Heard this on Bill Bennett this morning and found multiple sources. From the Wall Street Journal – Repealing Erisa (emphasis mine):

One by one, President Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation: Costs will explode, not fall; taxes will have to soar to pay for it; and now we are learning that you won’t be able to “keep your health-care plan” either.

The reality is that the House health bill, which the Administration praised to the rafters, will force drastic changes in almost all insurance coverage, including the employer plans that currently work best. About 177 million people—or 62% of those under age 65—get insurance today through their jobs, and while rising costs are a problem, according to every survey most employees are happy with the coverage. A major reason for this relative success is a 1974 federal law known by the acronym Erisa, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly—to offer uniform plans across state lines. This lets thousands of businesses avoid, for the most part, the costly federal and state regulations on covered treatments, pricing, rate setting and so on. It also gives them flexibility to design insurance to recruit and retain workers in a competitive labor market. Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.

Goodbye to all that. The House bill says that after a five-year grace period all Erisa insurance offerings will have to win government approval—both by the Department of Labor and a new “health choices commissioner” who will set federal standards for what is an acceptable health plan. This commissar—er, commissioner—can fine employers that don’t comply and even has “suspension of enrollment” powers for plans that he or she has vetoed, until “satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur.”

In other words, the insurance coverage of 132 million people—the product of enormously complex business and health-care decisions—will now be subject to bureaucratic nanomanagement. If employers don’t meet some still-to-be-defined minimum package, they’ll have to renegotiate thousands of contracts nationwide to Washington’s specifications. The political incentives will of course demand an ever-more generous “minimum” benefit and less cost-sharing, much as many states have driven up prices in the individual insurance market with mandates. Erisa’s pluralistic structure will gradually constrict toward a single national standard.

Yet a computer programming firm, say, and a grocery store chain have very different insurance needs, and in any case may not be able to afford the same kind and level of benefits. Innovation in insurance products will also be subject to political tampering. Likely casualties include the wellness initiatives that give workers financial incentives to take more responsibility for their own health, such as Safeway’s. Some politicians will claim that’s unfair. High-deductible plans with health savings accounts are also out of political favor, therefore certain to go overboard. If you have one of those and like it, too bad.

The new Erisa regime will be especially difficult to meet for businesses that operate with very slim profit margins or have large numbers of part-time or seasonal workers. They may simply “cash out” and surrender 8% of their payroll under the employer-mandate tax. A new analysis by the Lewin Group, prepared for the Heritage Foundation, finds that some 88.1 million people will be shifted out of private employer health insurance under the House bill. If those people preferred their prior plan, well, too bad again.

The largest employers—though not all—may clear the minimum bar, at least at first. But in addition to the “health choices” administrative burden, the cost of labor will rise because the House guts another key section of Erisa. Currently, lawsuits about employee benefits are barred under the law, allowing large employers to avoid the state tort lotteries in disputes over coverage. No longer. As a gratuity to the trial bar, Democrats will now subject businesses to these liabilities in the name of health “reform.”

If you can’t sue the government, but can sue your employer, the end result is exactly what Obama and his radical allies want – everyone on the public option. Employers, in order to protect themselves against frivolous lawsuits, would dump private plans en masse. One of the reasons for spiraling health care costs is unnecessary extra tests ordered by your doctor to cover themselves and mitigate the chances of a lawsuit. Now the lawyers are going to get to play in a whole new sandbox. Cost savings, eh?

If you think the fight is over, think again.

Read The Road To Waterloo Is Paved With Socialist Intentions. You will find links with information on how to contact your senator and representative. Make use of it now (see below).

Also read Michelle Malkin’s Ghoulish science + Obamacare = health hazard.

Glenn Reynolds: The Press Has Met Their Waterloo and It’s Obama

Can we get ABBA to record that?

CNN Political Ticker: Experts debate proposed ‘big brother’ medical council

Have you heard the latest? Re-branding – Health Care Reform is now Health Insurance Reform. Another example of elitists looking down their noses and thinking we all operate on dim bulbs. I would say a rose by any other name is still a rose, but roses are beautiful and represent love and honesty to me. So how about, a piece of crap by any other name is still a piece of crap.

Another piece from Michelle: Barbara Boxer: My jerkish behavior is great for fund-raising! Apparently, even some Dems are getting concerned about her odd behavior.

Stop the ACLU reports: Obama Warns Against Scare Tactics. He Should Take His Own Advice. Only to a radical liberal would scare tactics equate with truth.

Also of note, The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi may pull a power play and skip the Energy and Commerce Committee and bring the vote for a bill to the floor before the August recess.

House Democrats, in the faint hopes of getting a vote before August recess, indicated they are considering bypassing the Energy and Commerce Committee altogether, where the bill has stalled, and proceeding right to the floor.

“The preferable course would be to go through the committee,” Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said Thursday night. “But all options will be on the table.”

Don’t let them jam this down your throat like the cap and trade bill. Contact your representative now.