The National Right to Life Medical Ethics Director says the Obama health care imposes premium price controls on ALL insurance plans, not just those for Medicare-eligible senior citizens.
That means that the right of Americans to spend their own money to get insurance plans less likely to deny treatment will be significantly limited. People will not be allowed to spend their own money, if they choose, to improve the chances of saving their own family’s lives.
We already have a living example of government-run ‘universal’ health care that has run out of money and will force draconian health care rationing— Massachusetts. In 2006, Massachusetts enacted a widely heralded plan with subsidies to enable the low-income uninsured to afford it. To pay for the subsidies, the state bill cobbled together a series of funding sources, including federal payments, existing state funds for health care for the uninsured, and other sources of revenue that shared one commonality–they were not based on what people actually pay for health care. (For background on why this is a fundamental error, read this.)
Facing a mounting gap between the cost of health care subsidies and the available funds, including “stimulus” moneys, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick on February 11 sent the legislature a bill that embodies precisely what NRLC has warned will happen on the federal level.
Because the state-run subsidized health insurance will be worse than the health care the rest of Massachusetts residents get, Patrick’s bill proposes sweeping measures to limit what ALL of the citizens of Massachusetts would be ALLOWED to pay for health care!
Similarly, under Obamacare, HHS head Kathleen Sebelius, and other non-elected state and the federal officials, would be empowered to review and reject premiums charged by any health insurance plan, even the supposedly “grandfathered” plans that Americans now have.
Yet the Administration has the temerity, even now, to state, “For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change insurance they have, period.” More lies!
Consider if our government, concerned about the high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, and then asserted that for those who like their restaurant food, nothing will force them to change their eating habits. The reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below the cost of their ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food, and most restaurants would fold.
Similarly, when every premium increase is subject to veto by government officials, it means that instead of Americans making their own choices balancing the cost against the benefit in evaluating competing insurance plans, that decision will be taken out of their hands by bureaucrats whose principal duty is to hold health care spending down.
Denial of lifesaving diagnostic tests and treatment would surely follow. This is rationing, pure and simple.