Obama admin. to 'allow' insurers to charge higher rates for sick children

*shrugs shoulders* .....its not quite an exemption, since its a mass decree, but close. That is another exemption or adjustment to correct for the ....wait for it.........I said wait for it.....


unintended consequences of Obama care.



U.S. to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 13, 2010


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.

Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.

Insurers “can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the extent state law allows,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services.

conclusion-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/health/policy/14health.html
rest at-

SOOOooo...... How hard did you fight for a Public Option? and all this bellyaching about a proposed or requested higher premium for existing conditions is worse than no insurance at all? That was the existing situation. Previous existing condition ...nothing for ya pal..just die. So what really is your point?

How about the insurers that already covered sick children with pre-existing conditions?
 
*shrugs shoulders* .....its not quite an exemption, since its a mass decree, but close. That is another exemption or adjustment to correct for the ....wait for it.........I said wait for it.....


unintended consequences of Obama care.



U.S. to Let Insurers Raise Fees for Sick Children
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 13, 2010


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.

Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.

Insurers “can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the extent state law allows,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services.

conclusion-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/health/policy/14health.html
rest at-

SOOOooo...... How hard did you fight for a Public Option? and all this bellyaching about a proposed or requested higher premium for existing conditions is worse than no insurance at all? That was the existing situation. Previous existing condition ...nothing for ya pal..just die. So what really is your point?

How about the insurers that already covered sick children with pre-existing conditions?

It's my understanding that people with pre existing conditions cannot be dropped. I don't get what all the fuss is about. There were billions spent by the HMO's to delay and subvert the attemp to pass a better health care bill. You people blame Obama for not getting a better bill? He didn't write this one. All of the problems in this bill were insisted by the NewGOPers being paid millions by their corporate masters. Why don't you all place the blame squarely where it belongs...with the HMO's and the Pharms?

This hand wringing rings hollow.
 
SOOOooo...... How hard did you fight for a Public Option? and all this bellyaching about a proposed or requested higher premium for existing conditions is worse than no insurance at all? That was the existing situation. Previous existing condition ...nothing for ya pal..just die. So what really is your point?

How about the insurers that already covered sick children with pre-existing conditions?

It's my understanding that people with pre existing conditions cannot be dropped. I don't get what all the fuss is about. There were billions spent by the HMO's to delay and subvert the attemp to pass a better health care bill. You people blame Obama for not getting a better bill? He didn't write this one. All of the problems in this bill were insisted by the NewGOPers being paid millions by their corporate masters. Why don't you all place the blame squarely where it belongs...with the HMO's and the Pharms?

This hand wringing rings hollow.

Parents who already could get coverage for their sick children shouldn't have to pay more due to the fact that politicians made secret deals before health care reform was passed. That's what all the fuss is about.
 
How about the insurers that already covered sick children with pre-existing conditions?

It's my understanding that people with pre existing conditions cannot be dropped. I don't get what all the fuss is about. There were billions spent by the HMO's to delay and subvert the attemp to pass a better health care bill. You people blame Obama for not getting a better bill? He didn't write this one. All of the problems in this bill were insisted by the NewGOPers being paid millions by their corporate masters. Why don't you all place the blame squarely where it belongs...with the HMO's and the Pharms?

This hand wringing rings hollow.

Parents who already could get coverage for their sick children shouldn't have to pay more due to the fact that politicians made secret deals before health care reform was passed. That's what all the fuss is about.

That assumption is rediculous. I mean that somehow you don't think the HMO's were not going to raise premium costs if the health care bill hadn't happened? They had already gone up over 300 per cent in the previous 10 years with no end in sight. I'm sorry sparky but this is the most baseless arguement against the president I've seen in a while.

READ MY LIPS!!! It's the HMO's!!! If all you fuckin crybabies had supported a public option none of this would be debated. You all cried about a real solution and now you have something only slightly better than before. There are consequences for voting against your own best interests.
 
Last edited:
It's my understanding that people with pre existing conditions cannot be dropped. I don't get what all the fuss is about. There were billions spent by the HMO's to delay and subvert the attemp to pass a better health care bill. You people blame Obama for not getting a better bill? He didn't write this one. All of the problems in this bill were insisted by the NewGOPers being paid millions by their corporate masters. Why don't you all place the blame squarely where it belongs...with the HMO's and the Pharms?

