Insurance Industry Agrees To Close Child Coverage Loophole

[Tx4obama]

Source: The AP via HuffPo

WASHINGTON: After battling President Barack Obama's health care overhaul the better part of a year, the insurance industry said Monday it won't try to block his efforts to fix a potentially embarrassing glitch in the new law.

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the industry's top lobbyist said insurers will accept new regulations to dispel uncertainty over a much-publicized guarantee that children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year.

Quick resolution of the doubts was a win for Obama – and a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress.

"Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a letter to Sebelius. Ignagni said that the industry will "fully comply" with the regulations, expected within weeks.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/insurance-industry-agrees_n_518033.html

[elleng]

1. This is a good result,

but I doubt the 'industry has no stomach for another war of words.' Just depends on the words, imo.

[Newest Reality]

2. The insurance gods have spoken!

They approve and shall show mercy on the children and their parents.

I am so cynical that I can only see that as a PR ploy considering the dark, blood red light they are more clearly seen in these days. Profit is the holy sacrament and law they abide by, above all else.

One could add:

Karen Iguana added, "Besides, there are plenty of loopholes and ways for us to make-up for any of the losses our industry will unfairly incur due to this valient attempt at looking concerned and giving a shit about families and their hardships."

[truedelphi]

3. I see it as PR too.

I even find myself wondering if there is any provision preventing the hospitals from removing children's organs while they sleep. And if they can pull it off, somehow that damn Karen iguana will indeed find some of the money ending up in her wallet.

[AllyCat]

4. Define "fully comply". I don't trust these rat bastards at all.

They'll find something else. We just need to continue to expose them.

[Lasher]

7. That means they'll go along until people are thinking about something else.

Then, since compliance is not required by force of law, they'll do a 180 and hope we don't much notice.

[calimary]

5. Winning has consequences!

Nothing like building on his momentum!

"a sign that the industry has no stomach for another war of words with a president who deftly used double-digit rate hikes by the companies to revive his sweeping health care legislation from near collapse in Congress."

[Kablooie]

6. That was quick. Obama must have suddenly scared the crap out of them.

I'll bet there were some serious backroom threats being waged.
Otherwise they would have fought this.

[Democat]

8. Tea Party loses again!

And another victory for Obama.

[Pharlo]

9. Simple cost-benefit analysis.

Every child that lives with a pre-existing condition becomes an adult who will have a pre-existing condition, no maximum charge on premiums for 'pre-existing conditions' and a mandate to purchase high premium insurance. They do NOTHING out of the 'kindness of their hearts' and they don't fear a single politician.

They figured out how to recoup their losses long term before becoming complicit on this issue.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. And people wonder why bills are 2000+ pages long. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Of Course: Because There's No Limit on Premiums

"Sure you can have coverage, it's $100,000 a year, chump" is no different that "fuck off, chump".

From http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/24/sick-kids-coverage.aspx

One thing is clear: The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.

Until a cap exists, "or children can no longer be denied insurance" is simply a fun talking point for the RomneyCare crowd.

[AllyCat]

15. Oh, but don't say that to those who think this is "a great start".

We'll fix it later.

A lot later. Like, "not in our lifetimes" later.

[Doctor_J]

12. How nice of them

How long till these blood-sucking ghouls are gone form American life?

[valerief]

13. As long as the Guns and God maniacs defend them. nt

[customerserviceguy]

14. They'll just use this as another excuse

to raise rates this year. Where's the money coming from to take care of all these children? It's not coming out of the pockets of either the shareholders of the insurance companies, or their CEO's bonuses, that's for sure.

[Jefferson23]

16. That was cleared up pretty quick, imo, the insurance industry was

fast making the case for a public option, once again. Sounds like they figured that out too.

[jtrockville]

17. I was thinking along the same lines.

I still expect them to try and weasel out of everything they can (they have an obligation to their shareholders to do so). Too bad we can't reliably count on receiving health care, even if we're insured. It's more like a rug waiting to be pulled out from underneath you, than a safety net.

I'm glad this one got cleared up quickly, but I'm not drawing any conclusions about loopholes in the future.

[Jefferson23]

18. Yep, agreed.