From LifeSiteNews.com

The Senate Finance Committee torpedoed two key pro-life amendments on Wednesday designed to prevent government-subsidies of abortion and guarantee conscience protections for health-care providers in the health-care reform bill.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed to amend the “America’s Health Future Act of 2009″ under consideration by the Finance Committee led by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). His amendments would have codified current conscience protections for health-care providers with moral objections to abortion and also made permanent the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from paying for abortions.

Hatch instead proposed that women could purchase additional coverage for abortions through “riders” that would not be subsidized by the government.

However, the amendments were rejected by the Committee by votes of 13 – 10. In both amendments, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) joined committee Republicans in support of the measures, while pro-abortion Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) joined Baucus’ committee Democrats to vote against the bill.

As it stands, the Baucus legislation permits the federal government to mandate the inclusion of abortions in the “minimum benefits package” for health-insurers participating in the “Health Insurance Exchange.”

As long as the Hyde Amendment is renewed the federal government cannot directly subsidize health-care plans from taxpayer funding of the federal Health and Human Services Department.

But if Congress failed to renew the Hyde amendment, then health-care co-ops and private plans could be required to cover elective abortions.

“While Senator Hatch’s abortion funding amendment would keep government federal funds from paying for abortion or plans that cover abortion, it clearly stated that it would not prevent women from obtaining their own separate abortion policies if they choose to do so,” stated Tony Perkins of Family Research Council.

“And instead of codifying existing law protecting conscience rights for plans and providers, these same Senators voted to undermine current law by rejecting Senator Hatch’s conscience protection amendment on abortion,” continued Perkins.

“This isn’t the status quo, it’s a pro-abortion expansion.”

Read the rest of the story.

From OneNewsNow

A healthcare expert says the healthcare bill drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) creates new taxes and cuts to the Medicare program to reduce the cost to the federal government, but does nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare in the family budget.

The Wall Street Journal says the Baucus bill would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The bill would for the first time make Medicaid available to childless adults and also extend healthcare insurance subsidies to people up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Under the senator’s plan — known as “America’s Healthy Future Act” — individuals who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance could be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 fine.

Read the rest of the article

From the Wall Street Journal

By Pete Du Pont — President Obama addressed Congress two weeks ago on the issue of health care, and on the same day an Associated Press GfK poll showed that the proportion of Americans who strongly approve of the way he is doing his job has fallen from 41% in December to 24% now. And the percentage of people who strongly disapprove of his performance has risen from 6% to 35%.

Those serious declines no doubt have to do with many issues–economic decline, the massive spending increases (enacted and proposed) of $6.5 trillion over the next decade, the coming massive tax increases that are presidential and congressional priorities, and currently most important, the proposed governmental takeover of health care. On that matter, more than 1.3 million people have signed and sent to Congress the Salem Radio Network’s Free Our Health Care Now! petition to make sure individuals, not the national government, make their health care decisions. (Disclosure: The petition incorporated information form the National Center for Policy Analysis, of which I am chairman.)

But the Democratic congressional leadership, led by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, has now offered a bureaucratic, government-intrusive health care proposal. The details change daily as the bill works its way through the Finance Committee, which Mr. Baucus chairs, for there are more than 500 proposed amendments being considered. But the bill would start off by imposing annual fees of $6.7 billion on health insurance companies, $4 billion on medical device producers, $2.3 billion on drug manufacturers and $750 million on clinical laboratories, all of which would surely be passed on to consumers in higher prices. The insurance companies’ $6.7 billion fees alone would come to some 60% of the industry’s after tax earnings.

And then American families who do not have health insurance–the people the Democrats claim they’re trying to help–would be assessed finds of between $750 to $1,900 a year. All this reflects Congress’s simple objective: government rather than individual control of our health care.

Read the rest of the column

From OneNewsNow

Despite the public outcry over President Obama’s government-run healthcare plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insistent on pushing through a government health insurance program that works like Medicare. One healthcare reform expert says Pelosi is not only disregarding the concerns of most Americans, but she’s also disregarding the fact that Medicare is $38 trillion in debt and going bankrupt.

Roll Call is reporting that Speaker Pelosi (D-California) is planning to include in the House healthcare bill a new income tax on the wealthiest Americans, as well as a stronger government-run health insurance plan or “public option” than some moderate Blue Dog Democrats desire.
 
