Loophole Large Enough to Bury a Child In

[unapatriciated]

Surprise! Insurance company lawyer announces new health care law
doesn't require them to cover kids with preexisting conditions

DO SOMETHING:
Healthcare-NOW!
Let's pry the giant health insurance industry leeches off
America's face with Medicare-for-All


http://www.michaelmoore.com/


Call your Congress Critters and demand they Support Grayson's Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_XGJHOYuxw

[BuelahWitch]

1. .

:cry:

[leftstreet]

2. ouch

K&R

[Echo In Light]

3. k/r

[Nikki Stone1]

4. The bill has been signed. Congress doesn't have much leverage.

The leverage was BEFORE the bill was signed. That was why it was so important to get the language right then. Many members of Congress didn't even read the bill, so they had no clue what they were voting for.

[Xenotime]

34. Can't we sign an executive order and fix it? Seems like the right thing to do.

[ProSense]

5. How does the Grayson bill fix this?

Change via hyperbole?

The fix is simply rejecting the insurance industry's spin:

MR. GIBBS: No, the law is clear, Ed, that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to a child based on a preexisting condition. Under the act, the plan includes -- plans that include coverage for children cannot deny coverage based on a preexisting condition. To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, is preparing to issue regulations next month making sure that the term “preexisting” applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.

link

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

9. It's not a question of "rejecting spin," I'm afraid . . .

If the statutory language does not authorize a "guaranteed issue" for minors prior to 2014, HHS cannot, through the mere promulgation of a "clarifying" regulation, impose such a requirement.

At issue is what the statute actually provides; if the language in question is sufficiently ambiguous that congressional intent cannot be discerned, then HHS would be able, in the exercise of its administrative discretion, to adopt rules that would fix the problem.

[unapatriciated]

12. no change via medicare buy in.

The Insurance Industry is in the business of profit not health care.
They have the luxury of time (and a large legal staff) the critical ill do not have and will use it to find any and all loopholes in this bill.
California has fought them for years and still can not regulate them.
I know I fought Blue Cross for years and I see the same language in this bill as I did in Ca. laws.

[MarjorieG]

6. Lobbyists write bills (generally with aides) with loop-holes in mind

[Nikki Stone1]

14. Yes, and the Senate bill (ie the final bill) was written by the former Ex.VP of Wellpoint.

I'm surprised and I expect more litigation as to what the law actually means. The insurance industry will keep this tied up in the courts for years.

[tridim]

7. The next funeral will be for the Insurance companies who don't play ball

It's their choice.

[unapatriciated]

8. That is what Grayson's Bill will do.

[Donnachaidh]

17. ....

:rofl: :rofl:

yeah riggghhhttt...

[blindpig]

10. Could be the subject line of the week.

k&r

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, unapatriciated.

[sabrina 1]

13. I don't see how Grayson's Bill can change this, although of course

I support it.

What is needed is a separate law making it a crime to refuse to provide health care for sick children and adults. It's simply ghoulish that we live in country that hasn't already done this.

Let's see any politician oppose a law that targets the criminally negligent manslaughter of tens of thousands of Americans each year.

Americans are dying, it is a national security issue.

[unapatriciated]

15. It would provide an alternative policy, a national health care plan (medicare).

Once in place many would stand in line to buy in. Just ask how many seniors would give up their medicare.

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes, I agree. Call the bluff of the Insurance Ind. If they claim

as they are doing, that they cannot afford to cover sick people, then wtf are they doing in the business of 'health care'?

Extend medicare for sick people the insurance corps say they cannot provide and fine them for the cost. Otherwise they need to get into some other business.

[unapatriciated]

35. no they need to open it for any who want to buy in.

If you limit it to just the sick or those with pre-existing conditions you run the risk of failing. You need healthy paying in as well to make it work.
The Insurance Industry know this and that is why they only want to insure the young and healthy they are rigging the game.

[proud patriot]

16. the Vile Insurance Companies who do this need to be closed Down

they are killing Americans and Bragging about it .

[flyarm]

18. our leaders did this..the democratic party did this to the children..

and all those that sold this nation out..

70+% of this bill was written by a former V.P. of WELLPOINT ..what did anyone expect????????

It is shit on a shingle!!

[fascisthunter]

25. agreed... could this be considered a form of manslaughter?

I mean, it's not like the insurance company doesn't know the child would die from their decision not to insure the child.

[Raineyb]

20. I guess they'll have to wait four years like the rest of us.

But this is still a good bill. Right?

