Dems Forgot to Cover Pre-Existing Conditions for Children
[Guest post by DRJ]
Why transparency and incremental changes are a good thing, and lawmakers should read bills before they vote on them:
“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.”
I almost can’t believe Democratic lawmakers are this careless, but anyone that does business the way they do is asking for problems like this. Anyone that votes for them is, too.
— DRJ
A “mistake”? An “oversight”? Just wondering how much worse the CBO numbers would have looked if the children’s pre-existing condition feature had been scored for immediate implementation instead of in 2014.
elissa (e79a88) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:20 pmThey didn’t forget. They want this one determined by policy or voted on separately so that Republicans will have to take a stance on it apart from the rest of the bill that just passed.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:22 pmAre auto, life, fire, and disability insurance policies required to cover pre-existing conditions for anyone?
Michael Ejercito (526413) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:29 pmWhy read the bill when you can just “shotgun” it against the wall and see what sticks and what doesn’t? They think we who actually have jobs dealing with budgets don’t understand the political implications of plausible deniability. Rangle already tried to distance himself from the facts by blaming his staff for whom he apparently works and not the other way around.
These people are dumber than a box of rocks. News dumps on Friday evening, in-boxes setup to show busy signals after 1 one call and the list of smoke and mirrors goes on ad nauseum reminiscent of the governor in Best Little Whorehouse In Texas.
Come on folks, quit electing these bumblers and get some people in who remember for whom they work. Principled behavior is in short supply in D.C. This predictable outcome is a pathetic embarrassment and we can do better.
vet66 (4e0dda) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:29 pmThey’re going to be furiously walking back hundreds of problems like this for the next 6 months, hoping that their continued flim – flammery of their statements of denial will lead to a collective amnesia come polling time. We cannot allow this, and we won’t.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/24/2010 @ 1:39 pmtesting testing testing
enoch_root (9548cd) — 3/24/2010 @ 2:37 pmI almost can’t believe Democratic lawmakers are this careless… – DRJ
I was about to disagree with you, when I realized you included almost with “can’t believe”.
I can believe, and I’m not surprised. We know they “make up the rules” as they go along, and whatever wasn’t quite right they will fix by
imperial decreeexecutive order. They have little concern with the realities of implementation, let alone unintended consequences and oversights/mistakes. These are the same people who gripe about the urgency to save lives of those who are dieing every month, so they make the bill take effect in 4 years.I wonder, had they passed what they wanted to last summer would it have been worse or better in these kind of mistakes?
The Dems have 3 things to bank on (as I see it):
1. The ignorance of the populace, thanks to the irresponsibility of those professionals who ought to be informing the public of the truth in a free society.
2. The cynicism of those who think all politicians are charlatans not to be trusted
3. The goodwill/naivete of those who find it hard to believe they are as dishonest and deceitful as they really are.
There you have it; a party that depends upon ignorance, cynicism, and naivete for success.
As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same; “we have a Republic, if we can keep it…” – Ben Franklin
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/24/2010 @ 2:48 pmshould have been “then I realized” sorry
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/24/2010 @ 2:50 pmThis was pointed out months ago, in the context of TriCare and Spina Bifida. It’s intentional, either to lower the projected costs or for political gaming, or perhaps both.
htom (412a17) — 3/24/2010 @ 3:36 pmThe hell they forgot. Children’s coverage is deemed. Get with the times, people.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/24/2010 @ 3:47 pmNo way … it’s for the children after all.
Neo (7830e6) — 3/24/2010 @ 3:53 pmIt’s almost like, with a really big bill, one that will grab hold of 1/6 of GDP and that’s full of tax changes and new bureaucracies,
It’s almost like we should take more time, write it carefully, read it carefully, and spend a year or three debating it, with changes (and proposed changes) publicly available at all times on websites.
Nahhh.
Mitch (890cbf) — 3/24/2010 @ 4:31 pmWell, the Speaker did say the bill needed to pass so we could see what was in it. Or not, as the case may be.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/24/2010 @ 4:32 pm“Dems Forgot to Cover Pre-Existing Conditions for Children”
Doesn’t seem to be the case. Seems to be an ambiguity which regulation can clarify:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0
“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.”
