This is a good reason why that public option should have been part of the health care

[bigdarryl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/insurers-might-delay-cove_n_516562.html

[lib2DaBone]

1. Medicare for all would have been the way to go...

This is a bailout for big insurance... which has in effect turned the Federal Govt into collection agents for the insurance companies. Big Pharma got a sweet deal too.

Something is better than nothing... but like the Patriot Act.. this monstrosity will outlive all of us.

[pnwmom]

2. If this situation isn't fixed by the beginning of summer,

the Dems should put up a bill specifically closing this little loophole. And then, with elections coming up in November, dare any Rethugs to vote against little children with preexisting conditions.

I agree with having a public option -- as long as the private and public insurers had to keep to the same rules: no banning of preexisting conditions.

But insurers would probably love it if everyone with preexisting conditions flocked to a public option. They would be able to offer lower rates because they wouldn't be including millions of more expensive insurees.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. ...except that this will end once HHS regulates, likely next month.

Nice try, Darryl.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

4. But any such HHS regulations . . .

. . . cannot themselves be contrary to the authorizing statutory language. If they were found to be by a reviewing court, on judicial review -- and law suits over this matter would surely follow promulgation of the HHS regulations -- they would be struck down as unlawful.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. If it's a loophole via interpretation of the law, then regs would stand.

As I understand the problem, this is in fact the case. What you're describing is when a law specifically says "X must happen" and then the rule makers say "No, X doesn't really have to happen" that is unlawful.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

7. True enough, but . . .

. . . this will be a classic "proof's in the pudding" situation on judicial review.

The problem is, it seems to me, the concept of "guaranteed issue" is not something new to insurance law, and thus the sort of statutory language needed to impose a "guaranteed issue" requirement should be pretty well known. If this is so, then it might be more difficult for HHS to defend a regulatory "interpretation" of allegedly ambiguous statutory language (i.e., language that does not follow the traditional terminology).

What I am, in fact, describing is a statute that does not authorize the imposition of a "guaranteed issue" requirement before 2014, and HHS nevertheless promulgating regulations that impose such a requirement. That, too, could be found by a reviewing court to be unlawful.

But, again, the resolution of this matter will turn on how well the statutory language will bear the weight of HHS's interpretation.

[subterranean]

5. This just demonstrates (as if there were any doubt)

that the insurance companies intend to fully exploit every little loophole they wrote into the law to continue to avoid paying for health care. I think we are in for more "surprises" like this one, both before and after 2014.