Flap on Children's Coverage Settled

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.

The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't require them to accept sick children until 2014.

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must give sick children access to their parents' plans starting in September. "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Ms. Sebelius said.

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the "significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152100463512126.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

Scumbags.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

Scumbags.

To the contrary, a corporations very raison d'etre is profit. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. It is the role of government to regulate corporate conduct in a manner that tempers this drive to profit with a sense of public good. I am pleased to see this HHS do exactly that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To the contrary, a corporations very raison d'etre is profit. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. It is the role of government to regulate corporate conduct in a manner that tempers this drive to profit with a sense of public good. I am pleased to see this HHS do exactly that.

Fair point.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Still is bullshit and erroneous for Government to tell a company they can't refuse the right to serve someone who will literally hurt their business, irregardless of who it may be.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Still is bullshit and erroneous for Government to tell a company they can't refuse the right to serve someone ...

Back in the day when "big government" told privately-run stores it couldn't refuse entry to people with the wrong pigmentation, I bet you'd have been railing against that too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Still is bullshit and erroneous for Government to tell a company they can't refuse the right to serve someone who will literally hurt their business, irregardless of who it may be.

Right. You should be able to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 6 year old's without guvmint telling you not to.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Back in the day when "big government" told privately-run stores it couldn't refuse entry to people with the wrong pigmentation, I bet you'd have been railing against that too.

I still do.

If a company wants to be racist, let them. They're only hurting themselves in that sense (depending on where they are) of clientele who will spend good money there.

Right. You should be able to sell alcohol and cigarettes to 6 year old's without guvmint telling you not to.

Reasonable Regulation vs. Un-Reasonable.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I still do.

If a company wants to be racist, let them. They're only hurting themselves in that sense (depending on where they are) of clientele who will spend good money there.

It's fair to say we couldn't disagree more.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I still do.

If a company wants to be racist, let them. They're only hurting themselves in that sense (depending on where they are) of clientele who will spend good money there.

What part of the Constitution contradicts the Federal Government from regulating commerce?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's fair to say we couldn't disagree more.

We can disagree all we want, but if a private establishment wants to set their own rules, you also make the CHOICE to patron there.

It was the beginning of Government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Reasonable Regulation vs. Un-Reasonable.

Who gets to decide which is which? Paul does. Now if only we can convince the other 299,999,999 Americans that we ought to throw out our electoral process and just let Paul decide.

We can disagree all we want ...

I know

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Reasonable Regulation vs. Un-Reasonable.

That's backpedaling from your statement that the government should not interfere. Now you're basically saying it can interfere, but didn't articulate the distinction you make between reasonable and unreasonable federal regulations.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What part of the Constitution contradicts the Federal Government from regulating commerce?

There's a difference in regulating "commerce" versus idiocy.

Regulating Trade between large companies is a fair regulation to make sure the products at large are in the best interests of the people.

Regulating a small restaurant in New Hampshire is complete bullshit. Especially when who they serve, has nothing to do with the products themselves.

That's backpedaling from your statement that the government should not interfere. Now you're basically saying it can interfere, but didn't articulate the distinction you make between reasonable and unreasonable federal regulations.

Alcohol laws in regards to minors are not Federal for good reason. They'd have a 10th amendment stink on their hands if they were. They instead use appropriations to 'control' the situation, but nothing is actually stopping a state from allowing 6 year olds to be served.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Alcohol laws in regards to minors are not Federal for good reason. They'd have a 10th amendment stink on their hands if they were. They instead use appropriations to 'control' the situation, but nothing is actually stopping a state from allowing 6 year olds to be served.

So, the states don't have gubmints sticking their noses into people's bidness? Or are the state gubmints the good gubmints and only the federal gubmint is the bad gubmint?