Whoops! Doesn't Cover Pre-Existing Conditions Until 2014

AP
3/24/2010

Whoops! Obamacare Doesn't Cover Pre-Existing Conditions For Children Until 2014

ObamaCare will not protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied health coverage -- not until 2014. This despite endless talking points and promises to the contrary, the Associated Press reports:
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.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

Washington Examiner

Whoops! ObamaCare doesn't cover pre-existing conditions after all, until 2014

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
03/24/10 10:16 AM EDT

ObamaCare will not protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied health coverage -- not until 2014. This despite endless talking points and promises to the contrary, the Associated Press reports:

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.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

He hasn't just "conveyed the impression." He's said it outright, repeatedly. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was saying it on television as recently as three hours ago. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, while criticizing ObamaCare, was saying this morning that he's still glad it would allow his diabetic son to get insurance if he lost his job.

Sorry, but not so fast.

This, as Vice President Biden might say, is a big f***ing deal. It means that in their rush to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare on Christmas Eve, Democrats disarmed one of their main talking points in defense of the legislation for the rest of this year.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whoops-ObamaCare-doesnt-cover-pre-existing-conditions-after-all-89007962.html#ixzz0j9gkr0Ne

Pretty much what I expected....the malcontents are now making the concessions that were necessary to have ANY version of the health care leglislation passed the fault of the current administration.

Full protection in 2014 is much better than no protection now (or ever, if some had their say).

lol Cincy, come on! We point out the obvious and we're malcontents?

This plan has some good points, but nothing is worth turning this much control over to the government. If this plan could guarantee FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE TO ALL...I would still vote no if it meant the loss of privacy, loss of control, and centralization of federal powers. I don't need the President to be my daddy. I need the President to remember he's my employee.

Janey wrote:

Cincy, You are missing the point. I don't personally know anyone that is against adult's or children being able to get coverage with or without pre-existing conditions.

It was the lie we were sold about children being covered in 6 months. We were told over and over that children would be covered in 6 months, and only after they pass the bill do they realize that it will be 4 years. The idiots didn't even bother to read it - This bill is a huge deal, the least they could have done is read it, and not lie.

What would you say to those parents that have very sick children that believed they only had to hang on for 6 more months and finally they would be able to get coverage?

Would you honestly say "Full protection in 2014 is much better than no protection now (or ever, if some had their say)."

I think children should have been eligible as soon as the bill was signed into law.

What if some of those children don't have 4 years? What if they only have maybe a year? Can you imagine how those parents felt when they realized they were lied to?

Talk about false hope and promises!

I hope I didn't miss the point, Janey. I am glad that you share my belief that no child should be denied necessary medical care.

As someone who has wanted a national health care program (regardless of ANY personal financial ramifications due to any tax increase and regardless of whether it would be labeled as "socialism") for at least the past 20 years, I would honestly say that full coverage in 2014 (if that had proven to be the case) would be better than no coverage at all. I would even go further than your comment about what if some children don't have four years to remind you of the children in the past 20 years and prior who were denied necessary, often life changing, medical attention and who have lost their lives or a portion of their ability to live a healthy life while our legislature dragged its feet making national health care a reality. Can you imagine the mixed feelings of the parents whose children were denied medical care while efforts to pass laws to enact a national health care plan were denied??


I guess you have read the entire bill, Janey, but I will admit I have not. I do believe, however, that the bill and the laws enacted (just as our discussions here) are open to varying interpretations. There will undoubtedly be many lawsuits in the future attempting to distinguish the letter of the law and the intent of the legislation. The language contained regarding coverage for children with pre-existing conditions is just one area of this very lengthy piece of legislation that could be read differently. It was ambiguous. However, this potential misinterpretation of what is intended and what could be interpreted differently has been addressed and rectified. There is no "lie"....no "false promises". Merely ambiguous language that, due to the efforts of Kathleen Seilbus (spelling?) upon realizing the ambiguity of the bill's language, has been rectified and clarified. There will be NO waiting period...not until 2014...for children who require medical care, for pre-existing conditons, as yet unknown conditions. I am sure with something so lengthy and so far-reaching (as well as something so complex), our courts will be faced with other instances and circumstances where the intent of the legislation versus the written word will be left to the courts' interpretation. I am glad that this particular issue has already been determined and I hope that when future questions arise (and they undoubtedly will as the law is tested and implemented), misinterpretations will not be labeled as "lies."

cincy wrote:

I brought up abortion and right to life as an EXAMPLE of a legal issue where the choice option is now the law, attempting to illustrate that voices that often cry out for the rights of the individual (federalists/Constitutionalist) find instances (such as abortion) where the do not look at matters on an individualized basis.

Okay, I see the distinction you were trying to make. I think this goes to show that no current ideology can encompass all issues. I think we're all a mass of liberal/conservative, constitutionalist/reform ideas.

