Plouffe: PARENTS won't have to worry CHILDREN will be denied because of PREEXISTING CONDITIONS

[Bluebear]

Mark my words, preexisting conditions are the next safety net to be chopped from this disgraceful gift to the insurance companies. Plouffe assures us in tomorrow's column:

...If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs....

(He cheerfully calls those worried about all of this "bed-wetters" again.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204216.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Friday already saw:

Lawmakers, Congressional aides and health policy experts said the package might plausibly include these elements:

¶Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/health/policy/22health.html

===

Ridonkulous. Bill. Of. Goods.

[LeftyMom]

1. Nice catch.

[Bluebear]

3. When it finally dawns on you that you're being lied to, you have to parse everything.

I never thought I would have to do it with a Democratic White House and Congress, though.

[LeftyMom]

5. Hardly new- Clinton was a master of this kind of retreat and declare victory crap.

[Bluebear]

6. And Rahm Emmanuel was right there too.

Obama certainly picked a bunch, didn't he?

[BP2]

11. The drumbeat needs to continue, long and loud - Rahm must go. Do not reward incompetence. eom

[truedelphi]

33. Although I assure you I hate Rahm as much as you do, he is not

Incompetent.

He is one of Obama's handlers, and he is doing a great job of keeping his own handlers happy.

Cigna, Aetna, Blue Cross et al are delighted about this. Mandated insurance for all, with little in the way of restrictions on them.

[BP2]

41. Incompetence is the inability to take effective action. If Rahm is not the clown behind the HCR

debacle, who is? Axelrod? Valerie?

Insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results. Whomever it is has had a year and has done a shitty job in the meantime managing the process.

There's no way to sugar-coat that heads must roll to get rid of the dead wood infecting the White House.

[truedelphi]

52. Heads will not roll -unless they are needed for

Sympathy.

That is one of the dangers Obama faces. Should too many people catch on to the gestalt of all this, his end will be needed to arouse sympathy.

But the gestalt of having our nation firmly in the hands of the CIA means we never have to worry too much about seeing the economy's recovery return to the middle class. We will never have to worry about having our full freedoms returned to us.
And we won't be safe from terrorists either - expanding the Afghani war means more terrorists will be created..

Meanwhile the tectonic weaponry victims watch as the USA's military moves in.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

2. Oh nice way to announce a deeper shittening of the bill

[Bluebear]

4. They are slick, I give them that.

[Political Heretic]

7. How can one not be angry at the Democratic Party?

?

To me that's the question.

[BP2]

18. Everytime I hear the phrase "corporate fat cats," I seeth. IMO, it applies to Big Insurance & Pharma

that the White House and Harry Reid was negotiating with, not just the Banks.

[stray cat]

8. I think I'll wait to see what officials do instead of the talking media heads

[Bluebear]

9. Um, David Plouffe is not a "talking media head".

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/plouffe-joining-white-house.html?wprss=thefix

David Plouffe, the man who managed President Barack Obama's campaign, will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House, according to sources familiar with the plan, a move that comes just days after a stunning defeat for Democrats in a Massachusetts Senate special election.

Allies of the White House cast the Plouffe move as less about the Massachusetts election and more about the fact that the election year is heating up and Plouffe has more free time following the publication of his campaign memoir late last year. Still, the timing is sure to stoke speculation that the White House is seeking to shore up its political operation.

After managing Obama's successful primary and general election races, Plouffe chose not to go into the White House -- as so many of his campaign colleagues did -- but rather return to the private sector and focus on writing his memoir of the campaign called "The Audacity to Win". The book was released on November 3, 2009.

[Bluebear]

30. ?

[BP2]

10. If Congressional Democrats were smart, they'd break this part off and have a vote on Child Pre-

Existing Conditions to force the Pukes to vote it up or down.

The kids would win if it passes, and the Pukes would lose if it didn't pass.

Of course, that's assuming Congressional Democrats were in fact smart.

[JVS]

13. That's a terrible idea! It is a guaranteed way to make sure that adults with PECs get nothing...

because it would allow the republicans to vote down PEC protection for adults but save face and not look like monsters by voting to cover the kids.

[Bluebear]

14. That's evidently what's being cooked now anyhow - by our own party

"But we saved the children!!!"

[gulfcoastliberal]

25. WTF?! So we get mandates w/o PEC protection?

What worthless shitheels.

[Bluebear]

29. Exactly

[BP2]

15. Yeah, that make sense too. I just hate the idea of kids who are being denied. When the Bills are big

it seems to give Corporate interests more time and opportunity to kill it.

[Bluebear]

16. 'Of course I support the Progressive cause, but I CANNOT stand people who lie to me!'

Love that from your profile :toast:

[BP2]

23. I'd like to think a growing number of Progressives are realizing that Barack-flavored

Kool-aid tastes rancid and bitter in light of the corporate sell-outs we've seen in the Senate version of the HCR Bill.

