Insurers to reject coverage for children in some cases until 2014.

[Luminous Animal]

Randy Kammer, a vice president for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, the largest health insurer in that state, said she interprets the law as allowing insurers to reject coverage for children in some cases until 2014.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/24/sick-kids-coverage.aspx

America's Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance lobbying group, says through a spokesman that it interprets the new law as not requiring insurers to cover all child applicants this year.

From nyceve's excellent commentary on Daily Kos:
AHIP already kicking sick kids to the curb
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/25/850656/-AHIP-already-kicking-sick-kids-to-the-curb

So, now we're being told HHS will issue some clarifying language. Great. Then the parents with the sick kids will attempt to enroll the kid in an insurance plan. The poor parent will be on her own, fighting the corporation to comply with the law. And what will this insurance cost? Does anyone think the insurers are going to stand down? Of course not, the fines for violating the law are negligible, they'll take the fine.

[glinda]

1. Dems biggest mistake to not do single payer or something. Insurers will trash Bill.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. What happens if the Insurance Companies don't comply?

Public Option.

And what happens to the Insurance Companies if there's a Public Option?

They're Betamax. They're the Walkman. They're the village blacksmith.

I think the insurance companies are going to push back, but in the end they're going to comply because this is the last shot they have at staying in business (at least outside of certain niche markets).

[Edweird]

3. What happens if they don't comply? Nothing. It goes to court and you die waiting.

Or one of your loved ones dies waiting. You're not getting a public option.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. Don't be so sure....(nt)

[unapatriciated]

8. I hope your right, cause the Insurance Industry is going to look for every loophole

they will tie it up in court for as long as they can. They did exactly that in California and got away with over twelve years of illegal profits.

[Edweird]

11. Yeah, I'm sure. If a public option or single payer was anywhere near reality,

we wouldn't have gotten recycled far right policy as 'reform'.

[PSzymeczek]

13. The bill says the first day

of the sixth month after the bill is signed. That's October 1, 2010.

[Zhade]

4. Wow, I'm not usually proven correct so fast.

All those people who swore up and down that this bill would help people look pretty foolish now. I mean, if the insurance companies are willing to deny children, you really think it'll stop there?

We warned you. This is only the start. Things aren't going to improve from here.

For the record, I would have been thrilled to be wrong this time, too.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Kick.

[unapatriciated]

7. unfortunately, I read it to apply to those who were already in a plan.

I hoped that I was wrong in my interpretation, but it looks like the Insurance Companies are already gearing up to use this and other loopholes to their advantage.
They need to fix this and implement laws that do more than impose a fine for wrongful denials of care. If we don't you are correct they will take the fine and continue to do business as usual.

[thotzRthingz]

9. re: "Insurance Companies are already gearing up to use this and other loopholes to their advantage"

They WROTE the damned thing... they KNOW what's in it! I've said it before... and will repeat it here:

2000+ pages allows the "politicians" to make claims about what they did "for the people" ... but, 2000+ pages are full of "double-speak" allowing health care industry FOR-PROFITS to raid our pockets, literally:

* via mandated coverage coupled with rising premiums, co-pays and deductibles...

* then again, via the TAX BASE ... where those that they've priced OUT of affordable coverage will get their care on the GOVT's dime (i.e., your's and my taxes)

SINGLE PAYER was, and still is the only real solution (to cover everyone, cutting out the FOR-PROFIT's BILLION$ in profits each year... increasing as time passes). Alternatively, a no-restrictions PUBLIC OPTION would have eventually morphed into being SINGLE-PAYER.

All those who celebrated the recent so-called "victory" (i.e., YEA! WE SHOVED THIS ONE DOWN THE REPUKES THROATS!) are in for a rude awakening...

P.S.

I also K&R'd this thread

[unapatriciated]

10. I have read all 2,000 plus pages

and didn't see any real penalties for the Insurance Co. in regards to denials
I spent over ten years fighting denials and reviews when my son became ill in the early 90's.
California had regulations regarding pre-existing conditions and the 'Fair Claims Practice Act'.
It didn't stop them then and it won't stop them now. I hope the Insurance Industry shows their hand early and we add at least a PO (as someone stated up-thread) because of their lack of compliance.

[glinda]

12. well that sucks