Oops: Health-Care Bill Does Not Cover Kids' Pre-Existing Conditions

[Panameno718]

Obama, yesterday, touted the centerpiece of the health-care reforms that will go into effect this year. This is what he and Democrats are to run on for November. These are the advantages of the bill that are to bring about public opinion's swift and total 180:

"This year, tens of thousands of uninsured Americans with a preexisting condition and parents whose children have a preexisting condition will finally be able to purchase the coverage they need," he said.

Making sure kids who have pre-existing conditions are covered? Hard to argue with that. There's just one problem. In the writing of this bill that manipulates 1/6 of the American economy, the wise men and women of the United States Congress somehow overlooked making sure kids with pre-existing conditions were covered:

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now.

Full protection for kids will not come until 2014. Kathleen Sebelius, our new national health administrator, will try to fix the oversight with new regulations.

But nobody worry. Just because the legislative language doesn't cover one of the president's priorities, which he has included in every speech of the last week and after the bill's passage, doesn't mean that there will be unforeseen consequences therein for you and your family.

Other than that, this baby is totally air-tight. Trust them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...l-does-not-cover-kids-pre-existing-conditions

 

[Panameno718]

Gap in health care law's protection for children


WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, "This year ... parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year."

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

"To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

The coverage problem could mainly affect parents who purchase their own coverage for the family, as many self-employed people have to do. Families covered through employer plans typically do not have to worry about being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law, even without Sebelius' fix. They could seek coverage through state high-risk insurance pools slated for a major infusion of federal funds.

The high-risk pools are intended to serve as a backstop until 2014, when insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to those in frail health. That same year, new insurance markets would open for business, and the government would begin to provide tax credits to help millions of Americans pay premiums.

An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.

"We're taking a closer look at it to see what exactly the requirement will be," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main industry lobby

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0

 

[Panameno718]

Children with pre-existing conditions WILL NOT ALL automatically be covered



Well, in 2014 all children will have to be covered and not subject to rejection. As will anyone who can afford to buy insurance. (UPDATE below.)

But, under Obama's Big Health Insurance Parasite Profit Protection Plan (BHIP-PPP), contrary to statements implying otherwise, only some children with pre-existing conditions will have to be covered by health insurers in six months. This is a major and jarring detail about the vaunted great benefits of the new bill -- One of the benefits being touted as something Dems can run on in November.

From this AP article,, Gap in Healthcare Bill's Protection of Children.

Parents who have believed the Obama hype are going to be very disappointed. It's not nice to lie to parents who have children with serious, dangerous illnesses. Or even less dangerous illnesses.

Can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions? Well, only if you already have insurance and the child subsequently becomes ill. Read and weep. Then consider how these people will vote come November. Oh, Dems, haven't you learned? People hate, hate, hate being mislead and lied to!!!

Thefutureisnow posts this tidbit at FDL:

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot not exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year. From AP

Translate: If there’s a family with a sick child that currently is without insurance, they can legally be turned down for coverage. The fine print: That pre-existing condition clause that kicks in at the six month mark only includes:

1. Those families that already have insurance and end up with a child who unexpectedly/suddenly is diagnosed with a serious illness; and
2. uhh, guess that’s it. Oh, wait, the writers of this forward-looking law assumed that, gosh golly gee whiz, if an uninsured family with a sick kid applies to get coverage and the insurance company accepts (whhhaaaatt?), the company can’t write in an exclusion that exempts coverage of that illness at the time of purchase. I know, I know…I can foresee this happening zillions of times.

Seriously: Even as I knew how awful this law is, I’m shocked. Deception and a sales job of the highest order.

It's not for nothing the AHIP 2008 draft was used by Baucus to write the Obama BHIP-PPP. He who writes the bill has the advantage, ainahey?

Now, my reading of the second AP paragraph seems to indicate that if the child is currently insured, but an ailment is not currently covered, it will be now. But I'm not sure about that...developing.

The article continues:

Full protection for children would come in 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

In recent speeches, Obama has given the impression that the immediate benefit for kids is much more robust.

The article goes on to give examples of how Obama is misleading the public.

What other suprises will be revealed as the bill is reported on more closely? Oh, my. Our president lies? Or, is he close enough to accuracy for political bamboozlement work?

UPDATE: From the AP article:

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

"To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

SNIP

An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.

"We're taking a closer look at it to see what exactly the requirement will be," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main industry lobby.