Harry was not operating in a bubble on his own. He's not that smart. He was helped by the White House to cobble it together.

Barack was the architect; Rahm was his assistant, unless it was the other way around.

Barack can't fire himself, but he sure as hell can fire Rahm!

[rhett o rick]

35. It has nothing to do with their "smarts". It has to do with their allegiance. It aint with

us.

[OHdem10]

17. I care about Children but what about the rest of America and Pre-Existing

Existing Conditions.

You are correct--you cannot trust the Senate Bill.Keep parcing.

Kick the old Folks to the side of the road. Let the rest
stand up and be counted as rugged Individualists who can
darn well take care of themselves.

That Senate Bill gets more toxic by the minute.

[BP2]

26. The best way to eat this HCR whale is one bite at a time! It's like the final few hours of the

Titanic - women & children first.

I'd love to see all people who need it covered. I'd love to see all women who need it covered. I'd love to see my grandma get covered.

The kids need it the most first. We can get the rest in subsequent Bills.

[OHdem10]

31. Oh yes. Bill Clinton and Dems promised to fix Nafta.

Nafta is responsible for the No Jobs problem we suffer today.

I have bridges to sell to anyone who believe it will get better.

[Bluebear]

53. That worked out well,

:silly:

[sandnsea]

19. I suspect we'll lose the mandate and pre-existing protection

But this is a list of things in the bill. Not the complete list. You can't say that everything not listed is automatically gone. The reactionary histrionics only help to turn people to Republicans.

[area51]

48. I'll be shocked if they get rid of the mandate.

The insurance cos. are desperate for a mandate.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. I always refer to provisions like this as The Healthy Orphans Act

The kids can get healthcare but their parents with pre-exisitng conditons can FOAD.

I remember John Kerry making the same suggestion and I called it the same thing back them.

[Bluebear]

21. Brilliant, Phoebe.

And bonus points, it sounds like a Bush-era program, like "Modernizing the Forests For a New Age Act" or something that means total deforestation :)

[BzaDem]

22. How exactly do you think pre-existing condition discrimination can be banned without a mandate?

Who in their right mind would have insurance if they could just wait until they needed it to buy it (and until they didn't need it to cancel it)?

If only sick people purchase insurance, the price of insurance would rise to the total amount required to pay for medical care by every sick person. In other words, thousands per month per person.

That's why there was a mandate (and subsidies to make it affordable) in both bills (and in every feasible proposal to reform our healthcare system since Nixon's plan in 72).

It is 100% impossible to cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate. There is not one healthcare economist (liberal or conservative) that disagrees with any of this.

[Sy Kopath]

24. Question

I hear them talking about covering kids but doesn't S-CHIP cover kids? Maybe I missed something.

[Robeson]

27. Amazing.

[amborin]

28. Easy to dump people for "pre-existing conditions" read this:

"California recently dropped an attempt to enforce its anti-rescission law against a major insurer, saying that it was financially outgunned by the insurer's legal team.

The rescission law, according to the legislation, "shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage."

Insurers today routinely claim that patients engaged in "fraud" or "intentional misrepresentation" when dropping them from coverage. Much depends on who defines the terms in the bill.

It won't be the federal government. There will be no federal agency tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the bill's rules. Rather, a Senate leadership aide told reporters in a briefing Saturday, individual states will police the new system.

That's a task the California Department of Managed Health Care was unable to perform when battling Anthem Blue Cross, which has rescinded 1,770 policies since 2004.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," the department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press. A million-dollar fine was announced in March 2007, but has not been enforced.

If the enforcement for these regulations falls on the individual states, and the individual states will have to litigate them, which could take a very long time in each case. The regulations are unlikely to be uniformly enforced state to state--some of them have extremely proactive insurance commissioners and strong regulatory structures in place, others don't. And in the states that don't, don't expect insurers to end some of these practices out of the goodness of their hearts."

common dreams.org

[truedelphi]

34. Ew. that si pretty scary. n/t

[subterranean]

36. That clause is indeed troubling.

It was clearly inserted at the behest of, if not directly written by, the insurance lobby. If insurance companies can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, what possible reason would applicants have to misrepresent themselves? I can easily envision insurance companies planting misleading or confusing questions in their applications, the answers to which they could later point to as evidence of fraud or "intentional misrepresentation."

[snagglepuss]

37. Very interesting. This should be a separate thread. nt

[mzmolly]

40. What does this have to do with pending legislation?

In fact, it seems new legislation will address this issue.

[unapatriciated]

50. see my post below. California addressed this issue in the early 90's.

but they allowed the Insurance Industry input in writing these laws which gave them legal loop-holes to deny coverage.
They were not allowed to deny based on pre-exsisting conditions but could delay care for them with denials and reviews.
This had the same effect and allowed them to circumvent the laws.