This hand wringing rings hollow.

Parents who already could get coverage for their sick children shouldn't have to pay more due to the fact that politicians made secret deals before health care reform was passed. That's what all the fuss is about.

That assumption is rediculous. I mean that somehow you don't think the HMO's were not going to raise premium costs if the health care bill hadn't happened? They had already gone up over 300 per cent in the previous 10 years with no end in sight. I'm sorry sparky but this is the most baseless arguement against the president I've seen in a while.

READ MY LIPS!!! It's the HMO's!!! If all you fuckin crybabies had supported a public option none of this would be debated. You all cried about a real solution and now you have something only slightly better than before. There are consequences for voting against your own best interests.

It seems that voting for a multi-trillion dollar entitlement with substandard medical care is the largest travesty ever forced on the American people.
 
Whatever...fuckwit. I'll take a trillion dollar entitlement that actually helps real Americans over here than a trillion dollar war that kills people and destroys property illegally and stupidly over "there".

If we can waste a trillion bucks on missplaced revenge we can certainly afford to give some Americans comfort. If you don't believe that then you are a moron. Don't try to tell me "Sorry, the money is all gone!" We had to spend it on killing Saddam ... much more important than the health of Americans. Nope!!..Sorry!!! Moneys all gone...

Hey fuck wit !! I'm tired of you stupid fucks trying to sell that lame game on us.

Just sayin...:eusa_whistle:
 
Whatever...fuckwit. I'll take a trillion dollar entitlement that actually helps real Americans over here than a trillion dollar war that kills people and destroys property illegally and stupidly over "there".

If we can waste a trillion bucks on missplaced revenge we can certainly afford to give some Americans comfort. If you don't believe that then you are a moron. Don't try to tell me "Sorry, the money is all gone!" We had to spend it on killing Saddam ... much more important than the health of Americans. Nope!!..Sorry!!! Moneys all gone...

Hey fuck wit !! I'm tired of you stupid fucks trying to sell that lame game on us.

Just sayin...:eusa_whistle:

Focus....I know it's hard, take some medication or something. We are debating the merits of a' MULTI'-Trillion dollar entitlement, Democare. By the way this is what happens when people think they are entitled to be taken care of....
remember the govt wants to raise the retirement age by two years
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Tw5ZxgtaA[/ame]
 
Whatever...fuckwit. I'll take a trillion dollar entitlement that actually helps real Americans over here than a trillion dollar war that kills people and destroys property illegally and stupidly over "there".

If we can waste a trillion bucks on missplaced revenge we can certainly afford to give some Americans comfort. If you don't believe that then you are a moron. Don't try to tell me "Sorry, the money is all gone!" We had to spend it on killing Saddam ... much more important than the health of Americans. Nope!!..Sorry!!! Moneys all gone...

Hey fuck wit !! I'm tired of you stupid fucks trying to sell that lame game on us.

Just sayin...:eusa_whistle:

Focus....I know it's hard, take some medication or something. We are debating the merits of a' MULTI'-Trillion dollar entitlement, Democare. By the way this is what happens when people think they are entitled to be taken care of....
remember the govt wants to raise the retirement age by two years
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Tw5ZxgtaA[/ame]

Investing in our health is smart. Not investing in our health is stupid. PS sorry I called you a fuckwit. It seems you are being honest. I will respect that.

Look at it this way. I see our health the same way I look at any vital infrastructure. If we don't keep it up it will cost us much more in the short AND long term. I am thoroughly done with corporations playing Americans against Americans. It is the right thing to do..it is the smart thing to do. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Whatever...fuckwit. I'll take a trillion dollar entitlement that actually helps real Americans over here than a trillion dollar war that kills people and destroys property illegally and stupidly over "there".

If we can waste a trillion bucks on missplaced revenge we can certainly afford to give some Americans comfort. If you don't believe that then you are a moron. Don't try to tell me "Sorry, the money is all gone!" We had to spend it on killing Saddam ... much more important than the health of Americans. Nope!!..Sorry!!! Moneys all gone...

Hey fuck wit !! I'm tired of you stupid fucks trying to sell that lame game on us.

