Nancy Pelosi: The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear

[ProSense]

* That’s not all: Nancy Pelosi’s office is also telling the insurance industry to back off. Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami emails:

The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear, and as the House chairs said last week, the fact that insurance companies would even try to deny children coverage exemplifies why the health reform legislation was so vital. Secretary Sebelius isn’t going to let insurance companies discriminate against children, and no one in the industry should think otherwise.

link

[ShortnFiery]

1. Does Nancy Pelosi have a viable Primary Challenger?

Damn, I hope so. :shrug:

[SPedigrees]

4. Too bad there's not an unrecommend option for posts within a thread. nt

[ShortnFiery]

7. Gawd, you're so witty.

:eyes:

[Cha]

13. There is..just go.. -1. that will get the message out.

I can't read what it says.

[dionysus]

9. !

:rofl:

[Jennicut]

11. She is far, far better then most of what we have in Congress.

San Fran seems to like her too.

[paulk]

26. what a strange comment

it seems really out of place in the context of this thread

[bornskeptic]

29. Oh no, Nancy Pelosi is picking on your insurance company buddies!

Oh, so sad!

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd to counteract the unrec, though can't imagine why this is

bad news.

[ProSense]

3. It's pissing off

the kill the billers.

[hayu_lol]

6. This bill Nancy, is about as clear in 'intent' as mud...

Thats why the insurance companies are raising their rates as fast as they can get the new rates printed...and refusing care for infants and children nation wide.

These are only two of the loopholes that they are taking advantage of so far.

[ProSense]

8. They can try.

You bet they will.

The bill gets stronger. No love lost. Those lobbying the insurers' point of view are wrong.

[Jennicut]

12. They would try and take advantage of any bill.

Sec. Sebelius has the ability to spell out exactly what the regulations are.

[Cha]

14. If it's good news..of course it is.

[ibegurpard]

5. really?

then why is the language of the bill allowing them to even THINK they can?
pass it first...fix it later...
good strategy, that

[Hekate]

30. They and their lawyers are playing this like a chess game, a criminal chess game...

No matter WHAT the bill says the CEOs and their lawyers will try to wiggle out of paying out a dime of the money they rake in.

Why blame Speaker Pelosi for their criminality? She is trying to fix it.

If she says the intent is "crystal clear" then why not go to that section of the bill yourself if you feel the need to prove her wrong, rather than reflexively believing what the insurance companies claim? When have they told the truth?

Just sayin'

Hekate

[quiet.american]

10. Exactly. nt

[IndianaGreen]

15. If Pelosi is talking about intent, then it means that there is a loophole in the law

otherwise she wouldn't be using "intent of Congress" as a defence.

[Yo_Mama]

16. There's not a loophole

It's not a loophole. There is absolutely nothing in the law that supports a claim that insurers are required to accept all children before 2014.

I went through all the code. I posted it here in General.

Sorry, but the insurers are right. And they'll win in court if they go to court. And Pelosi is just full of it - both House and Senate staffers said that the insurers were correct right after the bill was signed:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

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.

There is, however, nothing to prevent a little amendment fixing this if this is indeed Pelosi's intent. I don't think you could get 20 Republicans to vote against it.

So why is she saying this?

[ProSense]

17. "the insurers are right. And they'll win in court if they go to court...Pelosi is just full of it"

No, it's not Pelosi who's full of it.

[IndianaGreen]

18. If Pelosi was right, she wouldn't be talking about the 'intent of Congress'

That's lingo for "Oops, we never thought of that!"

[ProSense]

20. Lawmakers always talk intent. The bill is clear.

Go ahead side with the insurance companies. You can join them on the losing end of their bogus claim.

[IndianaGreen]

22. No they don't , not in court which is where this case is headed

The court will look at the language of the bill. If the language is confusing, the court will look at the Congressional record to discern the intent of Congress. Have you ever been in a law library? Have you ever seen the section that contains the congressional record? Mind boggling!

The reason Pelosi is already talking about "intent of Congress" is because the plain language of the law allows for the interpretation being given by the insurance industry. The courts will look favorably on the plain language of the law.

If you are pinning your hopes on Sebelius regulations, I got news for you. Regulations are written to implement the laws. Regulations will not ever counter what the law demands. People that write regulations are civil servants, and they are very scrupulous in their work.

We told you guys that without a public option you wouldn't be able to keep the health industry honest!

[ProSense]

23. Not

likely

[jeanpalmer]

27. Link please, to the language and section of the law

that says insurers cannot discriminate against children.

I've done searches in the text of the legislation and nothing has come up. I believe you posted a fact sheet saying they would be covered. As others have said, if the language were in the law, there would be no issue.

[craigmatic]

19. She should write another bill that only deals with this issue.

Let's see the repubs fight that.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Congress doesn't have the stomach to deal with health care again this year

Time ran out!

[vaberella]

32. Sebelius is fixing it as we speak and a clear rules & reg fixing loopholes is out next month.

This was on KO last night. No, new law needs to be written, ignore the first poster who answered you. They're on it.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. It's not about the intent. It's about the language of the law

and how it can be interpreted. Issues like this will be in litigation for quite some time.

[ProSense]

25. "Issues like this will be in litigation for quite some time."

The insurance companies don't have a leg to stand on. They created a fuss (spin) and then backed down because they knew they were full of shit.

[jeanpalmer]

28. Why are insurers even resisting?

They can just jack rates up to compensate for the broader coverage, and get higher revenues and profits. And the rate increases will be found to be reasonable by the rate authority. Why would they ever object? Certainly they were just jerking Nancy's chain here.

[babylonsister]

31. They're not... "Insurers DROP Health Care Challenge"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x253703

Insurance industry agrees to fix kids coverage gap
AP

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON – If you can't beat them, join them.

After nearly a year battling President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats over the health care overhaul, the insurance industry says it won't block the administration's 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 Monday 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.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_children_s_coverage