Children with pre-existing conditions WILL NOT ALL automatically be covered
Well, in 2014 all children will have to be covered and not subject to rejection. As will anyone who can afford to buy insurance. (UPDATE below.)
But, under Obama's Big Health Insurance Parasite Profit Protection Plan (BHIP-PPP), contrary to statements implying otherwise, only some children with pre-existing conditions will have to be covered by health insurers in six months. This is a major and jarring detail about the vaunted great benefits of the new bill -- One of the benefits being touted as something Dems can run on in November.
From this AP article,, Gap in Healthcare Bill's Protection of Children.
Parents who have believed the Obama hype are going to be very disappointed. It's not nice to lie to parents who have children with serious, dangerous illnesses. Or even less dangerous illnesses.
Can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions? Well, only if you already have insurance and the child subsequently becomes ill. Read and weep. Then consider how these people will vote come November. Oh, Dems, haven't you learned? People hate, hate, hate being mislead and lied to!!!
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 that Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot not 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. From AP
Translate: If there’s a family with a sick child that currently is without insurance, they can legally be turned down for coverage. The fine print: That pre-existing condition clause that kicks in at the six month mark only includes:
1. Those families that already have insurance and end up with a child who unexpectedly/suddenly is diagnosed with a serious illness; and
2. uhh, guess that’s it. Oh, wait, the writers of this forward-looking law assumed that, gosh golly gee whiz, if an uninsured family with a sick kid applies to get coverage and the insurance company accepts (whhhaaaatt?), the company can’t write in an exclusion that exempts coverage of that illness at the time of purchase. I know, I know…I can foresee this happening zillions of times.
Seriously: Even as I knew how awful this law is, I’m shocked. Deception and a sales job of the highest order.
It's not for nothing the AHIP 2008 draft was used by Baucus to write the Obama BHIP-PPP. He who writes the bill has the advantage, ainahey?
Now, my reading of the second AP paragraph seems to indicate that if the child is currently insured, but an ailment is not currently covered, it will be now. But I'm not sure about that...developing.
The article continues:
Full protection for children would come in 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.
In recent speeches, Obama has given the impression that the immediate benefit for kids is much more robust.
The article goes on to give examples of how Obama is misleading the public.
What other suprises will be revealed as the bill is reported on more closely? Oh, my. Our president lies? Or, is he close enough to accuracy for political bamboozlement work?
UPDATE: From the AP article:
Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.
"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.
An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.
"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.
The lack of explicit language drew this response from the administration, per article by Kaiser Health News:
Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, but they will issue clarifying regulations. "The law is clear: Insurance plans that cover children cannot deny coverage to a child because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Health and Human Services spokesman Nick Papas said. "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 to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan.”
Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Sander M. Levin, and George Miller, the Democratic chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the House of Representatives, said Wednesday that the administration response should be sufficient.
“Under the legislation … plans that include coverage of children cannot deny coverage to a child based upon a pre-existing condition," the joint statement said. "We have been assured by the Department of Health and Human Services that any possible ambiguity in the underlying bill can be addressed by the Secretary with regulation."
Ambiguous legislative language makes for good lobbying opportunities. Possibly even litigation....