Just sayin...:eusa_whistle:

Focus....I know it's hard, take some medication or something. We are debating the merits of a' MULTI'-Trillion dollar entitlement, Democare. By the way this is what happens when people think they are entitled to be taken care of....
remember the govt wants to raise the retirement age by two years
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Tw5ZxgtaA[/ame]

Investing in our health is smart. Not investing in our health is stupid. PS sorry I called you a fuckwit. It seems you are being honest. I will respect that.

Look at it this way. I see our health the same way I look at any vital infrastructure. If we don't keep it up it will cost us much more in the short AND long term. I am thoroughly done with corporations playing Americans against Americans. It is the right thing to do..it is the smart thing to do. End of story.

Sorry I have to disagree, there was plenty of things the government could have done short of a takeover of our health care.
 
Focus....I know it's hard, take some medication or something. We are debating the merits of a' MULTI'-Trillion dollar entitlement, Democare. By the way this is what happens when people think they are entitled to be taken care of....
remember the govt wants to raise the retirement age by two years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Tw5ZxgtaA

Investing in our health is smart. Not investing in our health is stupid. PS sorry I called you a fuckwit. It seems you are being honest. I will respect that.

Look at it this way. I see our health the same way I look at any vital infrastructure. If we don't keep it up it will cost us much more in the short AND long term. I am thoroughly done with corporations playing Americans against Americans. It is the right thing to do..it is the smart thing to do. End of story.

Sorry I have to disagree, there was plenty of things the government could have done short of a takeover of our health care.

We are intelligent human beings. Moreso we are Americans. We do not "Have" to do anything and we "can" do anything. What we need to do is knock off trying to let others decide who among us is more worthy of a decent healthy life so they can profit from our scramble to not be left out. This madness has got to end. If these pointless wars have taught us anything it is that yes we can afford to do anything we want.
 
This stupid healthcare bill is a worthless paper tiger. My Aunt's work switched insurance carriers & now she can't even get them to cover her hernia operation. She has maintained continuous health insurance coverage all her life. The operation is medically necessary & vital for her to continue doing her job. Without the operation she will no longer be able to work or maintain coverage. Her employer is pissed that they paid high premiums for this coverage & it fails to cover its vital employee to keep her performing her job.
 
My complaints about the Obama HC bill have been said again and again.

Funding still more demand for HC without also increasing the amount of HC leads to still higher costs.

Coincidently higher HC costs also lead to higher profits for the HC insurance industry.

I could not have designed a less effective fix for HC.
 
Investing in our health is smart. Not investing in our health is stupid. PS sorry I called you a fuckwit. It seems you are being honest. I will respect that.

Look at it this way. I see our health the same way I look at any vital infrastructure. If we don't keep it up it will cost us much more in the short AND long term. I am thoroughly done with corporations playing Americans against Americans. It is the right thing to do..it is the smart thing to do. End of story.

Sorry I have to disagree, there was plenty of things the government could have done short of a takeover of our health care.

We are intelligent human beings. Moreso we are Americans. We do not "Have" to do anything and we "can" do anything. What we need to do is knock off trying to let others decide who among us is more worthy of a decent healthy life so they can profit from our scramble to not be left out. This madness has got to end. If these pointless wars have taught us anything it is that yes we can afford to do anything we want.

Agreed we don't need the government deciding who and how medical treatment is administered.
 
ts not quite an exemption, since its a mass decree, but close.

How is it close? There's nothing in the legislation about community rating for child-only (or any) insurance policies prior to the opening of the exchanges in 2014 and thus there's nothing to exempt anyone from. There's only a guaranteed issue provision; what HHS is doing now is clarifying strategies insurers can use through 2014 for deterring adverse selection.


This whole thing is Columbus legislation. They didn't know where they were going when they started, they didn't know where they were when they got there and they are doing it all with someone else's money.
Nobody knows what's in this abortion and every time another tid bit comes to light, it stinks worse than the last tid bit.

Defund this thing before it gets any worse.

If you want to spend tax dollars to insure the uninsured, then do that. Make it a clean and trackable program and leave the rest of us alone.

Hoax and chains: Tickle up poverty for America.

