Oops...Preexisting Conditions Still Exist for Kids (not my headline)

[Javaman]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/oopspreexisting-conditions-still-exist-for-kids/37940/

A wrinkle in health care reform, and President Obama's advertisements of it, pointed out by the AP: under the new law, insurers will still be able to deny coverage to children on the basis of preexisting conditions until 2014:

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.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot 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.

more at link...

[ixion]

1. oops, well, so much for that worthless talking point

next...

[shraby]

2. Sebelius is going to fix that with a regulation. Read it earlier.

[harkadog]

27. Regulations can not overrule laws.

[berni_mccoy]

3. Obama Admin is stepping in to fix this. They aren't going to let Insurance Companies dick with the

laws.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Did you read the bill in regard to preexisting conditions? I can't find a separate clause

saying children with preexisting conditions will have to be accepted by new plans.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590.enr:

If I missed it and you find it, please point it out. Thanks.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. ....

[progressoid]

7. Riiiiight.

:crazy:

[harkadog]

28. LOL

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. The truth must hurt if your already being unrecced. I just looked at

the bill, and there is nothing about children with preexisting conditions being accepted for new plans. They will fall in the high risk pool along with adults.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3590.enr:

[Echo In Light]

6. k/r

[katandmoon]

8. It always pissed me off that children got this special treatment. It seriously made no sense.

If you're a healthy child with a sick parent who can't get coverage due to preexisting condition, you're also very screwed.

So now everybody gets screwed equally. Way to go, Dems!

[eridani]

26. Yep. I'm a child of partially disabled parents. I had some hungry nights

--because my PARENTS couldn't get insurance at any price. All of their care was strictly out of pocket, and there was no Medicaid in the 50s. I was a healthy little rug rat--it sure wasn't me that needed the health care.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. kick n/t

[Luminous Animal]

11. K & R

[Rage Inc.]

12. It's a first down, not a touchdown

Given what Obama had to work with, I'm surprised this country got ANYTHING!

[ncteechur]

13. WRONG! It goes into effect in 6 months.

[Luminous Animal]

15. The Obama admin admits to the loophole.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0

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.

...

Full protection for children would not come until 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.

...

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations.

They've admitted that it needs to be fixed.

[DearAbby]

14. What part of all children will be covered

confuses people? Even big kids to 26 yrs of age, under parents plan.

[Luminous Animal]

16. The part where the forgot to actually write it into the law.

[DearAbby]

17. ALL

Children isnt enough..they have to categorize what ALL means?

[Luminous Animal]

18. Listen, the erred. The administration admits it erred.

What part of that do you not understand?

[DearAbby]

20. Did I make this personal?

If so, I am sorry. I tried hard not to make it personal to anyone on the board. I don't believe there should have been this Ta Doo about it...All means ALL. But if they want to correct it fine.

If you were personally offended my apologies.

[Luminous Animal]

23. And I apologize for my crankiness.

I wasn't offended personally, just exasperated. With a bill this size and with all the references to clauses, etc., there are going to be other loopholes exposed. I dislike the fact that this one will purportedly be closed via regulation, it leaves it exposed to challenge. The insurance company has an army of lawyers, a family with a kid who has been denied, not so much.

[DearAbby]

30. I too had been cranky

if you could call it that, frustrated as hell by the GOP and their obstruction. We should be grateful this had been exposed now rather than later, when there could have been possible harm.

We're family here, we need to remember that. No foul let's hug. :hug:

[marshall]

24. Covered yes, but to what extent? That is the question....

"All children are covered" can be touted, but when there are loopholes and fineprint that whittles the coverage down to an annual flu shot what good is it?

[amborin]

19. K&R

[BlueIris]

21. Surprise, surprise.

Not.

[slipslidingaway]

22. knr nt

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Gosh. Imagine that.

[Zhade]

29. And you're surprised?

This is just the start of the Great Loophole Bonanza!