[jeffkrol]

More stonewalling:
Democrats, Republicans spar over Obama's recess appointments - CNN.com
"We have 77 appointees who have not gotten the [Senate] vote because they have been held up by the Republican Party," Axelrod said. "Some of them are in very sensitive positions -- Treasury, Homeland Security, and boards like the Labor Relations Board ... where there are a huge number of vacancies."..................
"Most of the men and women whose appointments I am announcing today were approved by Senate committees months ago, yet still await a vote of the Senate," Obama said in the statement issued Saturday. "At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months. I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government."

The Constitution gives a president the power to fill vacancies without the Senate's confirmation when the legislative body is in recess.......................
President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments during his two terms in office, and President George W. Bush made more than 170, according to the Congressional Research Service.

[Ratmagiclady]

Yeah, Jeff, that's *definitely* been an ongoing problem, one that of course goes almost entirely un-covered in the mainstream media.

More GOP 'Scorhed Earth' policy in operation. Obstruct *everything* and then claim 'Government doesn't work.'

[jeffkrol]

Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - NYTimes.com
Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.
William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”
Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.
“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”
..................................................................

Insurers say they often limit coverage of pre-existing conditions under policies sold in the individual insurance market. Thus, for example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but exclude treatment of that condition from the policy.
The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then.
Consumer advocates worry that instead of refusing to cover treatment for a specific pre-existing condition, an insurer might simply deny coverage for the child or the family.
“If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place,” said Karen L. Pollitz, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.
Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concern.
“I would like to see the kids covered,” said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. “But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19.”

[tpeace]

The fine print differs from the larger political message.

Legislators need to learn that they should read the bills before they vote.

regards,
-tom

[shooz]

Legislators need to learn that they should read the bills before they vote.

regards,
-tom

Sorry!
Pre-existing condition. No coverage.

[areidjr]

Legislators need to learn that they should read the bills before they vote.

regards,
-tom

I would add that they should read and UNDERSTAND bills before they vote.

[Parallax]

I would add that they should read and UNDERSTAND bills before they vote.

Asking a bit much, don't you think?

[areidjr]

Asking a bit much, don't you think?

Yes, but I can always dream

[Wheatfield]

Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - NYTimes.com
Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.
William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”
Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.
“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Senate commerce committee, said: “The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous.”
..................................................................

Insurers say they often limit coverage of pre-existing conditions under policies sold in the individual insurance market. Thus, for example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but exclude treatment of that condition from the policy.
The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
But, insurers say, until 2014, the law does not require them to write insurance at all for the child or the family. In the language of insurance, the law does not include a “guaranteed issue” requirement before then.
Consumer advocates worry that instead of refusing to cover treatment for a specific pre-existing condition, an insurer might simply deny coverage for the child or the family.
“If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place,” said Karen L. Pollitz, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.
Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concern.
“I would like to see the kids covered,” said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. “But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19.”

This is a posterboy reason for why you need to scrap the entire health insurance model that you are using and move towards a global health care system similar to what has been adopted by the rest of the industrialized world.
It doesn't matter what laws get passed, as long as you leave health care in the hands of corporations whose first and foremost responsibility is to make money rather than to provide health care, you are going to run into this.
At the end of the day, you are going to have people (and worse, children it seems) dying while the lawyers argue about whether they have to provide health care to the sick and injured.
And, I am quite certain that there is going to be a small group of people who laugh all the way to the bank while they are letting children die.
Your health care system is being run by real life Charles Montgomery Burns style corporate people who are making as much as they can off of your illnesses and injuries.
You need to take them out of the equation and start providing health care to your people.

[Ratmagiclady]

This is a posterboy reason for why you need to scrap the entire health insurance model that you are using and move towards a global health care system similar to what has been adopted by the rest of the industrialized world.
It doesn't matter what laws get passed, as long as you leave health care in the hands of corporations whose first and foremost responsibility is to make money rather than to provide health care, you are going to run into this.
At the end of the day, you are going to have people (and worse, children it seems) dying while the lawyers argue about whether they have to provide health care to the sick and injured.
And, I am quite certain that there is going to be a small group of people who laugh all the way to the bank while they are letting children die.
Your health care system is being run by real life Charles Montgomery Burns style corporate people who are making as much as they can off of your illnesses and injuries.
You need to take them out of the equation and start providing health care to your people.

At risk of being accused of me and you being accused of being sockpuppets of each other, Wheatfield,


Bingo.

Rearranging how we pay the profiteers actually does a *lot,* (that's why the profiteers have done their best to gut it and arrange these loopholes)


But it's in no way anywhere near optimal.

[gokenin]

About Guaranteed Issue Health Insurance: from HealthQuotes.ca

Guaranteed issue health insurance is often considered when someone has a pre-existing condition that is not covered by personal health insurance plans, which usually have medical questionnaires.

The nature of the pre-existing condition usually does not matter. If you have a pre-existing condition there are several options available to you when it comes to health insurance:

Shop around for health insurance, and when you find the plan that is right for you apply for that health plan, which will exclude your condition (everything else will be covered). Note that these plans require medicals and are underwritten (e.g. an underwriter examines your situation and determines if the application is approved, declined or whether a counter offer will be made).