The Dems knew exactly what they were doing when they passed this. Create a huge clusterfuck in order to destroy the private sector of the health care industry. Once its a big steaming pile of shit, the progressives will then say "see, we need a government single-payer system", and "see, private companies can't handle it." The hope is the masses will be so disenfranchised they'll run to the Big Brother and demand a nanny-state run HC system.

Its the standard progressive playbook. Use goverment to run interference in private industry, then when the problems surface, blame capitalism and greed and demand more government regulation.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing is Columbus legislation. They didn't know where they were going when they started, they didn't know where they were when they got there and they are doing it all with someone else's money.

What you're seeing right now are the growing pains inherent in a 4-year implementation process. Mini-med plans are not the future; but in the absence of exchanges, they have to be the present. Rating variations for sick children is not the future; but until the mandate is in effect it will have to be the present. This is a reminder that change takes time and involves lots of moving parts working together. You can't simply "spend money to insure the uninsured" without doing other things simultaneously (i.e. instituting a guaranteed issue rule, which requires an individual mandate, which requires financial assistance and quality control). Welcome to where we are.

This stupid healthcare bill is a worthless paper tiger. My Aunt's work switched insurance carriers & now she can't even get them to cover her hernia operation.

Pre-existing condition?

My complaints about the Obama HC bill have been said again and again.

Funding still more demand for HC without also increasing the amount of HC leads to still higher costs.

Framing it as a matter simply of quantity instead of quality is a mistake. There was an article a week or so ago about how provider associations in Massachusetts are warning of the state's dire primary care shortage. But what state has the highest number of primary care providers per capita? Massachusetts, of course. When you adjust each state's per capita numbers to reflect the state insurance rate (i.e. take into account that Massachusetts also likely has more patients per capita than anywhere else), it still ranks third or fourth in the country in terms of PCPs per capita. They have lots of good hospitals in MA and lots of doctors.

So is it just a matter of needing to dump more doctors into the state? I would say primarily no. The problem is the organization of the delivery system--by and large, we have the resources we need, we're just not using them well (from a U.S.-wide perspective, our allocation of doctors does need serious work; the distribution is biased way too far toward specialists). Now, Massachusetts is starting to make some adjustments--they're planning to build an all-payer claims database and they'll be making a big push for patient-centered medical homes, if I recall correctly.

The primary problem with MA's reform efforts a few years ago is that all they did was expand coverage. That's a worthy goal but they paid no attention to improving the way health care is delivered. ACA, on the other hand, represents a paradigm shift in a number of ways, not least of which is that the simple principle that we ought to be getting value for our health care dollar is finally going to be fundamental. That means being able to measure and demonstrate quality, that means attention to outcomes and not simply procedures, and that means greater transparency than ever before. But it also means starting to restructure the delivery system: organizationally or structurally (promoting med homes, particularly for those with chronic conditions, and improving the ACO concept), financially (as the focus on measurement and data gradually makes it easier for things like p4p to succeed and payment becomes a tool for promoting excellence and limiting re-admissions or hospital-acquired infections) and, really, philosophically, as integrated care becomes the norm.

I agree that simply dumping people into the system we've had for years isn't a particularly good idea. But the answer to that isn't just more doctors or whatever (though ACA does have workforce provisions designed to increase the number of primary care providers), it's about restructuring the delivery system to bring it into the 20th century, making it data-driven and science-based, not to mention significantly more cohesive and effective. It'll be challenging because this will be happening at the same time that millions more are joining the ranks of the insured but waiting on either of those issues just wasn't (and still isn't) an option anymore. It's time to get serious.
 
The French have the best healthcare system. It is a combination of public and private care.

They control costs by making medical schools cheaper, so there are more doctors per capita, limiting liablity, and negotiating costs.

We should learn from them, but we won't. We will continue to be ripped off by our bloated for profit system designed to make money off the sick. Obama is trying to change this, but the corporate media(FoxLies) and the big monied interests are against it.

The AMA Doctors Union strictly limits the enrollment of medical students to limit competition keeping their medical service fees sky high. Just one more corrupt union screwing the American citizens for all their worth.

AMA is not so all powerful. In fact less than 30% of our Doctors belong to the organization.
NBC's Guthrie falsely suggests AMA represents "the nation's doctors" | Media Matters for America
 
My complaints about the Obama HC bill have been said again and again.

