Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print

[SirKodiak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/he.../29health.html

First few paragraphs:

WASHINGTON — Just days after President Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are already arguing that, at least for now, they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Obama, speaking at a health care rally in northern Virginia on March 19, said, “Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide those youngsters with access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.

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.”

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”

[HoustonGM]

sigh

[ragecage]

:c

[dickay]

This concern was brought up quite some time ago, I believe I read it in a newsweek mag or something like that. i will try to find the link when I'm on laptop tonight.
I guess in the haste to pass this they forgot to have a lawyer review the 3000 pages or so.

[Rand]

This concern was brought up quite some time ago, I believe I read it in a newsweek mag or something like that. i will try to find the link when I'm on laptop tonight.
I guess in the haste to pass this they forgot to have a lawyer review the 3000 pages or so.

Laws are subject to interpretation no matter how well, or how poorly, they're written. As soon as any proposed legislation effecting the way an industry does business is made public, battalions of corporate lawyers are assigned to find the loopholes or manipulatable language that will allow them to get around that law, and they'll always find something. You can bet on that.

The only two things about this that surprises me is that the companies are tipping their hand so soon rather than just exploiting the loophole until they get sued for it, and that they're foolish enough to make their first stand on an issue effecting children.

For decades, Americans have allowed their rights to be restricted or removed because the politicians invoked some variation of the magical phrase "to protect our children". This is what sells people on things they might otherwise question. It's for the children.

Now the insurance companies are targeting the children, and not just any children but sick children, as a way to start getting around this bill. Bad move. People who didn't like this bill will suddenly turn around and defend it, for the children. Politicians that denounced the bill will have to come to the aid of the children, or explain to their constituencies, come reelection time, why they failed to try protecting the children.

And a few years from now when the insurance companies try to garner support for placing limitations on coverage, claiming they'll go out of business if they don't get some help, opponents will be able to point out that the very first thing the insurance companies tried doing to keep their profits at maximum levels was to deny coverage to the children.

[OregonDuck1989]

Insurance companies: run by Satan?

[Coach Owens]

Aw great, another thing the Republicans and conservative pundits will go on and on about, believing selfish companies, that have been known to not be trustworthy in the past, over people from the opposite party. Stupid partisan politics.

[HoustonGM]

Aw great, another thing the Republicans and conservative pundits will go on and on about, believing selfish companies, that have been known to not be trustworthy in the past, over people from the opposite party. Stupid partisan politics.

huh

[Coach Owens]

huh

You're a real talker today, aren't ya?

[OregonDuck1989]

Democrats roolz

[etothep]

In an homage to the late Jonathan Swift...we can kill two birds with one stone by cooking the sick children & feeding them to the starving homeless population

[OregonDuck1989]

in an homage to the late jonathan swift...we can kill two birds with one stone by cooking the sick children & feeding them to the starving homeless population

+1

[reflections]

In an homage to the late Jonathan Swift...we can kill two birds with one stone by cooking the sick children & feeding them to the starving homeless population

Soylent Green anyone?

[200tang]

soylent green anyone?

chellenger benderuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gosensgo101]

Only in America