See update at the bottom.
The Democratics said ObamaCare would cause children to be covered for preexisting conditions this year. But it doesn't.
Who are they mad at? Themselves? How could they be?
They are mad at the insurance companies for not voluntarily doing what the law doesn't require. And for saying so.
Seattle Times: Coverage for all children? Check the new health-care law's fine print.
First, how insurance companies see the law:
Insurers agree that, if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and that it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.Now, those who voted for Obama's takeover:"The fine print differs from the larger political message," said William Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies. "If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law. "The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.They don't talk about the law, but intentions: theirs good; insurance companies won't even do what the law doesn't require!Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: "The ink has not yet dried on the health-care reform bill, and already some deplorable health-insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous."
They were in a big hurry to pass this thing. They passed it before we had the chance to read the whole thing. It looks like they didn't even take time to read it; they could have. They controlled the calendar. They can't say they didn't have time to know what is in their monstrosity.
The state insurance bureaucrats' association agrees with the insurance companies:
Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concernShould we be governed by the law that passed Congress or by what Henry Waxman and Jay Rockefeller III intended it to be?"I would like to see the kids covered," said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. "But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19."
Update 3/30/10: Secretary of Health and Human Services Sibelius says she doesn't care if the insurers are right about what ObamaCare contains. She will defy the letter of the law with a regulation. AisiaOne
Sibelius said she plans in coming weeks to issue regulations that will erase any ambiguity about the law and make certain that by September of this year, "children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents' health insurance plan."Dear Madam Secretary, the problem isn't "non-existent loopholes;" it is the law. How about you obey it? This provision got left out. Get Congress to change the law to what you want it to be. Posted by Ron Hebron at March 29, 2010 09:33 AM | Email This"Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Sibelius wrote. "Instead, we should work together to do the hard work of improving the affordability, quality and accessibility of our healthcare system."
Hope and Change.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 29, 2010 10:25 AMRegarding the post above: A 2,400 page bill written and passed in the fashion of Pelosi/Reid will never work as intended. The intention was to provide free health coverage to the "uninsured" but pay for it with pixy dust and higher taxes on everyone...and without admitting to the taxes. And most everyone already has their own insurance and are happy with the results. Now they'll pay MORE to subsidize illegal immigrants, abortion on demand, healthy youths, and the irresponsible. Given that a single person can buy catastrophic health coverage (to prevent the media discovered cause of all bankruptcies) for about the same as monthly cable coverage - what Congress is actually doing is subsidizing television, beer, etc. - all of which would be deferred if the "uninsured" were responsible enough to take care of themselves and buy their own.
There are more surprises to be revealed now that the bill has passed and we "get to see what's in it", as Mother Nancy said in the famous video clip. Also, the unintended consequences will be truly astounding when you derail 1/6 of the nation's economy and people begin to react economically. The results of this legislation, sans repeal, will make digby the least of our problems.
But perhaps there is a silver lining in these clouds. This gross encroachment on personal freedom and personal responsibility has awakened the American electorate, much like the two earlier "Great Awakenings" but w/o the religious overtones. When the voters are actually watching they are revolted by the corruption in Wash, DC and I expect they will begin to exact further revenge this November. Remember, the house cleaning started in 2006 and it's the other party's turn now. It will take another two years to clean out most of what remains after Nov (socialist senators and WH inhabitant) and I suspect the momentum will be sustained for at least that long. Stay healthy - the government only wants your taxes.
Posted by: viacalx on March 29, 2010 10:33 AMThe Dems will be toast after the November elections. Sayonara Murray, Inslee and the rest of their crew.
Posted by: Paddy on March 29, 2010 10:47 AMBanana republic.
Posted by: Gary on March 29, 2010 01:08 PMNever mind.
I wonder why they didn't catch it during all the C-SPAN hearings. Oh, they didn't have any?
And now the Dems are mad at insurance companies for noticing something that they did not... in their own stinking pile of a bill?
Sure, they look way stupid, but they don't seem to mind how stupid they look. Democrat congresspersons, the people are fed up-----you're fired!!!!
Posted by: Michele on March 29, 2010 04:08 PMInsurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.
- E. Litella
Posted by: scottd on March 29, 2010 06:05 PMWhether it's Gregoire dodging the question of constitutionality and talking about how "good" the law is, or the congressional Democrats attacking insurance companies for following the law and not their intents ... they just DO NOT CARE what the law says, if it is in disagreement with their views.
They love rule of men, and hate rule of law.
Again: you talk in circles.
He LOVES THE CAPS LOCK KEY because it appears to make a point.
Seriously, what is your complaint? You are against children under the age of 19 being able to have health insurance?
No worries wise one. The insurance companies may not have won this one, but it is the nature of their business to find loop holes to deny paying out. That's how insurance companies make profit exceeding the rate of T-bills. They'll win one soon.
Some hapless person will be denied access to health care, then you can laugh at Obama and the Democrats. Won't that be fun?
But now due to one side, it will never again be children.
In the meantime, suck on this
Dear Secretary Sebelius
"And as people slowly move through the 2000+ pages of this-a & that-a I'm sure more and better examples will be revealed."
From your mouth to God's ear.
Glenn Beck guest host Doc Thompson - March 30, 2010
"The health care bill the president just signed into law includes a 10 percent tax on all indoor tanning sessions starting July 1st, and I say, who uses tanning? Is it dark-skinned people? I don't think so. I would guess that most tanning sessions are from light-skinned Americans. Why would the President of the United States of America -- a man who says he understands racism, a man who has been confronted with racism -- why would he sign such a racist law? Why would he agree to do that? Well now I feel the pain of racism."
Oh, the unimaginable pain of the racism inherent in taxing tanning salons.
The End Is Nigh
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on March 30, 2010 11:39 AMWould that have been OK in your somewhat stilted view?
Racism is racism. Picking tanning salons as a target of some sort of special tax is asinine for any number of reasons... but the race of the user cannot simply be disregarded as you would wish.
ANY racism for ANY reason against ANYONE (Like my half white son, for example) is unimaginably painful. And since you have no imagination, I'm sure you have no idea about what you're babbling about.
Posted by: Hinton on March 30, 2010 03:43 PMAre you agreeing with Thompson that a tax on using tanning salons is racist?
Then how about simply banning tanning beds? How about banning cigarettes? If we're really concerned about the health implications of these devices (which have zero redeeming features, unlike milk or eggs or bacon or other foods which can be an issue if consumed in too-large of quantities), why not just ban them, rather than using them as a tax resource?
In other words, should we try to make tax revenues on the self-destructive behavior of people? Profit off of their slow death?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 31, 2010 05:08 PMActually there was a difference of opinion on how to interpret the law in this respect. The administration and Congressional leaders used their bully pulpits -- which is fully legal -- to persuade the insurance companies to make a moral decision. Had that failed, I'm sure they would have tried to change the law -- which is the legislature's constitutional role, of course -- or, failing that, to have a court -- part of our legal system -- interpret the existing law.
How on earth does that show that they don't care what the law says, or hate the rule of law? And why do you hate insurance companies for helping terribly sick children?
Posted by: Bruce on March 31, 2010 11:24 PM