PDA

View Full Version : Preexisting Conditions for Children Not Included



Sev
03-24-2010, 06:27 PM
It appears that one of the star portions of the health care bill that was toted about was not slated to start until after 2014 in the bill. Preexisting conditions for children.

Simply amazing. This thing is going to be a colossal disaster if they cant even remember to have their talking points start immediately in the final bill.

Just remember under reconciliation the addition of that will cause the bill to go back for another vote.

What a bunch of buffoons!!!

Sev
03-24-2010, 06:38 PM
On second thought it was probably preplanned as Obama is the most pro kill the children president we have ever elected.

One has to wonder.

Fresh out of port and the flagship takes a torpedo.

Qtec
03-25-2010, 03:00 AM
Better post a link quick before eg8r [ The Eg8r8or ] gets on your tail.

Q

Qtec
03-25-2010, 03:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"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.”</span>

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."</div></div>

link (http://www.correntewire.com/children_pre_existing_conditions_will_not_all_auto matically_be_covered)

Q

Gayle in MD
03-25-2010, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"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.”</span>

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."</div></div>

link (http://www.correntewire.com/children_pre_existing_conditions_will_not_all_auto matically_be_covered)

Q </div></div>

A full time job, trying to knock down all the lies they hear and then can't wait to babble, from RW pundits.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sev
03-25-2010, 06:28 AM
The point is they had over a year and 3000 pages of gibberish to get it right and they did not.

We should all be very afraid that if they can't get one of their flagship portions of the bill correct out of the gate what else is wrong with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage_3
<span style="color: #003333">
Gap in health care bill's protection for children


By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 23, 10:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

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.

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.

"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."

There was no immediate response from White House officials Tuesday.

The coverage problem mainly affects 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. 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.[/b]</span>

Sev
03-25-2010, 06:30 AM
If they have to issue regulations after all this time and debate that indicates in no uncertain terms that they did not get it right.

LWW
03-25-2010, 06:47 AM
They also excluded the POTUS and a lot of government employees from the plan.

That's what happens when you have to pass a bill to see what's in it.

LWW

pooltchr
03-25-2010, 07:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If they have to issue regulations after all this time and debate that indicates in no uncertain terms that they did not get it right. </div></div>

You could ask the same 100 people to make one peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I am confident they could screw it up!!

Steve

eg8r
03-25-2010, 08:59 AM
Sorry qtip but he did not post an opinion piece like you do.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-25-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry qtip but he did not post an opinion piece like you do.

eg8r </div></div>

I see you deleted your other post....glad you caught your blazing inaccuracy.

G.

eg8r
03-25-2010, 09:21 AM
No, I was not ready to searching it out anymore. If I have time later this evening I will do so.

eg8r

Sev
03-25-2010, 05:56 PM
What were you going to investigate?

eg8r
03-26-2010, 03:04 PM
Global warming.

eg8r

Deeman3
03-26-2010, 04:13 PM
Gayle will straighten all this out by Monday! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

llotter
03-26-2010, 05:31 PM
I just never understood how or why insurance co. could or should insure people with preexisting conditions, especially at the same price as the healthy. In a free society, I would think that a private co. should be able to design and sell whatever the market will pay for.

The basic question really is, 'do we believe in private property not?' Have we moved into a society where the State get first dibs on your property/income? If a hungry stranger comes to your door, does he have the right to take your food or must he wait for you to give it to him? If that same person comes to your door needing medical care, does he have the right to take your resources or do you have the right to consider your own needs first?

Aren't we creating a society of dependents that have signed over their freedom for security and will not end up with either freedom or security, to paraphrase B. Franklin?

Sev
03-26-2010, 06:32 PM
Of course we are. Its all about good intentions and feelings of guilt.

llotter
03-26-2010, 08:54 PM
I have a problem understanding how stealing property makes anyone feel good and or how breaking a Commandment because of good intentions can have a good outcome.

Sev
03-26-2010, 09:11 PM
Well nobody said it had to make sense. It a matter of believing your actually helping people and doing the right thing.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is they had over a year and 3000 pages of gibberish to get it right and they did not.

We should all be very afraid that if they can't get one of their flagship portions of the bill correct out of the gate what else is wrong with it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage_3
<span style="color: #003333">
Gap in health care bill's protection for children


By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 23, 10:13 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

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.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>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. </span><span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.</span>
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.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"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."</span>
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."

There was no immediate response from White House officials Tuesday.

The coverage problem mainly affects parents <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.</span>
Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law. 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.[/b]</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>No, that isn't the POINT.</span> The point is that you can't wait to condemn a bill which:</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.”</span>

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 … <span style='font-size: 20pt'>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." </span> <span style="color: #000066">And which will continue to be streamlined over the course of many years.

Reform is never simple, it is always complex, and always takes time to iron out all of the peramiters.

This year no child can be dropped, or denied, for pre-existing conditions. THIS YEAR. so, basically, your title, is a lie. But then, there are so many lies and convoluted presumptions on this forum, everything from ridiculous statements that the President is a foreign, socialist, communist moron, trying to indoctrinate our children by speaking to school classes across our country, to presumptions that every poor person in this country is on the dole from the government.

Oh, he bows too deeply, and oh, he apologized for America, none of which is anything new, and both of which we have seen and heard Republican presidents do, AND WORSE, time and time again.

You're just angry because the people who put this country into the economic pit of two F-ed up unfinished wars, unpaid for tsx cuts and trillion dollar prescription drug programs, unpaid for, debts galore to a communist country, and total economic disaster, aren't still running the show.

Nothing can change the statistics that were current when Bush left the White House, whether you like it, or admit it, or not, and nothing can wipe away Bush's own predictions of a decade of a collapsed American economy, a possible Great Depression, that would be global, and his monthly job losses of well over 700,000 per month.

The MORON, was the guy that made those predictions in September of 2008, same moron who failed to take a single action, after unpredcedented warnings FOR MONTHS, of a <span style='font-size: 20pt'>coming attack by al Qaeda, ON the WTC, USING planes.</span>


It would take a moron, to criticize this president, who has managed to navigate our country into our current vast improvement, of rising indicators on all fronts, and able to accomplish what no previous president, Democratci and Republican, has ever been able to bring about, a national commitment to reform what is currently a broken, unsustainable medical care and medical care insurance system which was responsible for 62% of the mortgage foreclosures...

Only a moron would even attempt to deny that, and only MORONS would have voted to put a babbling idiot like Sara Palin, a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Guess who that is?

G.

Ignorance abounds among the RW Radical zealots.

</span> </div></div>

Sev
03-27-2010, 10:47 PM
Reform is difficult and complex you say??

I think not.

I also notice that it says thousands with preconditions. Seems to me there are millions with preexisting conditions in this country. I guess they will just have to eat cake?

Reform is rather simple. Its lawyers and bureaucrats that make it complex.