ObamaCare will not protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied health coverage -- not until 2014. This despite endless talking points and promises to the contrary, the Associated Press reports:They have other priorities. Obama has to destroy the private insurance industry first, then they can cover you under the new single-payer government plan.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. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.
Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.
He hasn't just "conveyed the impression." He's said it outright, repeatedly. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was saying it on television as recently as three hours ago. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, while criticizing ObamaCare, was saying this morning that he's still glad it would allow his diabetic son to get insurance if he lost his job.
Sorry, but not so fast.
This, as Vice President Biden might say, is a big f***ing deal. It means that in their rush to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare on Christmas Eve, Democrats disarmed one of their main talking points in defense of the legislation for the rest of this year.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
About Those Pre-Existing Conditions
If you thought Obamacare was going to allow people with pre-existing conditions to immediately buy health insurance, think again:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I also just read that the Senate forgot to include the part about including "children" on their parents' insurance till they're 26.
I have a daughter about to graduate college, and yes, I'm a bit concerned about her insurance coverage lapsing before she finds employment. But "solving" this by calling 26-year-olds "children" and leaving them on their parents' insurance is ridiculous. Good gravy, by the time I was 26 I was married, a homeowner, and a parent myself. I would have been mortified if I'd still been considered a child to be on my parents' insurance.
Best wishes,
Laura
Post a Comment