Blue Dogs in the House Energy and Commerce Committee had worked out a deal with Chairman Henry Waxman (D-California) to make a public option negotiate payment rates with medical providers instead of dictating them. However, Pelosi reportedly plans to peg public option payment rates to Medicare payment rates.
 
Roll Call also reports Pelosi wants to finish work on the bill this week so it can be scored by the Congressional Budget Office and move to the full House floor by mid-October.

Read the rest of the story.

From the Washington Times

Trying to capitalize on voters’ anger at lawmakers this summer, Republicans on Wednesday launched bids in both the House and Senate aiming to force Democrats to let them have at least three days to read bills before they’re put up for a vote.

In the House, Rep. Greg Walden, Oregon Republican, filed a petition to force a vote on a bill with bipartisan backing that would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in its final form, 72 hours prior to a vote.

“At my public meetings and events, people always want to know, ‘Have you read these bills? Why don’t they give you time to read these bills?’ ” Mr. Walden said. “Members of Congress, the public, and the press all deserve the time to read these bills before we have to vote on them on the House floor.”

Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee, meanwhile, defeated a GOP amendment requiring a 72-hour waiting period and a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the proposed health care overhaul bill now being considered by the panel.

Only one Democrat – Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas – voted for the measure, which would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about two weeks in order to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation. Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require the committee to post the full bill online in “conceptual” rather than legal language, as well as a CBO cost estimate.

The minority party accusing the majority of rushing bills through Congress is nothing new. But Democrats have attracted special attention this year with a series of last-minute votes on bills that exceed more than 1,000 pages.

Read the rest of the story

By John Goodman — Remember what Barack Obama said about Hillary Clinton’s health plan?  “Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it…and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”  Well, that idea is back, says John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Welcome to Obama Care ala Max Baucus.  The specifics of the bill are apparently changing hourly and there are 564 amendments being proposed.  However, the core features are likely to remain intact, says Goodman.  Like other versions of the health reform before Congress, this bill will:

• Require every American to buy a health insurance plan that will be designed in Washington and (through time) be shaped and molded by special interest pressures or pay a hefty tax.
• Subsidize health insurance for young people by taking about $500 billion away from Medicare and Medicaid.
• Cause several million (mostly moderate-income) seniors to lose their coverage under Medicare Advantage.
• Cause millions of families to move from private coverage (which allows them to see a broad array of doctors) to Medicaid and S-CHIP programs (where health care access is much more limited).
• Cause millions of American families to lose their current private coverage and obtain insurance in an artificial market (an Exchange), where insurers will have perverse incentives to underprovide to the sickest patients.
• Nationalize the private health insurance marketplace by effectively outlawing a real market for health care risks.

But unlike the other bills, explains Goodman, this bill has two additional harsh features:

• A 35 percent tax on private health insurance — initially targeting “Cadillac” plans, but eventually reaching all plans.
• An employer play-or-pay mandate that is effectively an implicit tax as high as 26 percent or more on the wages of middle-income workers.

Source: John C. Goodman, “Senator Baucus Declares War on the Middle Class,” John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog, September 23, 2009.

Posted from Judicial Watch

Disregarding the First Amendment’s right to free speech, the Obama Administration has issued a threatening gag order forbidding health insurance companies from disclosing information to their customers about Medicare cuts under its healthcare overhaul.

Ordered by a powerful Senate Democrat, the government agency that oversees Medicare, the Department of Health and Human Services, warned insurance companies this week that they face legal action for informing seniors about the potential for lost benefits under the legislation being considered by Congress.

The administration’s threat was a response to a letter sent out by one of the nation’s largest insurance companies (Kentucky-based Humana) informing supplemental Medicare insurance customers that their benefits will be reduced under the Democrat’s plan. “Millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable,” according to the letter, which also urged customers to contact their representative in Congress.

Obama has indeed proposed a $500 billion slash in Medicare benefits over the next few years in order to pay for his plan, which he says will shift health spending from senior adults to those not currently covered. Additionally, the non-partisan and independent Congressional Budget Office has determined that the administration’s proposed Medicare cuts will significantly reduce seniors’ benefits.

Yet the president and Democratic leaders want to keep citizens in the dark, bullying a government agency that’s supposed to protect the health of all Americans to instead threaten the free flow of valuable information that could compromise that mission. The agency’s stern notice orders insurance companies to “immediately discontinue” mailings or web site postings mentioning the Medicare cuts. 