[mzmolly]

51. Why assume the worst?

California is another matter.

[unapatriciated]

60. because I experienced the worst at the hands of my Insurance Company.

California is not another matter. We should learn from their mistake in allowing the Insurance Corporations input on laws or policies that are supposed to protect us. Instead we repeat the mistakes and once again put obscene profit above the needs of the people.

[mzmolly]

63. Who says we haven't learned from

California? I'm in another state with expanded health care. When we were in-between jobs, we took advantage of local programs. The coverage was the best and least expensive we've ever had.

[unapatriciated]

64. I'm not familiar with CO. only CA.

but glad to hear that there are programs in place to help when in between jobs.
Like I said I'm only familiar with CA and the merry-go-round of denials and reviews the insurance company puts you on when you have a chronic illness.

[unapatriciated]

49. California has some of the toughest laws regarding pre-existing conditions and

claim denials. Yet the Insurance Corporations managed to get around them.
That is what happens when you allow them input in writing the very laws that are supposed to protect the insured.
When my son first became ill in the early 90's I had great insurance and thought these laws would protect us.
I soon found out the reality was I was alone in forcing my insurance company to provide the care my policy stated I had (one that I had been paying big premiums for years).
They used denials and reviews as a means to bankrupt you and force you onto the public health care roles (medicare).
I managed to hold out longer than a lot of families I met at CHLA because I worked in the insurance industry at the time and was aware of these laws and how to use them.
Unfortunately with long term catastrophic disease the Insurance Companies will always win.
It is a waiting game for them (wait until you die) in regards to denials and reviews. They are allowed 30 days to respond to your objection to denial and if you manage to get them to provide coverage for said denial they can review the claim months later taking back monies already paid leaving you in debt big time.
It's worse if you have an HMO and have to go out of network for health care. You then have to start the process of getting the out of network facility (CHLA) qualified. In the mean time you are responsible for all bills not covered by you HMO.

[amborin]

56. +10000

[southernyankeebelle]

32. Wonderful to take care of workers children. Now how about taking care of the

working parents who are suppose to supply their children good health care.

[mzmolly]

38. A person of 19 is a legal adult.

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

54. You think the pre-existing condition goes away at 20? n/t

[mzmolly]

58. No I think childhood goes away at 20.

Which is what I stated.

[Raineyb]

59. And you think their need for health care goes away at 20 as well?

Just because you're not a child doesn't mean you don't need health care. Although apparently it does mean people feel free to not give a shit if you don't have access to it.

[mzmolly]

62. No, I simply think the word children applies to ah, "children."

eom

[subterranean]

39. Plouffe was referring to the benefits that would take effect IMMEDIATELY.

Denial of coverage for children would be prohibited immediately after the bill is signed. Insurers will be free to deny coverage to adults until 2014.

[Bluebear]

42. 'Insurers will be free to deny coverage to adults until 2014.' Unacceptable.

Pre-existing relief was one of Obama's main campaign promises for health care reform.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/51/require-insurance-companies-to-cover-pre-existing-/

[SoCalDem]

44. Whatever the date, it's all smoke & mirrors anyway

Insurers will be basing coverage COST on what they can expect to pay out, so people with PE.C.s may not be EXCLUDED, but they will be made to pay so much that they cannot afford to buy it. If there is ever a subsidy put in place, rest assured that most people's incomes will somehow be just a bit too much to qualify, or an assets-test will be a part of it..

Insurance companies make money by having people pay them premiums for events that are unlikely to happen.. When the health-insurance plans came along, the largest bunch of the workforce (Boomers & boomlets) were young and healthy, and the old folks had medicare.. but that model has flipped.. now that boomers are aging, and a lifetime's worth exposure of toxins is taking a toll, the insurers are all about denial of payments, and increase of premiums.. It;s the ONLY way they make profits..

[bluestateguy]

43. In this country if you don't have children you are treated as a second class citizen

I have already gotten used to it.

[FLAprogressive]

45. The arrogance of Gibbs, Axelrod, Plouffe, etc. is stunning....

[Bluebear]

47. Plouffe's ass is being handed to him in the comment section of that piece.

Good.

[eridani]

46. No, they'll just be denied because their parents have bad credit records n/t

[Generator]

55. Gibbs used the same language only mentioning kids

on the ED Show last week. I noticed that because he mentioned kids. Apparently adults are to be covered in 2014 but also apparently (OH THE SURPRISE I KNOW) other news outlets are claiming there is a compromise in the works to dump the adults.

Obama :"Compromise you can't believe in."

[jonnyblitz]

57. how ironic. the discussion of "deleted subthread" from last night

upthread became a deleted subthread. :rofl:

[Bluebear]

61. Must keep everything tidy, ya know.