They couldn't even get the part about children with pre-existings right

[Prism]

Christ on a cross. What is wrong with Washington? Did anyone read this before they passed it? What, we had to wait until the day after the signing ceremony to finally give it a once over?

They need to fix this immediately. If you can't make sick children Priority Number One in any form of health bill, you don't deserve your office.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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. 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.

The President has said a lot of things in public about health care reform that didn't turn out to be entirely true. You kinda get used to that.

Anyone else excited to learn what horrors are lurking in this thing once everyone decides to pop it open and glance at it for the first time? At least the signing ceremony happened. The children with pre-existings was one of the (very few) good parts that have provided some consolation in this legislative horror. To learn they even muffed that one . . . good grief. It's not Bushian incompetence, but it's still pretty bad. Even worse that they're only now noticing it. Or at least, now admitting that they noticed it. Couldn't have children's health care interrupt Tuesday, you know.

[Oregone]

1. Politics is like a street fight

You have two choices when you pay attention. Get kicked in the balls or run away and get kidney punched.


Its fun to be a voter, no?

[Prism]

2. Fun like herpes

I figured full and immediate coverage for kids was a given in this bill. It was one of the thicker silver linings in sky full of thunderheads. How do they not see it until the day after it's signed into law?

Or, more to the point, exactly when did they notice it and how long were they not mentioning it so the ceremony wouldn't be imperiled?

[walldude]

3. Cue rantings about haters....

You hater you... Lower your fucking standards will ya! You'll be much happier..

[ipaint]

4. Here we go...

Wait until they start digging into this bill. What a horror show.

They certainly don't disappoint those of us who don't trust them.

[Starry Messenger]

5. I'm sure this bill has more loopholes than macrame'

I feel sorriest for the folks who are dead sure this bill is going to help them and their families.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. I have NO doubt --

several such little presents/land minds will be discovered in the comning months/years.

[no limit]

7. This couldn't possibly have been an accident. Absolutely shameful

[quiller4]

9. It isn''t true.

[no limit]

10. I hope you're right

[quiller4]

8. Lightfoot was wrong in her interpretation and several have since

come forward to correct her statement. According to those sources the ban applies to all new policies written but only applies to existing policies after 2014. They did NOT muff this. The language regarding children and pre-existing conditions is not house language (Lightfoot is correct that the House language did not go far enough but Senate language went further). The language in question was written by the Dodd/Kennedy committee and Dodd clarified it this morning.

[Prism]

12. Sebelius will issue a fix

I very much expect her to in short order.

The point is, when you rush legislation without much regard for going over what is in the thing, bad laws are the result. It is a poorly written portion of the bill that will now have to clarified. This underscores why they should have done it right the first time instead of their "C'mon guys, let's pass anything at all!" I'm sure this is not the only important language that is going to need some "clarification".

When they decided to leave Americans' access to insurance in the hands of private insurers, they had to make this thing ironclad. They have to understand that the corporations will find any possible, little tiny bit of wiggle room they can to deny coverage and care. To whit:

"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.

Yeah, you can bet they are.

[joeybee12]

11. The majority of our reps are lawyers by profession, and who ever heard of a lawyer

writing a bad bill!!! That's impossible, isn't it?????