Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill.
|
In this thread post #50 I wrote:
Quote:
|
If pre-existing conditions are an issue an insurance company can simply stop accepting new applicants forcing those people to go into the exchanges. This adverse selection will force costs up in the exchanges or coverage will have to be sacrificed. Kucinich was right at first, this bill is a win for insurance companies. We either need to go all in with a single payer public option or go "free market", this hybrid is for the birds.
|
I have been constantly writing about the consequences (how market participants will respond) and there is constant pretense that there will be no unintended consequences. Market responses are not irrational, to the contrary it is very rational and predictable:
Quote:
Just days after President Barack Obama signed the health care law, insurance companies are arguing that, at least for now, they don't have to provide one of the benefits the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain sick children.
At issue is how the industry has to treat children with pre-existing medical conditions.
Obama, speaking at a health care rally in Northern Virginia on March 19, said, "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."
The law's authors say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, orthopedic problems, leukemia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. The goal, they say, was to provide them access to insurance and to a full range of benefits once they are in a health plan.
To insurance companies, the language of the law is not so clear.
Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.
William Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."
|
Read more:
When will children be covered? - CharlotteObserver.com
I suggest we keep our eyes open and ask questions, demand answers and try to get politicians off of their talking points. This should be truly embarrassing to Obama, I wonder if he read the legislation?