Outraged that the government is muzzling free speech as well as the truth about the health bill, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Humana’s headquarters) ordered that the Obama Administration gag order be immediately lifted. “First and foremost, this episode should be of serious concern to millions of seniors on Medicare who deserve to know what the government has in mind for their health care,” McConnell said, “but it should also frighten anyone who cherishes their First Amendment right to free speech — whether in Louisville, Helena, San Francisco, or anywhere else.”

From the Politico

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase. 

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.” 

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family. 

Read the rest of the story

From gop.gov

Administration Silences Medicare Advantage Critics—So AARP Can Collect More “Kickbacks”

“There’s an inherent conflict of interest….They’re ending up becoming very dependent on sources of income.”
 - Former AARP Executive Marilyn Moon, quoted in Bloomberg article

This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating Humana for providing “misleading” information regarding the Administration’s proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage policies-and prohibited other Medicare Advantage plans from providing similar information on how Democrat health “reform” could take away their current coverage.
 
Yet the Administration’s edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats’ government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely.  Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization’s operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors’ medical care-with Democrats’ full approval:

•  The Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans proposed in Democrats’ government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would cause millions of seniors to lose their current plan and enroll in government-run Medicare.

•  Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance.  While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats’ government takeover of health care.

•  A review of its financial statements finds that in 2008, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies-$652.7 million in direct “royalties and fees,” and an increase of more than 31 percent from the $497.6 million in similar revenue AARP generated in 2007.

• Royalty revenues now comprise more than half-60.3 percent-of all AARP revenues; a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization’s total revenues.

•  The Bloomberg article-which highlighted what one observer called AARP’s “dirty little secret”-profiled seniors who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage.  One noted that “AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal….This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen.”  Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization’s leadership asking whether AARP had a “‘special relationship’ with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?’”-and when he arrived at AARP headquarters for a tour, was promptly escorted out of the marble-covered atrium.

•  While H.R. 3200 would place strict price controls on Medicare Advantage plans-requiring them to pay out 85 percent of premium revenues in medical claims-Medigap policies face a far less strict 65 percent requirement.  In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund “kickbacks” to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans.

The higher prices charged by AARP plans, and the organization’s increasing dependence upon revenue from “royalties,” provide tangible evidence why AARP would support cuts to Medicare Advantage that would likely increase their “kickbacks” from Medigap plans.  However, it does not answer several key questions:

• Given the myriad new layers of insurance regulation included in Democrats’ government takeover of health care, why does the legislation not include a single provision attempting to impose any new restrictions on Medigap policies?

• Did Democrats “forget” to protect seniors-or were they informed that AARP could not support legislation that would limit its lucrative revenue source?

• Similarly, did CMS “forget” to include AARP among the organizations whose First Amendment rights to inform seniors of harmful Medicare provisions were restricted-or did the Administration only wish to silence its critics, and not outside organizations using “kickbacks” to fund advertising in support of the Democrat agenda?

These questions hint at a more fundamental query: With seniors believing that AARP is “making money on the backs of old people,” who should believe that the organization is looking out for seniors’ interests and not its own?

By Representative John Kline

I have spent a lot of time these last few weeks meeting with workers, small business owners, health care professionals and hardworking families from rural and suburban Minnesota. What I hear from them is what my colleagues are hearing from Americans all across this great nation — a sense of uncertainty about the health care legislation moving through Congress like a runaway freight train.

They ask: What will happen to my coverage, and my choice of doctors? Will I have to stand in line to receive treatment? Or get approval from someone in Washington before getting a knee replacement or filling a prescription for the latest diabetes medication?

Access to quality care and the comfort of a familiar physician aren’t the only things on Minnesotans’ minds. With trillion dollar price tags becoming almost commonplace in Washington, American families are worried about what all this spending means for their jobs — and their children — and their children’s children.

No wonder Americans are scared. Health care reform is being imposed upon them, rather than developed with them, and the potential costs are far too high. And sadly — monetary costs are only part of the picture.

Many are concerned that Democrats’ plans may cost patients the right to see their family doctor or have any input into a life-altering — if not life-saving — medical treatment. They also fear, and rightly so, that it may cost them their jobs, a devastating prospect in an economy that has already lost 6.9 million jobs since this recession began.

