My opponent can't answer this question before the next round

Here is Congress's health care bill in it's entirety:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

My challenge is that my opponent will not be able to answer a simple question I have about this bill before the 72 hour time limit expires. I will allow my opponent to look else where if they so desire.

The Question: If a "Public Option" is made available, can I continue to keep private health insurance if I am laid off, quit or get fired. In other words, If I lose my private health insurance that I am supposedly going to be able to keep, will I be able to buy private health insurance again or will I be forced into the Public Option permanently.

I thank my opponent for this debate and the readers for the opportunity.

I negate the resolution, "My opponent can't answer this question before the next round."

In other words, I must prove that I can answer the given question before next round, and I shall do just that.

My opponent quoted:

"My challenge is that my opponent will not be able to answer a simple question I have about this bill before the 72 hour time limit expires. I will allow my opponent to look else where if they so desire."
I shall answer the simple question in this round. I do posses the ability to look elsewhere as my opponent has granted.

Here is the question once again:

"The Question: If a "Public Option" is made available, can I continue to keep private health insurance if I am laid off, quit or get fired. In other words, If I lose my private health insurance that I am supposedly going to be able to keep, will I be able to buy private health insurance again or will I be forced into the Public Option permanently."

This is a post from my source:

=================================

It's not an option.

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage.Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither.

..... What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

..... The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

As I commented to dscott earlier today, "So Obama's definition of a 'level playing field' is one where his private competitors can't get any new customers."

The fact that little old IBD (no offense, guys, but I know your resources are relatively thin) had to find and investigate all of this on its own should be a cause for shame in every major newsroom in America. More than likely, it is not.

Yes, the House bill writers really tried to obfuscate their handiwork. It's very easy to breeze over "does not" without realizing that it really means "cannot." But IBD caught it, and hundreds of other supposed "real journalists" did not.

Here is all of what the Associated Press had to say about health care legislation at 2:37 this afternoon (saved here at host):

The overall House bill, which would cover around 94 percent of non-elderly residents, would create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers, require individuals to get insurance and large companies to provide it and tax the wealthiest Americans.

..... The Senate health panel's $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.

I guess the end of new individual private insurance wasn't that important.

Somebody at the AP, AFP, Reuters, other wires, the New York Times, the Washington Post, all major newspapers, the alphabet news channels (including Fox in this case), and so many other self-important establishment media outlets needs to explain to the public they supposedly serve why they didn't detect and investigate what IBD found.

They can't. Consumers of meaningful news, be advised. If you're not reading IBD's and WSJ's editorials, there's a high chance you're not truly informed. If you rely on the rest of the establishment media, there's a high chance you're misinformed.

Individual private health insurance is illegal under the bill.

Here is my source for this: http://www.ask.com...

==========================================

Simply put, the answer to your question is: No, you cannot continue to keep private health insurance if you are laid off, quit, or get fired. It appears that you will be unable to buy private health insurance again and most likely will be forced into the Public Option.

I have answered the question and heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.

And now to all of the people who have scorned me and called me stupid and every other name you can think off that attcks ones intelligence for saying that our govt is trying to socialize our health care system, I fricken told you so!!! And I have been saying it sence I joined this website. All you people who put trust in govt are complete fools and you all deserve to lose your freedom. Unfortunately you will take me down with you. Govt is the problem, get it through your thick skulls. I was right on this, I was right about the auto industry, and I was right about the banking industry. This country will be full blown socialist before Obama leaves office and capitalism will cease to exsist. Now go get in the bread line comrades. How anyone can not see that Obama is a communist is just sticking their head in the sand.

Vote con. He answered the question spot on. If you wont listen to me listen to him. Health care is going to be taken over by our govt, and if you think it is expensive now just wait till govt gets its hands on it. There wont be enough taxes in the world to pay for it.

I thank my opponent for his response and the readers for this opportunity.

My opponent himself told the readers to vote Con, and I agree. I was able to answer his question and I am led to believe that he accepted my answer. I heavily urge a Con vote.

My opponent quoted:

"Vote con."
I agree, and heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.