Gap in health care law's protection for children

[slipslidingaway]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage

"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..."

[leftygolfer]

1. how easy is the fix for this?

we don't have to go through the vote again, do we?

[slipslidingaway]

3. Not sure exactly, but this would be a big loophole IMHO...

and what other loopholes are lurking.

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Signing statement ought to do it.

[leftstreet]

2. "but it turns out'...'now scrambling' FFS they act like they didn't know about it

:banghead:

[slipslidingaway]

4. They should have known :( n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

5. "What did they know and when did they know it?"

Everything; yesterday.


Tansy Gold

[slipslidingaway]

6. Just like the financial bailout, housing bubble and derivatives ...

who could have possibly known.

:mad:

[Tansy_Gold]

7. "Who could have possibly known?"

Tansy Gold, who was not alone with her warnings

[slipslidingaway]

9. And the sad part is that we will not know for years how this bill does

not control costs.

At the same time the SS Trust Fund will need more money from the general budget and the savings from Medicare, that went to extend Medicare and simultaneously ??? helped to subsidize this bill will be questioned more, but it will be too late.

:(

[Tansy_Gold]

15. I read Kucinich's statement on why he finally backed the bill

and I wanted to cry. It was all about politics. It was all about saving face for Obama, saving his presidency, saving his political ass.

In my heart of hearts, I do not think this is a good bill. I know all the mantras about the 23 or 32 million who will now (or rather, four years from now) be able to turn over more of their money to the insurance cartels, about the high-risk pools that will now be open (for an undisclosed price) to those who have never been able to get insurance before. I know all that shit.

But we don't know how much it's going to cost the individuals who really matter. I don't give a shit about how many billions it will shave off the deficit; I do give a shit about how a working family is going to be able to afford their "coverage" and how many gazillions will slide directly into the CEOs' "compensation" accounts and the stockholders' dividends. Oh, that's right, we don't really have an enforcement program in place to make sure the insurance companies abide by the 80% rules; the IRS is already in place as an enforement program to make sure the people pay.

There's a big advantage to being a doom and gloomer. The disappointments don't hit quite as hard, and you're better prepared for the disasters.



Tansy Gold

[slipslidingaway]

17. In addition to bolstering the Obama administration, I also think Kucinich

had a decision to make about trying to have his voice count and work within the party or be marginalized and possibly not have his voice count...a really a tough decision. Although I am disappointed, I also understand to some degree.

This bill is not a good bill because so many people will still be looking at high out of pocket expenses which could preclude them from seeking medical attention. In addition it delayed a national system for everyone and it pits one group against another, where a SP system would have everyone starting from an equal footing.

The only reason I care about the deficits is because another program will be cut, most likely those entitlements for the boomer generation. You are so right about the enforcement mechanisms, the 80% MLR sounds good, but there are always ways to manipulate the numbers.

Being a doom and gloomer is not so bad, no high expectations or feelings of being stabbed in the back when reality creeps in, as you said if one is prepared, it is not so bad. And anything extra is a bonus!

:hi:

Sorry for the late reply.

[Tansy_Gold]

18. The bonus of being a doom and gloomer

When the doom and gloom doesn't happen, the joy is immeasurable. (You know, kinda like a late reply to a post you thought no one would pay any attention to. . . )

:hi: back at you!




TG

[slipslidingaway]

19. Exactly and not as many disappointments, but many nice surprises :) n/t

[flyarm]

8. K&R ..i posted this earlier today..it is a disgrace! Thanks for posting this!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=244927&mesg_id=245407

Gap in health care law's protection for children


AP
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.

snip:

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."



here is more on this :

Gap in health care laws protection for children


Excerpts:

Deception: 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."

Fact: 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 President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday.

The coverage problem mainly affects parents who purchase their own coverage for the family, as many self-employed people have to do.

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



Gap in health care laws protection for children

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032304038.html

[slipslidingaway]

12. And thank you, from your Washington Post link ...

"...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 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..."


We'll have to wait and see how effective these new regulations are at keeping them in check, also I read earlier that the high risk pool is expected to run out of money before 2014.

[amborin]

10. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

13. :) n/t

[ibegurpard]

14. what???

there's loopholes in our healthcare???

[slipslidingaway]

16. Let's hope they can fix this :) n/t