Or we could just have an easy vote on it. You think the GOP will allow it? I mean, they’ve been so amenable to opportunities for simple policymaking that everyone can agree on.
imdw (8f8ead) — 3/24/2010 @ 4:48 pmThey’re free and easy with the taxpayers money and yet most don’t pay their own taxes. Ya gotta admire the chutzpah, if not the results.
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:41 pmIf they made that large a mistake can you imagine what else in in there. No one with a brain was allowed to read the bill so all the crap in it belongs soley to the brain dead democrats, aka closet communist.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:46 pmOn the other hand democrats hate babies so maybe they hate children also. It could be because the average 3rd grader shows up the average adult (if there is such a thing) democrat.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:49 pmI called Sen. Boxer’s office this afternoon and after dispensing with the first dilatory idiot I was blessed to ask “Juan” a couple of questions one of which was whether Hill staffers and elected officials are exempt from the health care legislation. He claimed to have just received a memo from the DNC noting that everyone buys from the same exchange in 2014. Can anyone confirm this?
Mike (8c4793) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:49 pmI think the GOP will be agreeable to fix this by simple legislation.
But not before they get some mileage out of it in demonstrating the horrible, Banana Republic-like way of doing business the Dems in control of the Congress and WH have conducted themselves.
There will be a “Greatest Hits” compiliation of the nonsense that made it’s way into this bill and the reconciliation bill – starting with staff exempting themselves from the exchanges, and then not making coverage for children with pre-existing conditions manifestly clear in the same language used by the Pres. to sell it.
Or, maybe, they knew that Insurance Companies, if given a reason, could quantify quite quickly how much that provision would cost if not coupled with a mandatory coverage provision that brought millions of healthy young adults into the risk pool at the same time as the sick children.
The provision for not excluding children with pre-existing conditions comes at an ENORMOUS cost, that must be offset with something that reduces overall risk — like keeping healthy 23-26 year olds in the pool on thir parent’s plans.
I don’t think this was an accident at all. Saavy staffers knew that insurance premiums would skyrocket with the children coverage but not enlarging the risk pool. So, buried in the language where nobody would notice, they stalled the coverage issue until the mandate kicks in.
Shipwreckedcrew (dfa1f1) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:49 pmA recent book informs us of the decline of the last Christian Empire – the USA – and how the decline of ANY empire is dramatically accelerated when the interests of the “underclass” (as the British refer to it) are the primary focus of a nation’s government. In this case, it is also accelerating the rise of the Eastern Empire.
Obama plainly stated before he was elected that he was going to fundamentally reshape America. The SOB was telling the truth.
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/24/2010 @ 5:57 pmI was listening to the ABC Radio News update on October 31, 2008 as this sound byte was played from an Obama campaign appearance in Missouri (video here):
For people who don’t get what “fundamentally transforming” means, here’s a good synopsis.
A chill went up me as I heard that. And I suspect millions who paying attention more recently know how I felt.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/24/2010 @ 6:17 pmDon’t forget that we want to peel off like minded Democratic Party voters.
It’s best not to attack ALL Democratic Party voters, many of whom sign up for the Party for the same reason they go to the same school or church their parents did.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/24/2010 @ 6:20 pmLet’s pause and just read this one more time:
“A recent book informs us of the decline of the last Christian Empire – the USA”
There. That was nice.
imdw (e6c812) — 3/24/2010 @ 6:21 pmChildren with major illness are almost always eligible for what used to be called “Crippled Children’s Services” and is now called CCS, at least in California. It would help if these people knew the first thing about medicine.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/24/2010 @ 6:23 pmThey work for more than a year on this legislation, and the best imdw can do is that its an “ambiguity” that one of the promises that Obama has been flogging continuously is not there?
Incompetence and fraud. That’s all the Democrats offer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/24/2010 @ 6:46 pm“A chill went up me as I heard that. And I suspect millions who paying attention more recently know how I felt.”
and we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, L.N.
