Health Insurance companies cut children's policies - and Obama is the bad guy??

[cbdo2007]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/childonly-health-insuranc_n_734525.html

That article is about "Child Only Plans dropped by Health Insurance companies" - but the reason for this is because they NOW have to cover pre-existing conditions, and of course Obama is the bad guy.

Does anyone in their right mind actually think it's fair for insurance companies to deny ANYONE coverage for pre-existing conditions, let alone children?? Who are these nuts who don't want to allow our kids to get health insurance and health care?!?!?

And its Obama's fault for some reason and not the Health Insurers faults??!?!?

[Pirate Smile]

1. That is what Huffington Post does with every story.

[FredStembottom]

2. No, Obama's is the Bad Plan.

n/t

[zipplewrath]

3. Basically

He focused on health insurance, and saving the federal government money.

What people needed was health care. Everyone is surprised that when we put for profit insurance companies in between us and for profit health care, the only ones being served are the for profit industries.

[obxhead]

22. "He focused on health insurance, and saving the federal government money."

He achieved neither.

People will still be denied coverage and this bill does nothing to control costs.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Indeed, he insisted on keeping them in the driver's seat.

Just as he insisted that we would not take banks under receivership even though without immediate Federal bailouts they would all collapse. Credit where it is due. And in corporate America, Obama's credit should be great, and would be too, if he wasn't such a sucker. He'll bend over backwards and lick their balls, and make us do the same, but they'll still prefer Generic White Republican Candidate to him.

[area51]

14. +1

Obama and congress fscking knew this would happen. And if they say they didn't know that the insurance cos. would try to take advantage of us, they're either liars or stupid. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them cheap.

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[tridim]

5. It's not a "plan", it's the law.

And these companies are now breaking the law.

[FredStembottom]

7. I bet not

The plan is such a crazy hodge-podge. There probably is a hundred ways to game it. I suspect this is just the first. We will probaly see lots of loopholes thoroughly exploited.

[kenny blankenship]

8. And since they wrote it, insurance companies would be the ones to know

what can and can't be done in compliance to the letter of the law, to torture its spirit.

[tridim]

12. All of this "gaming" already has a remedy in the law.

They are now ineligible for the exchange.

[eridani]

16. No, they aren't

The law just says that if they offer child only plans, they can't discriminate against kids with pre-existing conditions.

[BlueCheese]

18. I don't think they are.

I would guess the law says that if you offer child-only insurance policies, you have to accept those with pre-existing conditions. The companies are responding by not offering any child-only insurance policies at all, pre-existing conditions or no.

[tridim]

20. Doesn't matter. Not complying with the "spirit of the law" is a disqualifier.

They're flexing their muscles and not thinking about the consequences. A typical corporate behavior that is now punishible by law thanks to HCR.

[BlueCheese]

26. I still don't think so...

For example, one possible response by the insurance companies is to simply fold up and disappear completely. That wouldn't be illegal. These companies have decided to do that for a particular market. I don't think there's any law saying that a company that sells group plans and individual family plans must sell a child-only plan as well.

[Fumesucker]

23. Well, I for one will be holding my breath waiting for the executive perp-walks..

:eyes:

[obxhead]

24. No they are not.

The HCR law does not force any company to sell any type of insurance. These companies are deciding to no longer offer a particular product. In this case they are no longer offering any plans that cover just children. They have chosen to offer it to nobody based on their cost benefit analysis. That is their right under the new law. They are not required to offer any specific types of plans.

Now, with that said, they can still even legally offer these plans and then deny coverage for any individual they choose to. They will simply be fined $100 dollars a day for doing so.

Cost benefit analysis still rules the health insurance industry and the law passed under Obama just changed the equations to calculate that CBA. It did nothing to end it.

[MattBaggins]

6. It's the Repub meme.

"We have to let Corporations kick us in the teeth or else they will get pissed off and kick us in the balls"

This is dead seriously; the philosophy, we as Americans have let them drill into us.

[woo me with science]

9. Remember this? Obama promising great COST REDUCTIONS under his plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUd-slJc-GY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxl9eExU5VA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_yt9GT-Mas&p=7948374513EA6FF2&playnext=1&index=12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdj5bEXZ_0E

[Autumn]

10. I didn't find the part about Obama being the bad guy

in that article. As for who are the nuts. I'm thinking the insurance companies, and they just don't want to put out the money to pay for the claims.

[uponit7771]

11. Obama killed Bambi....

[Rex]

13. Anything created by Richard Nixon and his cronies will end up being

(a)evil and/or (b) bad for the country.

[Greyhound]

15. As the President it is his fault for avoiding the issue entirely.

As nearly everyone that works in health care or has been sick and was then subjected to the torture (it is torture) of being bankrupted by the parasites in the insurance industry knows, the problem with American health care is the health insurance industry, and he elected to ignore this and put the criminals in charge.

And with each new revelation of their ongoing criminality as this monstrosity takes effect, more and more people will see that the HIIPPA is far worse than nothing.

Anyone that thinks this industry can't wriggle out of the regulations in the 2400 page morass of bureaucratese with unlimited funds and an army of the very best lawyers money can buy is a fool, at best.

[Mimosa]

17. "the problem with American health care is the health insurance industry" Right!

Sad to say, Obama wanted something done quickly. Not right.

[unapatriciated]

25. +1

and to not see it coming is to ignore history. California went through all of the same loophole dodging in regards to the Insurance industry. They allowed them a seat at the table in the early 90's when enacting similar legislation. The Insurance Industry used many loopholes to keep anything good regarding these laws tired up in court for years. In the end it payed off for the Insurance Industry. They struck a deal and paid a fine that was a lot less then the profits they reaped.



http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-bluecross11/2

Jerry Flanagan, a patient advocate with Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica, said Anthem's $1-million fine was "an insult to the people of California, especially those who have lived under the financial destruction caused by rescission."

The fine, he said, pales in comparison to what Anthem must have saved by rescinding policies for years. Anthem has never said what costs it avoided through rescission. But Health Net, in documents produced for the Bates trial, said it avoided $35.5 million by canceling 1,600 policies.

"A low fine encourages the company to rescind more policies because the company saves far more money on the policies it does not get caught rescinding," Flanagan said.

They will ignore regulations and keep this tied in the courts for years to come
http://healthplans.hcpro.com/content.cfm?topic=HEP&content_id=255410

[BlueCheese]

19. Since you asked...

"Does anyone in their right mind actually think it's fair for insurance companies to deny ANYONE coverage for pre-existing conditions, let alone children??"

Honestly, insurance companies would have to be insane to offer coverage for people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as everyone else, at least without raising premiums dramatically. You know those people will need a lot more health care, so you either have to charge everyone more, or not cover them at all. A lot of companies are apparently choosing the latter.

[Better Believe It]

21. Why isn't that prohibited under the Health Insurance Industry bill?

Oh .... because it's a health insurance industry bill!

How shocking and surprised I am!

NOT!