[WeekendWarrior]

21. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

But hasn't Obama already said he'll sign an executive order to cover this loophole?

This is last week's news.

[flyarm]

22. it was written a posted todays date on Moore's web site which he got from a UPI story.

if you actually click on the link..you can see this:


March 29th, 2010 8:37 AM
Lawyer questions healthcare law language
UPI

WASHINGTON, March 29 (UPI)


This is an article from today..........

[WeekendWarrior]

31. Still old news. I heard about this last week. nt.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

29. An Executive Order . . .

. . . cannot be used to alter the effect of statutory language. If the new law does not authorize the imposition of a "guaranteed issue" requirement for minors prior to 2014, neither President Obama (through an executive order) nor HHS (through a regulatory interpretation) can create such a requirement.

It will come down to what the actual statutory language provides (as, ultimately, will be resolved by a court on judicial review).

[WeekendWarrior]

30. Keith said tonight that

the rules will be strengthened to make sure there are no ambiguities in the meaning of the law.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

32. Keith who?

In any event, if the insurance companies make a collective decision not to push the point, so much the better. But, again, as a simple matter of administrative law, while a regulatory agency can, through rulemaking, exercise its discretion to resolve an ambiguities created by unclear statutory language, such agency cannot change what is otherwise clear statutory language.

Put simply, if the statutory language in question cannot be read as authorizing HHS to impose a "must issue" requirement for minors prior to 2014, HHS would be without lawful authority to create such a requirement through rulemaking.

Still, again, if the insurance companies have decided that they have no public relations stomach for such a fight, that might be the end of the matter.

[unapatriciated]

33. Thank you, that is what I have been trying to explain for weeks.

California had the same problems with their regulations and the Insurance Industry kept them tired up in court for years.
I actually read the bill and had over a ten year battle with blue cross in California than Cigna (1990-2005) so I understood the state laws.
I managed to win most of my battles with them without going to court but it took time, time that my son did not have.
I saw first hand how they used the loopholes to their advantage and it cost me my home and unnecessarily crippled my child (via denials and reviews).

[lame54]

23. K&R

[fascisthunter]

24. this is why I have lots of respect for Michael Moore

he may disagree but in the end he will still fight within the system we have. He points out the problems and then leaves it up to all of us to do somthing about it.

[Tx4obama]

26. Sebelius To Insurers: It's Over, You Lost, Stop Looking For Loopholes

Read more here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8046759

[flyarm]

27. maybe Sebelius needs to go on National TV and make her statements instead of passing through third

parties what she is supposedly writing the the insurance boys/women ( like the woman who wrote most of the bill..the former V.P. Of Wellpoint) who wrote this law..ya think?????????

perhaps someone needs to make it clear the the American people wtf is in this bill..ya think?????????

And perhaps that would hve been a dandy thing to do before this bill was singed into law?????????

Oh and You might look up in the bill.........Title V of the Bill expands the Ready Reserve Corps, originally formed by Clinton, and under the direction of the Surgeon General. The commissioned officers are appointed by the President, and the manning limits were removed. While the stated purpose was medical requirements AND national emergency, the actual use is open-ended because anything can be defined as such.
May I suggest you look it up???????

http://hearthebill.net/HR3590_Sub.pdf


silly me..since my hubby served in the national Guard during the Vietnam war..I thought we alreayd had the Reserves and a National Guard..so now we need another Ready Reserve???

WTF for??????????

and this needed to be in this Bill why?

But they couldn't keep the loopholes out to protect children with pre-existing conditions????????


Just more of the DLC cluster F..Not a Corporate whore or Military Industrial Complex of whores they don't love!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


edit to add: I am reposting here what I posted at your link........

[unapatriciated]

28. Thanks for the info I read it and it's a good first step.

I have stated over and over again that I saw the same problems in this bill that I saw in Ca state law.
I did read the entire bill and spent over ten years fighting Blue Cross for denials and reviews.
I lived in Ca at and became quite versed on state law and my own insurance policy.
I got tired of the merry-go-round of denials and reviews (via loopholes sorry 'clauses':sarcasm:) and went to see one of the leading Attorneys regarding Health Insurance Companies and state law (William Shernoff).
After his office reviewed my files, I was told that they couldn't do much more for me than I was already doing. They complemented me on my detail and gave me advice on what to do next.
The bottom line was my insurance company was able to keep me tired up in reviews and denials just long enough for me to lose my job, sell my home and cause unnecessary crippling of my child.
But Hey who cares they were able to make a profit at the expense of my child's health.