The lack of explicit language drew this response from the administration, per article by Kaiser Health News:

Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, but they will issue clarifying regulations. "The law is clear: Insurance plans that cover children cannot deny coverage to a child because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Health and Human Services spokesman Nick Papas said. "To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the Secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term “pre-existing exclusion” applies to both a child's access to a plan and to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan.”

Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Sander M. Levin, and George Miller, the Democratic chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the House of Representatives, said Wednesday that the administration response should be sufficient.

“Under the legislation … plans that include coverage of children cannot deny coverage to a child based upon a pre-existing condition," the joint statement said. "We have been assured by the Department of Health and Human Services that any possible ambiguity in the underlying bill can be addressed by the Secretary with regulation."

Ambiguous legislative language makes for good lobbying opportunities. Possibly even litigation....

http://www.correntewire.com/children_pre_existing_conditions_will_not_all_automatically_be_covered

 

[thoughtone]

So will this be part of the republikkkan's repeal and replace?

 

[Panameno718]

You really dont know history and what party was part of the KKK, just to remind everyone I am not a Republican or Democrat!!!!

So will this be part of the republikkkan's repeal and replace?

 

[thoughtone]

You really dont know history and what party was part of the KKK, just to remind everyone I am not a Republican or Democrat!!!!

Strom Thurman was a member of the KKK, he was originally a Democrat. He left the Democratic party in 1964 because of LBJ's support of civil rights. He had an affair with his Black house keeper. He became a republican and carried that secret until his death. The Democrats fought for civil rights during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, while the republicans resisted it as a party. It's not about what was it is about what is. Now that we have cleared that diversion:

So will this be part of the republikkkan's repeal and replace?

 

[harlem1nyc]

Before today, there was no compassion for the common folks. At this point, I refuse to take shots at such a vast improvement. We all know there is work still to be done!

 

[Lamarr]

So will this be part of the republikkkan's repeal and replace?

just replace wit somebody thats gon read the bill, damn. Is that too much to ask?

I understand the Bankers & Big Insurance wrote the muthafucka, the politicians can at least know what they voted on

 

[thoughtone]

just replace wit somebody thats gon read the bill, damn. Is that too much to ask?

I understand the Bankers & Big Insurance wrote the muthafucka, the politicians can at least know what they voted on

This coming from someone that has no idea how his congressional district is created.

 

[Lamarr]

This coming from someone that has no idea how his congressional district is created.

And that, from someone who thinks the govt can spend its way to prosperity

Face it man, the govt you put so much trust in, didn't read / know whats in the bill

 

[thoughtone]

And that, from someone who thinks the govt can spend its way to prosperity

Face it man, the govt you put so much trust in, didn't read / know whats in the bill

You say has anyone read it? Have YOU read the constitution?

 

[Lamarr]

You say has anyone read it?

Thought, I said:

Face it man, the govt you put so much trust in, didn't read / know whats in the bill

 

[thoughtone]

Thought, I said:

You put trust in the government. Do you hunt and kill your own food?

Again, you didn't know what the census is for. Do you know what is in the constitution. Have you read it? That talking point is ridiculous.

 

[VegasGuy]

The Weekly Standard. That's all I need to see. PASS.

-VG

 

[Lamarr]

You put trust in the government. Do you hunt and kill your own food?

Face it man, the govt you put so much trust in, didn't read / know whats in the bill

Refute that dawg!

Regardless of whether I hunt for my food don't really matter
Regardless of whether I think the moon is made of cheese don't matter
Regardless of whether I think 2-Pac is alive don't really matter
Regardless of whether I think Bernanke got a strong dollar policy don't really matter

The only thing that matters, in this thread, is that you know the Dims didn't read nor write the bill. And I know, that you know, they didn't read / nor write the bill.

Face it man, the govt you put so much trust in, didn't read / know whats in the bill

 

[thoughtone]

source: Huffington Post

OBAMA HEALTH CHIEF TO INSURERS: IT'S OVER, YOU LOST, STOP LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES

Kathleen Sebelius warned the insurance industry Monday not to look for loopholes in health care legislation and informed it that she will be writing regulations to ensure that the industry covers children with preexisting conditions, which some insurers insist is not a requirement of the law.
"The American people debated and discussed health insurance reform for more than a year. Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," writes Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary. The letter was sent to top insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni on Monday and provided to HuffPost by a third party.
President Obama made the ban on denying children with preexisting conditions a central part of his argument in the closing weeks of the reform fight, saying that kids would be protected almost immediately after the bill passed. (The rule would activate in six months.)
But insurers argued that what the law really said was that if they choose to cover children, they must cover expenses arising from preexisting conditions. But they claim that doesn't mean they have to offer insurance at all to that child. Without a public insurance plan for children to opt in to, their only choice is the private market.
Sebelius's letter is an attempt to persuade the private industry to follow the spirit of the law. When Congress returns after the two-week recess, progressive Democrats will again be looking at ways to add a public option to the law. By threatening to refuse to insure sick children, insurers only make the case that much more persuasive.