When it comes to health care reform, Minnesotans do not want speeches from their elected leaders, they want solutions. When the president urged Congress to pursue bipartisan solutions, majority leadership in Congress responded with ardent defense of partisan legislation crafted behind closed doors. At more than 1,000 pages, it is complicated, convoluted, and quite simply will not work.

It’s time to press the “reset” button.

This issue is far too important to be determined by partisan battles. There are solid, commonsense ideas members of all political stripes can coalesce around as we seek to stop unnecessary political bickering and formulate a solution that puts the American people ahead of government ambition.

For example, most of my colleagues recognize that not all high school and college graduates are immediately able to find a job that offers health care coverage after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ health policies up to the age of 25, the number of uninsured Americans could be reduced by up to 7 million. That is a pretty good start if you ask me.

It is also important to recognize the role employers, large and small, play in providing insurance. I think we can all see the value in helping the 10 million uninsured Americans who are eligible, but not enrolled in, an employer-sponsored plan get health care coverage by encouraging employers to move to opt-out, rather than opt-in rules.

I also think we should help small employers reduce the administrative costs of providing coverage to their employees by establishing a new small business tax credit.

Washington faces an enormous opportunity. The President can work with Congress — Democrats and Republicans — in pursuit of areas in which we have found agreement, or he can focus on the areas that divide us in a continued embrace of the politics of the past. I agree with the president that the status quo is unsustainable.

The folks running Washington should hit the “reset” button on health care reform and stopping the government takeover that threatens American jobs.

John Kline of Lakeville, a Republican, represents Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

From the Washington Times

Across the country, amid the heat swell of the ongoing health care debate, many of the nation’s gray panthers have a new fire growing in their bellies, attending town halls, writing letters, and shifting the balance of political power as polls show them moving to the GOP.

They are not just making themselves heard on their key issues of Medicare and insurance, but giving their legislators a piece of their mind that a way of life is slipping away.

“They” are seniors like Jerry Johnson, a 75-year-old retired yacht salesman from Tallahassee, Fla. He says he’s spending his days delving into issues like a seasoned Washington pundit.

“I’m doing this for my kids,” he says of his activism, which includes talking with voters, attending town-hall meetings and listening to political radio “12 hours a day.”

“They all have lives and are busy working but I’m really concerned about the debt and the world they’ll have to face,” he said. “I see myself as their warrior because I see our country slipping away. It’s going to go a lot more quickly unless someone like me gets active. I’ve got the time.”

Mr. Johnson said it’s the most politically engaged he’s been in his life, and there’s a reason for that. The Michigan native said that since the last presidential election, the stakes have never been so high, which is why he’s out of his easy chair and moving into the fray.

Read the rest of the story

From Rasmussen Report

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s.

The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has remained above 40% and the Strongly Favor totals have been in the mid-20s. This suggests public opinion is hardening when it comes to the plan that is currently working its way through Congress.

However, now just 48% say that health care reform plan is at least somewhat likely to pass this year, a figure that has been trending down in recent days. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.

Rasmussen Reports has been tracking support for the health care plan on a daily basis since the president’s speech to Congress last week intended to revitalize the troubled initiative. Given the seemingly settled nature of this week’s findings, we will now begin to track support for the plan on a weekly basis (see day-by-day numbers).

Read the rest of the story.

Posted from Wall Street Journal

The Baucus plan would make insurance even more expensive

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus finally unveiled his health-care plan yesterday to a chorus of bipartisan jeers. The reaction is surprising given that President Obama all but endorsed the outlines of the Baucus plan last week. But the hoots are only going to grow louder as more people read what he’s actually proposing.

The headline is that Mr. Baucus has dropped the unpopular “public option,” but this is a political offering without much policy difference. His plan remains a public option by other means, imposing vast new national insurance regulation, huge new subsidies to pay for the higher insurance costs this regulation will require and all financed by new taxes and penalties on businesses, individuals and health-care providers. Other than that, Hippocrates, the plan does no harm.

The centerpiece of the Obama-Baucus plan is a decree that everyone purchase heavily regulated insurance policies or else pay a penalty. This government mandate would require huge subsidies as well as brute force to get anywhere near the goal of universal coverage. The inevitable result would be a vast increase in the government’s share of U.S. health spending, forcing doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and other health providers to serve politics as well as or even over and above patients.