Look at guaranteed issue health insurance plans that will offer benefits for your pre-existing condition. Usually the amount of coverage is limited, although this depends on the insurance company and the plan.

Get a conversion plan, which is a guaranteed issue health plan for people who have lost or discontinued their employee benefits. Typically most carriers that offer group insurance (i.e. employee benefits) also have a conversion plan. Most of the times these conversion plans can only be used if your employee benefits were with the same insurance carrier (an exception to this is FollowMe).

If you choose a standard, medically underwritten plan then you should fill out an application and indicate the nature of your conditions in the medical questionnaire. Then the insurance carrier's underwriters examine the application and either reject it, or make a counter offer that doesn't include coverage for the existing condition.

Your other option is a guaranteed issue health plan, which usually has the following features:

A guaranteed issue plan often pays out immediately for the given existing condition (e.g. diabetics syringes and test strips).

The coverage for an existing condition is often limited (e.g. there are benefit maximums).

There are core benefits for things like: dental coverage, prescription drug coverage, medical practitioners (e.g. physiotherapists, etc.), depending on the plan type.

If you have lost or discontinued group insurance coverage then you can apply for a conversion plan (note that there is a deadline for applications, often 60 days from the group insurance termination date).

The following are several guaranteed issue health insurance plans:

FlexCare ComboPlus Starter Plan from Manulife: Core benefits (e.g. physiotherapists, home care, nursing, etc.), dental and drug coverage.

FlexCare DentalPlus Basic and Enhanced Plans from Manulife: Core benefits like vision, extended health care (e.g. nursing, home care, etc.), and dental insurance (does not come with prescription drug coverage).

Basic Blue Choice (Ontario residents only) from Ontario Blue Cross: Comes with extended health care, prescription drugs, dental care, out-of-country travel, and optional hospital coverage.

FollowMe from Manulife: conversion health insurance for those who have lost or discontinued their employee benefits (i.e. group insurance). No medical questions are asked if you apply within 60 days from your group insurance termination date.

Health Coverage Choice from Sun Life: conversion health insurance for those who have lost or discontinued their employee benefits (i.e. group insurance). No medical questions are asked if you apply within 60 days from your group insurance termination date.

About HealthQuotes.ca

HealthQuotes.ca is an MGA for leading Canadian insurance carriers, and we offer affiliate programs (e.g. AGA) that are extremely beneficial for our associate members. We are very flexible, and are willing to work with you to tailor the affiliate partnership to your needs. Canadian Health, Travel Insurance Quotes: Individual, Group and Dental



Before we start to think that Canada covers everyone without regards to their physical conditions lets look at this from there own health website. The only way to insure people with preexisting conditions is for the government to pay for it with taxpayers money. There is no legal way that the government can force a private corporation to incur losses.

[jeffkrol]

That's all for supplemental coverage.. big whoop............ state first then private.......
Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[5][6]

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[7] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[8][9]. In the same poll, when asked “overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?” 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians[10].

Conversely, the contrast between Canadians and Americans differs less when consumers are asked to rate their satisfaction with their own health care, rather than about the health care system in general. Two parallel studies between Canadians and Americans show that there is no statistically significant difference between the two countries with regard to the health care they receive[11] Along similar lines, a Gallup Poll of September 2009 shows a marked increase by Americans of "Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied".[12]

In November 2004, Canadians voted Tommy Douglas, Canada's "father of Medicare," the Greatest Canadian of all time following a nationwide contest sponsored by the CBC.[13

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare, such as prescription drugs, dentistry and optometry. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[36] There are also large private entities that can buy priority access to medical services in Canada, such as WCB in BC.

[Nesster]

I have one of them employer provided cadillac plans... and our daughter's missing molar is not covered... well, it will be covered (maybe) when something bad happens eventually due to this, but correcting it now is denied: pre existing condition.

I used to think pre existing meant you'd had some disease or accident, and they wouldn't cover the lingering effects. But turns out pre existing means you were born with the condition - heart problem, cleft palate, missing molar, etc. I suppose they cover some as life threatening, maybe. But taken to the logical conclusion: being born is a pre existing condition and an excellent predictior of high medical bills and death at some point.

[Wheatfield]

Before we start to think that Canada covers everyone without regards to their physical conditions lets look at this from there own health website. The only way to insure people with preexisting conditions is for the government to pay for it with taxpayers money. There is no legal way that the government can force a private corporation to incur losses.

Umm, health care in Canada is paid for out of the public purse (taxpayer money). There is very limited private medical in Canada.
The Canadian health care system does not cover vision care or dental care for adults, but I believe does cover it for children (which in Canada is anyone under 18).
Not having kids, I may be wrong on this.
Not being able to force a private company to incur losses is one of the root problems with private health insurance.
You have a pre existing condition, they don't want to talk to you, you start to cost too much, they stop talking to you.