Reconciliation didn't fix the gap in PEC coverage for children, did it?

LLStarks

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:03 PM
Original message

Reconciliation didn't fix the gap in PEC coverage for children, did it?

I'm confused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Donnachaidh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:05 PM
Response to Original message

1. so much for *fixing* it, huh?

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabrina 1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:10 PM
Response to Original message

2. That's the question being asked by advocates

for health care in response to Private Insurance Corps claims that they are free to reject sick children until 2014.

See linked article here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8020438

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ncteechur

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message

3. There is really no gap. AHIP released a statement that said they interpreted the law

in such a way in which they could still deny some pre-existing conditions to children. (That they would brag about this is deplorable.) However, by the time that part of the law is enacted 6 months from now, the HHS secretary will define what that is. She gets to do that since she has regulatory responsibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

slipslidingaway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. What happens with a new HHS and their interpretation? We really should

not leave things up to interpretation when it comes to life or death issues such as this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bluebear

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Thank you. Interpretation is for music and dance, not health.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

slipslidingaway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. So true! :) n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

slipslidingaway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #3

9. The new HHS already has too much say in regards to state SP when 2017

rolls around, hope the HHS at that time is in agreement with a state SP system, otherwise we could be waiting a long time for improvements.

So glad the public option will lead to SP, that is what so many said a year ago and why they backed a vague idea of a public option that never materialized.

What a disaster this has been for true HC reform.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

slipslidingaway

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:16 PM
Response to Original message

6. Hopefully the language was clarified in the reconciliation bill ...

I've not been following along today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Prism

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-25-10 08:19 PM
Response to Original message

8. Sibelius is going to fix it, I thought

In the original story, Sibelius said she was going to clarify the regulatory language for her department that would close the loophole.

Did that require inclusion in reconciliation? I was under the impression this was something Secretary Sibelius could patch up herself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:34 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.