You’re right. Dumb mistake, and clearly wrong. I take it back, disavow it, acknowledge its wrong, whatever you like.

“And the plain English translation of the bill is simple and straight forward. You cannot switch out your insurance. If you are unhappy with your policy, you either stick with it or go to the public option. No looking around for a better private insurance policy. You are forbidden free choice and forced onto the health insurance plantation.”

Prove it. I can’t find anything remotely like this in the text. I find no language at all banning future private insurance plans. Where do you get this in the “plain language” of the text? The plain language is clear, and it clearly doesn’t say that.

The Health Insuuance Exchanges are supposed to be created:

“[in] order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.”
(page 72, ll.11-14)
“Including” a public option means that a public option is only one choice. Does that include private insurance? Explicitly yes:

“(3) INSURANCE REFORMS.—This division—
(A) enacts strong insurance market reforms;
(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;”
(page 5, ll.3-8)

“alongside private plans”, so the plan specifically does not outlaw private plans. The plans do seem to have to be part of an Exchange, but there is no language banning Exchanges from taking private plans.

“You cannot switch out your insurance.”

. . . except during the enrollment periods (page 75-76, page 95, l. 23 et. al.), or if there are special enrollment circumstances like losing your job coverage or a radical change in your income (same cites). Y’know, just like they did it at my employer. Just like most health care insurance works now.
That’s the plain language I found. I also didn’t find a single word prohibiting private plans. Granted, it’s a 1,000+ pages, so I certainly could have missed it. But I didn’t find it, and I did find plain language stating clearly the exact opposite of your claim.

“the plain English translation of the bill is simple and straight forward.”

You’re damn right . . . it is pretty clear. And it pretty clearly does NOT say what you claim. Ignorant claims do cheapen the debate, so they should be corrected as soon as possible.

WSJ.com comes up with a subscription tag when you get search results. I’ve now gone to the WSJ site. Some content is fre, some is not. I read three
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124398857510379561.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878091745389615.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640626749276595.html
The last is the only one that discusses the current ideas, as the others are older. Even that piece acknowledges that the plan allows you to keep your current plan . . . it just opines that theoretically in the future the government could pass other rules that take away our options thru another avenue. I suppose that’s true, but it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the text of the plan now.
The government could pass a law that mandates the injection of radio tracking chips in all people, but that doesn’t mean the creation of the Social Security number calls for implanting chips.

I appeal to your all-powerful Googling talent. I tried “Alarm’s totally awesome WSJ article that he won’t cite to”, but for some reason I came up short. Educate me. Please. I provided my links so that you might see the facts underlying my thoughts, because “I say so” is pretty weak. Link me an article.

. . . and no comment on the other source? Well, that’s good enough for me to disregard the plain English text of the bill. The one I not only cited, but cut and pasted so you could see it.

p.s.: a good origin for your handle — good “an interesting story”, not good “error codes are good”. Why that particular error? Was it the nature of the error itself, or did you just like the sound of it? **serious questions, no snark intended in this part**

“Yep, and the rubbish keeps piling higher and higher.”

Yes, euthenasia and a lack of dialysis machines. Of course, they are the *exact* same thing.

And, note, we are 3 years on and it is still illegal to travel abroad to commit suicide.

I mean, honestly;

“Some hospitals are running schemes to help patients indicate that they wish to be allowed to die - a system condemned by opponents as ‘tick the box to die’….””

Name me one, just one, major country which does not have some sort of DNR register in hospitals.

ou quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and bringing in the Daily Mail isn’t going to make it look like you do.

“THE Archbishop of Canterbury warned yesterday that financial pressures on the NHS are pushing doctors and nurses towards the practice of euthanasia.

The culture of targets and of saving cash could ‘accelerate the most worrying trends’, said Dr Rowan Williams.

He warned that ‘a target-obsessed NHS, managed with an eye to brisk traffic through its beds and reduction of expense doesn’t feel a very good place in which to have a reasoned and balanced discussion of assisted dying.’ The Archbishop said subtle pressures are at work in the Health Service, encouraging staff to get rid of ‘inconvenient’ patients.

Dr Williams spoke as church leaders joined the campaign against a proposed new law on ‘assisted dying’ which would allow doctors to help terminally-ill patients end their lives.

The Archbishop and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, have both condemned the Bill, which was proposed by crossbench peer Lord Joffe.

It comes at a time when the Mental Capacity Act - passed last year - has given legal force to a ‘living will’ by which patients can instruct doctors to let them die if they become incapacitated and have lost the power to speak.

Some hospitals are running schemes to help patients indicate that they wish to be allowed to die - a system condemned by opponents as ‘tick the box to die’….”

Yep, and the rubbish keeps piling higher and higher.

“The 12 UK kidney treatment centers mentioned above who were turning away patients developed a unique technique to fix the problem. All dialysis patients over the age of 50 were sent a letter that had the following statement regarding the lack of treatment available: “We recommend you put your affairs in order.”

Not surprisingly the demand for dialysis soon “died””

Rubbish, complete and utter rubbish, urban legending lies.

Also, and I never understand why people can’t work this out, you are not prevented from having private health insurance in the UK, unless insurance companies don’t want to insure you.You want private treatment and you need kidney dialysis, go for it. Otherwise you are in a system that rations healthcare.

Unless you are unlucky enough to have a kidney problem.

“An acute shortage of dialysis machines is causing numerous premature deaths in the UK, a study by the country’s National Kidney Research Fund indicates. More than 100,000 people have kidney disease but only 34,000 are receiving dialysis or have had a kidney transplant.

Of the 71 UK kidney treatment units surveyed, 12 have been forced to turn away patients. Other units reported that they have been forced to take emergency measures to accommodate increasing numbers of patients. Some offer patients dialysis only 2 times a week instead of 3, while others hold overnight treatment sessions. Most units reported they were working at full capacity, with no appointment times for new patients. “Some providers acknowledged that the final options for such patients are conservative management and/or death,” the report said.”

Source: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 29 April 2003

The 12 UK kidney treatment centers mentioned above who were turning away patients developed a unique technique to fix the problem. All dialysis patients over the age of 50 were sent a letter that had the following statement regarding the lack of treatment available: “We recommend you put your affairs in order.”

Not surprisingly the demand for dialysis soon “died”