If you have "no place to go," come here!

"The fine print differs from the larger political message."

BDBlue's picture

You don't say?

To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

Well, that is quite shocking! Next thing they'll tell me is that there is gambling in Casablanca.

{Insert quotes of faux shock from our political elite here.}

But this is my favorite part:

Consumers will soon gain several other protections. By July 1, the health secretary must establish a Web site where people can identify “affordable health insurance coverage options.” The site is supposed to provide information about premiums, co-payments and the share of premium revenue that goes to administrative costs and profits, rather than medical care.

In addition, within six months, health plans must have “an effective appeals process,” so consumers can challenge decisions on coverage and claims.

Wow, a website and more bureaucracy, that's quite a win there, "progressives", way to seize the moment!

Via John Caruso

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

Is there any reason whatever to believe that the data on the site will be reliable? "Administrative costs and profits" sounds like exactly the kind of data that the insurance companies will game -- or collude on.

Since Internet access is highly correlated to income, Obama is also discriminating against those who need the information most. Your "creative class" in action, since the web site development will also be a boondoggle for them.

carissa's picture
Submitted by carissa on

If it's still open, that is.

And yeah, how are they going to get that comparison information for their web site? Why from the insurance companies, of course. Will there be a public forum where people will be able to comment on each policy and warn people of denials and poor coverage?

As for the appeals process, every insurance company I know of has one already. It's always noted at the bottom of the claim denial. This changes things how?

michaelwb's picture
Submitted by michaelwb on

Taking a cue from the "success" of health care "reform', the next step is to solve that internet access problem - by mandating that everyone buy computers and pay for internet access or face fines! ;-)

Submitted by Anne on

companies were going to go along with whatever minimal regulations were written into the legislation? I mean, come on; I'd bet real money they all had their legal departments working on the loopholes from Day One - while over in the Senate, there were former insurance execs on staff who could parse the language to look strong, but have plenty of wiggle room.

Unless I missed something, and insurance industry execs and reps were all out screaming loud and long about having to cover pre-existing conditions, or not being able to drop people when they get sick, or not being able to rescind policies...did I miss that?

Seems to me they got real quiet on these issues so as not to risk alerting anyone to the gaping holes they would be able to use to avoid compliance.

I can't believe anyone fell for this scam, I really can't.

Submitted by jawbone on

His ObamaCare/RomneyCare/Big Health Insurance Parasites' Profit Protecttion Plan (BHIP-PPP)/HCR (High Corporate Returns) boondoggle?

The take-offs of the Ally Bank ads will just write themselves. Once the connection is made, they'll go viral on YouTube.

For more of the current Ally Bank ads just go to You Tube.

Submitted by jawbone on

Who could ever have predicted the for-profit insurers would find a way to raise premiums based on Obama's ObamaCare/RomneyCare/BHIP-PPP (Big Health Insurance Parasites' Profit Protection Plan)???

From David Dayen's post at FDL today:

After a week of wrangling, the health insurance trade group AHIP announced that insurers would agree to covering all children regardless of pre-existing conditions, though they added in the same breath that they could have to increase rates to accommodate such a change. This exposes the poor drafting of this late-to-the-game regulation, because without some form of price rating health insurers can raise rates with virtual impunity, and may now feel they have an excuse to do so.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to AHIP yesterday, attacking them for trying to alter the regulations passed by Congress within days of the bill becoming law. “Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system,” she wrote in the letter.

After the few days of bad publicity, AHIP appeared to retract their interpretation of the statute.

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law’s mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the “significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition,” and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.

Higher costs to insurees? Hey, Obama send he could only "bend" the cost curve; he never said everyone would see lower premiums...just lower than they could have been. BOHICA, babeeee!

Now, the effect of this is it 1) let's Obama look as if his words are true and he is strong against the BHIPs, and 2) it let's the BHIPs get what they really want, which is profits.

Submitted by jawbone on

This one's very on point for this thread:

[187] Elizabeth Keyes from Manhattan
March 26, 2010 - 09:07PM--

Transfer of our wealth.
"This is a big ----ing deal."
PR vs. fine print.

