Here's a new right-wing talking point on health reform to look out for.
An editorial in Investor's Business Daily claims that a provision in the House health reform bill (pdf link) would "mak[e] individual private medical insurance illegal." And this is quickly becoming a right-wing talking point. Their proof? A paragraph in the bill, under the heading "Limitation On New Enrollment," that 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 Y1," the year the bill becomes law.
The editorial, of course, is wrong. They grossly misread the bill, which they would have known had they actually looked at it. The section they are quoting is titled "Grandfathered Health Insurance Defined," and it defines only that specific term:
Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Those "conditions" include the no-new-enrollments provision IBD quotes.
This means that the definition they rely on doesn't apply to plans that accept new members after the bill becomes law, i.e., that aren't "grandfathered health insurance coverage." That doesn't mean other plans are banned.
Why is this provision needed? Everyone agrees that health insurance reform is needed, irrespective of whether it includes a public option. So much of the bill is directed at making reforms that have nothing to do with a public health insurance plan, and plans that enroll people after it becomes law have to comply with those reforms. But since people should have the option of retaining their present plans, there's a grandfather clause, under the heading "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage."
IBD calls the header "Orwellian," but only because they don't understand (or are deliberately misrepresenting) what's going on.