The problem is in the wording of the bill. It says that the appropriate billing agency will be able to bill using direct access.
If you were to see the same wording in organizational papers for a private venture it could easily be construed that the venture will be able to accept funds using direct deposit. That would certainly be appropriate. Since it was a statement from a private firm, there would be no concern that the prescribed billing would occur without the consent of the billed.
However, since this wording occurs in the organizational papers of a government venture, one could surmise that the wording empowers that government entity to bill clients directly without their consent. In my view this is a possible reading of the bill. It may not be the intent of the writers. It may not be how it would be implemented. It may be that, if the bill passes, that the implementation is merely to note that the appropriate agencies will implement a way to accept direct billing from accounts as a service to the clients.
However, and this is the crux of the problem with the whole idea of government impinging on the private health care system, there is also the possibility that even IF the most benign interpretation was intended by Congress, since this is a government program there is nothing to keep bureaucrats from construing this, and any number of phrases in this bill, in a way which would be a grievous imposition on our basic rights.
This is the fundamental reason why government should only be used as a tool of last resort after all other methods have failed. This is irrespective of any arguments one may have that this whole endeavor is grossly unconstitutional!
Can someone explain, in layman’s terms, the provision that makes it illegal to change your health insurance after this is implemented?
I think you know exactly what this is all about, and why it’s weasel worded the way it is to obfuscate what is really going to happen. It’s not complicated.
And it’s not Constitutional either.