The plan essentially rewrites all insurance contracts, including those offered by businesses to their workers. Benefits and premiums must be tailored to federal specifications. First-dollar coverage would be mandated for many services, and cost-sharing between businesses and employees would be sharply reduced, though this is one policy that might reduce health spending by giving consumers more skin in the game. Nor would insurance be allowed to bear any relation to risk. Inevitably, costs would continue to climb.

Everyone would be forced to buy these government-approved policies, whether or not they suit their needs or budget. Families would face tax penalties as high as $3,800 a year for not complying, singles $950. As one resident of Massachusetts where Mitt Romney imposed an individual mandate in 2006 put it in a Journal story yesterday, this is like taxing the homeless for not buying a mansion.

The political irony here is rich. If liberal health-care reform is going to make people better off, why does it require “a very harsh, stiff penalty” to make everyone buy it? That’s what Senator Obama called it in his Presidential campaign when he opposed the individual mandate supported by Hillary Clinton. He correctly argued then that many people were uninsured not because they didn’t want coverage but because it was too expensive. The nearby mailer to Ohio primary voters gives the flavor of Mr. Obama’s attacks.

And the Baucus-Obama plan will only make insurance even more expensive. Employers will be required to offer “qualified coverage” to their workers (or pay another “free rider” penalty) and workers will be required to accept it, paying for it in lower wages. The vast majority of households already confront the same tradeoff today, except Congress will now declare that there’s only one right answer.

Read the rest at Wall Street Journal.

Posted from the Examiner

President Obama and congressional Democrats this week, following focus group testing, altered their rhetoric by beginning to refer to their proposed health insurance exchange as a the creation of a health insurance marketplace. The change in rhetoric is simple enough to understand, as the term marketplace is more soothing to a general public that has grown accustomed to more than 200 years of a capitalist based economy. But, the question remains as to whether the term marketplace is an accurate depiction of the proposed Health Insurance Exchange or rather just creative marketing designed to create a false perception.

A marketplace, by 200 years of evolving definition, is a forum that promotes healthy competition between businesses offering a diversity in products and services at varying prices. A marketplace is the the ultimate exercise in capitalism as the public, not the operators of the forum or businesses, determine which products are purchased and which companies survive. The best example of a marketplace is simply a flea market, whereas any vendor is allowed to sell the products they design or choose and the consumer has the ability to determine what products they will purchase and at what price. If the administration wanted to create a true health Insurance marketplace they could do so in three very easy steps:

#1) The largest factors in Health insurance premiums are the size of the insurance pool and the claims experience of those insured. The more individuals covered under a policy, the more manageable, predictable and stable the claims payouts become. However, the federal government does not allow health insurance companies to offer policies across state lines and does not allow small groups or businesses to create associations in order to increase their insurance pool. As a result, the insurance pool of a policy is limited by the number of individuals covered within a single geographic location and in the case of employer-sponsored coverage by the number of employees. A simple change in federal regulations allowing companies to sell policies across state lines and allowing small businesses to combine their plans would dramatically increase the size of insurance pools and provide more manageable and stable premiums.

#2) Under the current system, not only are plans limited to an individual state, but the government controls which plans may be offered within the state and which companies will be allowed to sell policies in the state. As a result, the marketplace is limited by the government and regulations greatly vary from state to state. By removing regulations that prohibit interstate selling and uniform standards companies new competition would enter into most states, creating a diversity in options and ending a practice of preferential treatment of companies by state regulators.

#3) Creating a uniform system of small business and low income tax credits designed to encourage inclusion to the health insurance marketplace at a minimum coverage level, rather than a penalizing tax structure or mandated benefits level, will encourage small businesses and the uninsured to purchase at least catastrophic coverage while maintaining the right to choose a level coverage based upon individual preferences. The adoption of such simple steps would create a true health insurance marketplace designed to promote competition and allow the public the opportunity to determine coverage levels and premiums. Within a true health insurance marketplace, the consumer has the ability to determine what benefits and coverage levels they will purchase while choosing what premium is acceptable for that coverage.

So can the proposed health insurance exchange be considered a marketplace?

No, the Health Insurance Exchange, as currently written neither promotes competition nor public choice.

Read the rest of the article