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/24/2010 @ 7:14 pmIf they change it, it has to go back to the House and be voted on again, right?
HAHAHAHA!
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/24/2010 @ 7:15 pmDavid Murrin, cofounder of Emergent Asset Management…
Host: “David, you’ve just written a book here called Breaking the Code of History: A Map for the Future. So if we’ve been here before, David, as I think you argue, what goes on after this?”
MURRIN: “I think sometimes long term history impacts the now and we’re in it like a schism, like two tectonic plates that suddenly shift after a hundred years of energy building up. And that’s really the end of the western Christian empire. It’s bigger than the British empire, the American empire. It’s the sum of all the Christian empires for nearly 900 years. And America is the last one. And when the last one changes and declines, which it’s in, it will be very rapid, it’s the end of the whole system.
At the same time the system that rises challenges far quicker as it moves into the vacuum created by the old system, and that’s the east. The surprise will be the rate of that change. And we view the new administration in America as new hope. Unfortunately, if you look at historical precedents of underclass and the mechanisms of an underclass actually coming to the fore demographically, it is not new hope, it’s the beginning of the end. And we’re seeing that very quickly take place.
The refusal of Obama to commit to the missile defense system in Poland was a terrible sign to the adversaries of America, they saw it as weakness. And, in fact, if you look at Chinese policy since and articulation, it’s been far more aggressive and expansive. So the moment that the incumbent shows its inability to project power and use the power it has, the challengers move forward very quickly, 56% of their society is male. In a normal society it’s 51. That’s 5% of extra risk capital and what that means is they are far more risk orientated than actually a society in the west.”
GeneralMalaise (20e943) — 3/24/2010 @ 7:20 pmimdw quoted and said obliquely:
“A recent book informs us of the decline of the last Christian Empire – the USA”
There. That was nice.
Which part is the especially nice part: Christian, Empire or USA?
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/24/2010 @ 8:27 pmIt is not a mistake. The Dems hate children.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 3/24/2010 @ 8:39 pm#14 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 …
“To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month
Comment by imdw — 3/24/2010 @
Thanks for confirming my statements in #7. They make it up as they go along, by decree according to the one’s whim.
Constitution schmonstitution, these people need to start off with the Magna Carta for remedial government 101.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/24/2010 @ 9:07 pmAlso, since all the pundits and commentators, left and right, that I try to keep up with have seemed to miss a minor point:
We all know the President has accomplished a great victory. I’ve been told that since Tuesday on the news. He completely obliterated the GOP and the nay-sayers and finally accomplished his goal of passing health care.
After more than a year. With a majority in both Houses.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/24/2010 @ 9:14 pm“I almost can’t believe Democratic lawmakers are this careless…”
As if Democrats had ever given a damn about kids.
Did they care about the Cherokee kids they put on the Trail of Tears?
How about black kids born on plantations in the antebellum south?
What about kids that were drafted into the army and sent over to die in shitholes like Vietnam or Korea? Did the mighty Dems care about them?
How about the two year old Japanese-American kids torn out of their homes and sent to concentration camps by that “greatest” of all liberals, FDR? Think the skanky Democrats cared about them?
How about the millions of unborn babies slaughtered by abortion? Another example of Dem caring?
Dems see children the same way they see all people: as tools to be used and lives to be expended to get the Dems want now, and always have wanted…which is power to rule the lives of others.
They don’t give a fuck about kids…and never have. If they did, they wouldn’t have burn tens of thousands of kids alive at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now, if there were a couple of million kids with pre-existing condititons who could vote for Democrats, the liberals would be johnny-on-the-spot with the free handouts to secure those votes, and there wouldn’t have been any “carelessness”. Since there aren’t…the liberals really could care less.
Same as it ever was.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dave Surls (5d222d) — 3/24/2010 @ 9:52 pm“Which part is the especially nice part: Christian, Empire or USA?”
Just re-reading the whole clause is nice. It’s such a breath of fresh wingnut.
imdw (3bf1a8) — 3/25/2010 @ 4:55 amYou forgot to call them pedophiles again, imadouchebag.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/25/2010 @ 7:36 am