 

[Chitownheadbusa]

Well first of all the CEO's of the major Insurance companies, and a few "superiors" from within the Medical field, already got what they wanted; thats why they secretly met with Obama and crew and talked them into fucking the American people and taking out of the Public Option, Single payer, etc. So whats all this about?

but anyways
The question is when will the Bil be available for the people to read?
I think when the specifics become available for everyones viewing pleasure...im sure we'll find plenty of things that we wont like.

 

[muckraker10021]

Insurers to Comply With Rules on Children

by Robert Pear

March 30, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/health/policy/31health.html?ref=politics

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from the White House, health insurance companies said Tuesday that they would comply with rules to be issued soon by the Obama administration requiring them to cover children with pre-existing medical problems.

“Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,” said Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Accordingly, she said, “we await and will fully comply with” the rules.

Ms. Ignagni made the commitment in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who had said she feared that some insurers might exploit a possible ambiguity in the new health care law to deny coverage to some sick children.

The White House immediately claimed victory.

In a Twitter message, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, scored the tug of war as “Kids 1, insurance 0.”

Major provisions of the law take effect in 2014. Some, including a ban on “pre-existing condition exclusions” for children under 19, take effect in September. The law does not explicitly say that insurers must sell insurance to families with such children this year, but Democratic Congressional leaders and White House officials said that was their intent.

To eliminate any ambiguity, Ms. Sebelius said, she will issue rules defining the scope of the new law.

Under these rules, Ms. Sebelius said, “children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan,” and “insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child but exclude treatments for that child’s pre-existing condition.”

In response to a question, Nick Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the rules would require insurers to offer coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, including those who have never had health insurance.

Ms. Sebelius said she was pleased that “insurance companies plan to do the right thing.”

It was not immediately clear whether the rules would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to families with children with pre-existing conditions. Administration officials said they would be monitoring any rate increases.

Some Democrats in Congress want Mr. Obama to take a tough line. If insurers could raise premiums without limits, they would, in effect, be denying coverage, Democrats say.

Some insurers said they were unclear about the language of the law, based on differing accounts, and looked forward to detailed guidance from the government.

“There has been some confusion regarding the elimination of pre-existing condition evaluation for children in the health care bill,” said Kristin E. Binns, a spokeswoman for WellPoint, one of the largest insurers. She said the company would “follow the law on this and all matters.”

Insurers said they would accept the administration’s reading of the law, even if they did not fully agree with it, because they wanted to avoid a showdown over the politically explosive issue of health insurance for sick children.

Several lawyers said Congress could easily clear up any confusion by revising the law. “The real solution here is a legislative fix so all players in the industry can act according to a clear set of rules,” said William G. Schiffbauer, a Washington lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies.

Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who helped write a similar provision in an earlier version of the legislation, said the new law “requires that all insurers issue insurance to children regardless of health status, and cover all of their ailments,” starting in September.

Jeff Smokler, a spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said its member companies were “fully committed to complying with the new law” and accepted the principles set forth by Ms. Sebelius.

Gail K. Boudreaux, executive vice president of the UnitedHealth Group, said she supported the administration’s effort to clarify the law “to ensure that no child will be denied access to health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.”

“We expect that the new regulations will eliminate any uncertainty about the law’s intent,” Ms. Boudreaux said.



<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

READ: Congressional Budget Office exhaustive analysis of who benefited from the Bush tax cuts


-

 

[redemption]

I DOUBLE DOG DARE the insurance companies to pull some bullshit between now and 2014. If they do, the new topic for the 2012 election will be "THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC OPTION".

Make my day guys

 

[Lamarr]

health insurance companies said Tuesday that they would comply with rules to be issued soon by the Obama administration

Oh, so they still makin up the rules?

Several lawyers said Congress could easily clear up any confusion by revising the law.

This is exactly why I held the position Congress didn't read nor write this bill. If they did, they would've got it right the first time.

Aetna, Humana, Wellpoint, UnitedHealth stocks rise: rally ON!

 

[Piff504]

You really dont know history and what party was part of the KKK, just to remind everyone I am not a Republican or Democrat!!!!

why do cacs post this bullshit. knowing they switched sides during the civil rights era