Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.Bummer, dude. But there's a fix in the works, right?
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.All the urgency to pass this crap sandwich and no bennies until 2014? Where's our Big Rock Candy Mountain?
Fortunately, I was able to find the relevant language at this link:
Step right up
Please allow thirty days for delivery, don't be fooled by cheap imitations
You can live in it, live in it, laugh in it, love in it
Swim in it, sleep in it,
Live in it, swim in it, laugh in it, love in it
Removes embarrassing stains from contour sheets, that's right
And it entertains visiting relatives, it turns a sandwich into a banquet
Tired of being the life of the party?
Change your shorts, change your life, change your life
Change into a nine-year-old Hindu boy, get rid of your wife
And as always, remember what Mr. Waits says:
You got it buddy: the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
13 comments:
Don't forget, it "wins the election".
Right, but if Republicans had it their way, the children wouldn't even get the coverage at all.
Yeah, that's it, Amanda. Those evil Republicans twirling their Snidely Whiplash mustaches, tying children to the railroad tracks. Exactly. That's just how it is.
I think health care is a crock. Whoever thought of it should be dug up and shot.
Hey, and then we could shoot the children! You know, for fun.
"the children wouldn't even get the coverage at all."
Well, I suppose Amanda is right... if you consider abortion to be healthcare. I sure don't want to pay to have babies aborted.
Before I forget, however, I'd personally like to thank Amanda for paying more for her healthcare in order to cover this old, overweight guy. Assuming, of course, that old, overweight guys aren't the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I wonder if I'm too old to take up smoking.
maybe we should all re-take up smoking.
and milkshakes.
If I'm exaggerating, show how I'm wrong. Republicans have stated that that the system is broken, and some of them have even developed plans of their own, but during the last couple of decades, when they've had a majority - they haven't mobilized to do anything about it.
Night Writer, perhaps you missed the previous post, but the bill doesn't give any federal money to abortions. None. I'm literally referring to basic health care for children.
Since I quit my job last July, I don't have any healthcare. So I'm sorry, but I won't be contributing to your healthcare for a little while longer.
And anyway, I'm a Democrat. I don't think taxes are evil. Etc.
Here Amanda touches on a good question and a fair one. Why have Republicans not pushed for reforms like increasing competition across state lines? Or maybe they have and it just hasn't succeeded?
On the other hand, I know why they haven't pushed for certain reforms; these things are unpopular and they would have gotten killed at the ballot box. It's easier to let the status quo ride. But the status quo ante is better than what we're saddled with now. So the question I would have for you, Amanda, is why Democrats didn't include some common sense reforms that would have bent the cost curve down like tort reform?
Republicans have stated that that the system is broken, and some of them have even developed plans of their own, but during the last couple of decades, when they've had a majority - they haven't mobilized to do anything about it.
The key was this: at no time did the Republicans have the means to beat a Democratic filibuster. The one time that Republicans tried to make a wholesale reform on social policy during the Bush years was Social Security. They got killed for it. This sort of thing is supposed to be difficult.
Well Amanda, that sounded like a pretty good response and it made your side sound petty. Almost like they're just in it for the power, not to actually help people. What say you?
WBP -
On the other hand, I know why they haven't pushed for certain reforms; these things are unpopular and they would have gotten killed at the ballot box.
You bring up a point I've been thinking throughout all the comments about how the Democrats will "get theirs" come election time, because of HCR: Some people vote a certain way because it's the right the thing to do. (Imagine that!) And many Democrats knowingly took that risk. (Aside from the fact that many ran on a healthcare platform to begin with, so why would their constituents vote them out?)
Mr. D -
The key was this: at no time did the Republicans have the means to beat a Democratic filibuster.
Oh right, absolutely nothing can EVER get done unless your party is filibuster-proof, right?!
#sarcasm
WBP - Petty? In a discussion about how partisan politics urges Republicans to vote against children having healthcare?
Oh right, absolutely nothing can EVER get done unless your party is filibuster-proof, right?!
#sarcasm
That's not sarcasm, Amanda. That's silly and a strawman argument to boot. I never said that Republicans were completely constrained. What I argued was this: to pass truly major legislation, especially major legislation that the other side adamantly opposes, you need a filabuster proof majority. Some version of this sort of government healthcare has been on the Democrat wish list since Harry Truman, but only now have they passed it, and only because they had the raw muscle to do it.
And let me be quite clear about something: I oppose this legislation because it is precisely the wrong thing to do. It's not because I want to "deny healthcare to children" or some other bullshit like that. I have two children that I love very much and I've been quite happy to provide them with healthcare myself. Don't be bringing that sort of straw man bullshit in here, m'kay? Because the only way your point would make any sense is if children universally had no healthcare, nor any access to it, prior to the great minisrations of St. Pelosi and Good King Barack. Which is false and you know it.
Amanda, you've converted me with that one. Here I thought people in both parties cared for children. Boy was I wrong! Now I can see clearly that Republicans want children to DIE! And Democrats like kids almost us much as puppies, maybe more. I sure know how I'm votin' in November! Vote puppies and children!!!
Post a Comment