Funding still more demand for HC without also increasing the amount of HC leads to still higher costs.

Coincidently higher HC costs also lead to higher profits for the HC insurance industry.

I could not have designed a less effective fix for HC.

That is todays America. Good for the economy, not so good for the people.
 
We are importing plenty of DR's from India and places.

How about that medical school for rejects in Grenada that Reagan saved?
 
I like this article; I hope you can continue to the fund! This article feel good, there are deep moral, mood is not bad, you have such thoughts, I am very impressed. You are great!Although I am just passing through, but I think I will be your feelings these words long. Thank you, so that I can share with you.
 
you are all forgetting this can only occur to 2014 when the rest of this law take affect and it become illegal. current laws already allow for this to happen. if you are deemed more expensive to insure, you pay a higher premium. ("as state law allows") so you are demonizing a current common practice.......

-----------------
oh and thanks for posting the link to your "evidence". if you actually read the whole article instead of just taking a few lines from it you would have gotten a better idea of what was actually said"
-------------------
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.
Enlarge This Image

Jay Angoff, a health and human services official, said the new policy was aimed at making child-only policies more available.
Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.

Insurers “can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the extent state law allows,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The difficulty in preserving access to child-only insurance policies is the latest example of unintended consequences of the new law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The problem may be solved in 2014. If Democrats can beat back Republican efforts to dismantle the law, most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, starting in 2014, and insurers will be required to accept all applicants, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The new policy statement, issued Wednesday by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, came with a fresh blast of criticism of the insurance industry.

“Unfortunately,” Ms. Sebelius said, “some insurers have decided to stop writing new business in the child-only insurance market, reneging on a previous commitment made in a March letter to ‘make pre-existing condition exclusions a thing of the past.’ ”

The White House has been tussling with insurers for months, trying to get them to provide coverage for children with cancer, autism, heart defects and other conditions.

In a letter Wednesday to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Ms. Sebelius said the decision of some insurers to stop issuing child-only policies was “extremely disappointing.”

But Ms. Sebelius acknowledged, “Nothing in the Affordable Care Act, or any other existing federal law, allows us to require insurance companies to offer a particular type of policy at this time.”

Insurance industry lobbyists say Ms. Sebelius mischaracterized their commitment. They denied that they had promised to continue offering child-only policies.

In a series of questions and answers intended to clarify its reading of the law, the administration said Wednesday that insurers had two options. They can enroll all children year-round, or decline to enroll all children outside the open-enrollment period.

Federal officials specifically rejected an option proposed by many insurers, which wanted to be able to accept healthy children and reject sick children outside the open-enrollment period. This option is “inconsistent with the language and intent” of the law, Ms. Sebelius said.

Insurers said they needed to bring additional healthy children into their broader insurance pools, or else premiums would go up.

Parents may seek child-only policies if they cannot afford family coverage or if they work for employers that do not offer coverage of dependents.

The administration encouraged states to set uniform open-enrollment periods for all insurers in the children’s market.

In its policy statement, the administration said, “States may set one or more open-enrollment periods for coverage for children under age 19, but cannot allow insurers to selectively deny enrollment for children with a pre-existing condition while accepting enrollment from other children outside of the open-enrollment period.”

Mr. Angoff, the Health and Human Services official, said the federal government could, by regulation, establish a uniform nationwide open-enrollment period for child-only policies. “That could get more carriers back into the market,” he said.

But Mr. Angoff said states could act faster than the federal government. “Some states, including California, Colorado, Ohio, Oregon and Washington, have already established open-enrollment periods,” he said.

On March 29, six days after President Obama signed the health care bill, Ms. Sebelius sent a sternly worded letter to insurers, saying, “Children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan.”

Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, sent an immediate response, accepting the administration’s demand.

Robert E. Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the trade group, said Wednesday, “Health plans have upheld the commitment” by Ms. Ignagni. “Children with pre-existing conditions are able to obtain coverage on their parents’ policies,” he said.

Neither the Sebelius letter nor Ms. Ignagni’s response referred to the marketplace for child-only coverage, Mr. Zirkelbach said.

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they cannot refuse to help pay for the treatment of pre-existing conditions. But Mr. Zirkelbach said the law “does not mandate that health plans offer coverage to all children” before 2014.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top