if they don't cave in to Obamacare the insurance companies will be bankrupted trying to fight it.
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse America’s trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.
If you are a US citizen and agree with the goal of this lawsuit, please join us. If you have concerns about joining, please review the FAQs for more information. Every person we add strengthens the voice of "We the People".
OVER 10,000 AMERICANS JOIN LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE
Thank you Blue Dogs.
Sucks that most of you will be re-elected in Nov. :(:(:(:(:(
> If not, a constitutional convention could turn out to be less impracticable
Don’t even mention it! A convention is just what the left seeks. Do you think we are wiser than the founders? Then forget a convention.
bfl
Do you know the status of those states opposing the Bill. Wasn’t the VA one planned to be heard in June?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.