Quote :

If it’s not worth it to someone else....if the end result is not in their view worth their own individual sacrifice or inconvenience, they can work to repeal the law just as some would like to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Cincy, I think one of the primary problems of this national debate can be summed up by this sentence. This argument is built upon the supposition that arguing against this monstrosity of a bill implies the dissenter is against improved healthcare, or help for those who need it. Until it is understood that the problem so many have with this bill is the MEANS to the end, not the desired result, we'll never get anywhere in this debate.

I don't believe that healthcare is a right. It is privilege. Given that, I absolutely believe that as individuals, we must help those who need it, and children especially should never be denied help (legal, illegal, or martian, I don't care, you don't turn away a sick child). But there are better ways to go about it besides government taking even MORE of my husband's hard earned paycheck. Joe and I made conscious decisions along the line to build the best life possible for our daughters. We didn't have more children then we could afford. I stayed at home to raise them, and volunteered at the schools to monitor their education. We live in a small twin home to make living on one income possible. Our newest car is over ten years old but we love it. Joe is working his ass off doing overtime to put our girls through college, and we're making it by the skin of our teeth. Now we're going to have to pay even more to provide these things to other people who didn't make the choices we did. That's not right.

If we choose to support the local hospitals, through our church, then that's our business, as well as our personal responsibility. But for the government to just make us poorer to help those who aren't as responsible...how does that help anyone in the long run? It's killing the milk cow!

We cannot be a nation that rewards weakness and poverty, while punishing hard work and success. I'm all for taking care of the needy, truly...through proper private means. The government can do all kinds of things to encourage private giving, including tax breaks. I think, honestly, that I would be more willing to give this a "fair shake" if three things weren't involved:

1 - The IRS in charge of policing this (freaking nightmare anyone?) including requiring access to people's personal banking information as part of the program.

2 - Insurance reform was worked through the private sector, not through government control.

3 - The government ever did one thing right when it came to services, outside of the military (Social security, the post office, bailouts, medicare...all failed programs of the government, and yet people still think the gov't is suddenly going to become an efficient business model?)

This program will fail because it tries to do too much, and it will break the backs of the workers to do it. You tax small business, they will be forced to either raise prices or cut jobs to cover costs. You tax individuals, their discretionary spending is reduced, hurting local businesses. This healthcare system is a fast train to socialism's ultimate goal: wealth redistribution. You work hard, you get this much. But it's more than this person has. Okay, let me take from you to give to him. Seriously, when has that ever been a good idea?

Healthcare reform is necessary; heathcare takeover is a nightmare.

This will fail. I only hope the it's stopped before too much damage is done (and I haven't even touched on the privacy issues!)

Thanks Morgan. There are some really interesting topics other than the original topic.

Some great thoughts too - and opinions!

Renee, I totally understand your personal financial considerations and reasoning. It is hard to raise a family, building a future for kids and their college education in today's world.

As with most things, I don't believe the health care plan is perfect, but I do feel it is necessary and an essential use of our tax dollars. There are so many other things that our tax dollars already go to and I would love to see those areas decreased to ease the burden on families such as yours. I wish national health care had been implemented 20 years ago....maybe then there would be less tax dollars going into the things I would decrease. But I can't fault the need for what I consider an essential, life sustaining blessing of our country based on its timing. Our country has had decades of trying to find a better way to deal with this issue and we were just spinning our wheels. I am sure there are many many people who share your caring nature and gladly give through their church or in other private ways, but wonderful as that is, it is only putting a bandaid on the real problem....and likely even your own giving nature has to be tempered with whether or not you are already paying high taxes for other things and whether you need to save for a rainy day. So, I think this is one issue, so important, so basic to our fellowman and his entitlement to medical care regardless of his financial means that our own individual financial means have to be taken out of the equation. Otherwise, the problem will never be fixed; people will continue to die or live with debilitation health conditions that could otherwise be fixed while we as a nation tally up whether that person is really trying, making the right choices, carrying his share of the load.

We are always going to have taxes....I think we just differ on how those tax dollars are spent. (I mentioned pro-choice and right to life as an example of individual rights and government involvement and that kind of de-railed the thread into a discussion of abortion. So if I mention "national defense and weapons and provisons of war" as an example of what I am referring to, I hope we won't get sidetracked on the necessity of national security, 9-11, terrorism, etc.) That is just an example, off the top of my head, where I would cut one thing to provide for another. I am sure there are many other areas where I think tax dollars could be saved to pay for the health care program. Some, you might even agree with me.

My point is that the tax dollars spent for programs such as this one which benefit a group of people who are unable or even unwilling to address the issue of health care and more importantly the children of that group of people is a higher priority to me of how our tax dollars are spent than it likely is for you. I admit that in many ways, my views are somewhat socialistic (not to be confused with communism). But believe me, I have been in the same position you and Joe and families like yours are in, so I understand where you are coming from and when you couple that with your concerns about government involvement (which are not as threatening a concern to me as they are to you), that makes your position much easier to understand (even though it contradicts mine.)

It will all work out.