I really like this Elizabeth Keyes! Lots more to read, and still open to add your own haiku. Overall, seems like more pro haikus (some of them may be neutral), but the con writers are somewhat more prolific. Nail more specifics in their haikus.

25] Jeanne from North Carolina
March 24, 2010 - 10:15AM

Thank you for health care.
This is a big f**ing deal.
I can sleep at night.

[26] jawbone from Parsippany
March 24, 2010 - 10:15AM--

No health CARE reform
This is a big f&&king deal!
Parasites win big.

28] Adrian from Manhattan
March 24, 2010 - 10:16AM--

Shiny, healthy futures
Rising Red Mountains of Debt
A BIG f***ing deal

[29] Maceo Bishop from Brooklyn
March 24, 2010 - 10:16AM--

Common sense prevails
"This is a big f-ing deal
there's hope afterall

[52] Derek from Clifton, NJ
March 24, 2010 - 10:36AM--

No public option?
This is a big %$@#-ing deal!
Compromises suck!

[53] RCT from NYC
March 24, 2010 - 10:36AM--

Tea parties recede;
This is a big ---- deal!
The pendulum swings.

[54] Annon from Washington, DC
March 24, 2010 - 10:36AM--

POTUS' smile beams
"This is a big f*cking deal"
POTUS' smile fades

[73] jawbone from Parsippany
March 24, 2010 - 10:52AM--

Mandates to purchase --
In Barack's big f&&king deal
Means insurance junk

Corporate Shakedowns --
This is a big f&&king deal!
IRS muscle!

[82] jawbone from Parsippany
March 24, 2010 - 11:16AM--

Is health care a right?
This is a big f&&king deal --
Barack said "Should be"

Healthcare for all?
Not in this big f&&king deal --
So, Profits RULE!

[110] Alden Stover from Bushwick Brooklyn
March 24, 2010 - 03:20PM--

I know the mics on
This is a big f-cking deal
And I'm V.P. b-tch

[117] Nello from DC
March 24, 2010 - 04:53PM--

One man's hushed whisper:
"This is a big [effing] deal!"
He speaks for us all.

[125] David M from Reading, MA
March 24, 2010 - 06:07PM--

Mission accomplished?
THIS is a big f-ing deal!
A heckuva job!

[141] Elizabeth Keyes from Manhattan
March 25, 2010 - 01:13AM--

Disenfranchised Left.
"This is a big ----ing deal."
Single Payer gone.

[143] Elizabeth Keyes from Manhattan
March 25, 2010 - 01:28AM--

Biden lipsticks pig.
"This is a big ----ing deal!"
Why'd Kucinich cave?

[144] Elizabeth Keyes from Manhattan
March 25, 2010 - 01:36AM--

Women? Immigrants?
"This is a big ----ing deal."
Not for them, Joey.

[145] Elizabeth Keyes from Manhattan
March 25, 2010 - 01:43AM--

The country got screwed.
"This is a big ----ing deal."
Can say THAT again!

[152] Kanani from
March 25, 2010 - 11:54AM--

This is a big F$*)(! deal!!
Lost it, try again.

Ten billion dollars
This is a big F$(*&$( deal!
For the IRS

This wasn't reform
This is a big F$(*&*(&! deal!
Wolves in lambs clothing.

Reform to conform
This is a big F*$*& deal
Hijack of choice and wallets.

Single payer? Wrong.
This is a big F$*&*( deal.
Heath Industries piece of pie.

Again, lots more.

Submitted by jawbone on

undermine the all children must be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions provision. Seems like they may have the inside track on this since former WellPoint VP Liz Fowler did write the Senate bill...

Someone thought maybe the idea came in late and didn't get enough review of the language. Riiiiiight. The BHIPpers are not short of manpower when it comes to reviewing legislative language.

He also notes Dodd's bill leaves the regulation writing up to the regulators who brought us to the mess we're in, having been completely captured it seems by the financial industry. Dodd's weak tea. Dayen's pieces is titled Why Worry about new regulations when we don't enforce the old ones?