Obama and Pelosi will be happy. That gives them the justification for another power grab if we don't take the House and Senate.
Posted on 09/22/2010 4:00:29 AM PDT by tobyhill
Some of the country's most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.
Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
"We're just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds," Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. "[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They wanted it and now they don’t like the results.
The provision was calculated to destroy the private healthcare industry, and they’re complaining about being destroyed, the bastards.
LLS
Yes, Ethan, it's completely immoral to try to force companies to lose money and it's patently dishonest of you to pretend your policies didn't cause the problem.
Exactly. These morons expect insurance companies to just sit back, take losses and run off the investors.
nobama is brilliant. first, he wants to kill the unborn children. Those that escape that fate he wants to kill in so-called “partial birth” abortions. Those who escape that he wants to kill by not allowing insurance coverage for them. Those that make it through much of life he wants to kill at the end because they are a burden on the system. All worship DEATH...all worship nobama. Those children are such a burden and such a mistake. If only his loser mother had acted on his philosophy...
Socialism requires that a single executive is able to create new laws as unintended consequences come up. The remedy to socialism is a legislative branch requiring that it approve all new regulations.
We could end this creeping socialism once and for all with Congress passing a law requiring it’s approval before any regulation takes effect.
Obama would be in a very hard place politically if he were to argue against such a law. He would come across as a dictator.
Well, Obama is a Muslim.
This news report hits on the real ticking time bomb of the new health care bill.Yes, it will create huge deficits. Yes, standards of healthcare will decline. But the real damage is the massive cost increase precipitated by forcing carriers to cover folks with preexisting conditions at the same premium rate as healthy folks.Only 18% of the nation is uninsured, half of those because they cannot get insurance because of preexisting conditions.Seems like a minor percentage, right.The costs to cover them is massive.And that small percentage will wreak havoc on the healthcare premiums to be paid by healthy individuals and small businesses because their higher premium costs will subsidize the premiums of those with preexisting conditions.You think your premiums are high now? Just wait until the prexisting condition coverage kicks in. NYS is a perfect example. Health insurance premiums there are the highest in the nation, well exceeding the next highest premium state.NYS law requires folks with preexisting conditions to be covered at the same rate as the healthy pool.Do you see the link?
Obama and Pelosi will be happy. That gives them the justification for another power grab if we don't take the House and Senate.
Neither government nor insurance companies are responsible for a child’s well being. That is the role of the parent.
When a child needs medical or other help which the parents (note the plural) are unable to afford, the Constitution makes unambiguously clear that government can not step in as charity is NOT a Constitution defined role of government.
Historically, family, church friends and neighbors provided needed help.
Another, related question is what should be done when parents have a child with major genetic deficits. I would argue that to use government to take from one to subsidize the raising of another’s child is Constitutionally repugnant, and another case of creeping collectivism.
Both research to cure such genetic diseases, and medical aid for existing sufferers from such diseases becomes three to four times more expensive when government intrudes.
I offer the argument that America can not afford the 60% to 75% overhead inherent in allowing government programs to replace the historic private efforts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.