It Looks Like The Dems Forgot To Repeal The Law Of Unintended Consequences

The AP reports that, despite Obama's urgent and inspiring rhetoric, children with pre-existing conditions may still be turned down by Evil Insura until 2014.  But what did Obama really know, and when did he know it?

Gap in health care law's protection for children

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 7 hours ago

WASHINGTON — 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.

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.

I smell a rat.  The recently signed bill is simply the legislation passed last Christmas Eve by the Senate; it is the proposed reconciliation effort that should be chock full of surprises.

So rather than try to convince us that it was only after the bill was signed that top Dems read it and realized there was a problem, why not tell us what the President knew and when he knew it?  There is just no way some heroic Dem staffer fought off his or her hangover and discovered this glitch in the last day or two.  How long have then been keeping this little secret while the President oversold the bill to the public?

And how did Republicans miss it all these months?  What kind of rabid noise machine are we running, anyway?

MSNBC has a clarification from HHS:

*** UPDATE *** HHS has this response: "Under the Act, plans that include coverage of children cannot deny coverage to a child based upon a pre-existing condition. To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the Secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today."

Hmm.  If the Secretary needs to issue regulations to assure that there is no ambiguity, that suggests that there currently is ambiguity.

SINCE YOU ASKED...

Subject to the caveat that I Am Not A Lawyer, the problem seems to be this - the new bill works its magic by amending (and renumbering) existing legislation, but an important definition from the old law was overlooked and remains in the new law.  I can't find the specific language in the Senate bill relating to children [Eureka - see below], which has me wondering whether it really is in the reconciliation bill; that obviously conflicts with the AP talk of the bill Obama just signed, and how it might qualify as a budgetary item eludes me, but maybe we can sidestep that problem.

In the old law we find this we find this on preexisting conditions and exclusions:

SEC. 2701. INCREASED <<NOTE: 42 USC 300gg.>> PORTABILITY THROUGH LIMITATION ON PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

(a) Limitation on Preexisting Condition Exclusion Period; Crediting for Periods of Previous Coverage.--Subject to subsection (d), a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, may, with respect to a participant or beneficiary, impose a preexisting condition exclusion only if-- (1) such exclusion relates to a condition (whether physical or mental), regardless of the cause of the condition, for which medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received within the 6-month period ending on the enrollment date; (2) such exclusion extends for a period of not more than 12 months (or 18 months in the case of a late enrollee) after the enrollment date; and (3) the period of any such preexisting condition exclusion is reduced by the aggregate of the periods of creditable coverage (if any, as defined in subsection (c)(1)) applicable to the participant or beneficiary as of the enrollment date.

(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this part-- (1) Preexisting condition exclusion.-- (A) In general.--The term `preexisting condition exclusion' means, with respect to coverage, a limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for such coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before such date.

So henceforth (or in 2014) an insurer cannot revise their standard contract to say that the enrollee is covered for everything except, e.g., his diabetes treatment.

Which is fine, but if the new bill's language (wherever we finally find it) says that starting in six months insurers cannot apply preexisting condition exclusions to children under 19, well, that is not the same as saying they must enroll those children.  Children currently covered subject to an exclusion would get relief, I suppose.  Prospective new customers with problematic children may be told to beat it and come back in 2014.

And the proposed regulatory fix - redefine 'pre-existing exclusion' to mean more than Congress said it means - sounds like an overreach.  But who wants to sue on behalf of an insurer's right to deny medicine to kids?

EUREKA:  Here we go, from the Senate bill, p. 777 of 906:

(e) Section 1253 of this Act is amended insert before the period the following: ‘‘, except that—
‘‘(1) section 1251 shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and ‘‘(2) the provisions of section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by section 1201), as they apply to enrollees who are under 19 years of age, shall become effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.’’.

OK, re: "‘(2) the provisions of section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act (as amended by section 1201", that is on page 36 of the Senate bill; it strikes clause (a) of the old law but leaves in place clause (b), which defines "preexisting condition exclusion".

On page 37 we come to Section 2705, which specifically prohibits discrimination based on health status; we also can find the new and improved 2701, which implicitly bars pre-existing condition discrimination by explicitly stating that prices can vary based on on age, family/individual, rating area, tobacco use.

But it is 2704, not 2705 or 2701, that takes effect in six months.

So how about that - by accelerating the new Section 2704 for kids under 19, Congress provided relief for kids currently limited by an insurance rider but did nothing for kids to whom insurers are saying "no".

Comments

[Neo]

The Won is a failure

[Neo]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-MI), defends Obamacare’s constitutionality with the “good and welfare” clause. You know… THAT clause

[Stephanie]

The dems are a failure.

They couldn't legislate their way out of a paper bag. It would take 10 months and 3 committees to determine where to put a hole in the bag and willful negligence to ignore the hole that is already there.

Plus endless weeks haggling over the order in which they would evacuate from the bag.

[pagar]

"So rather than try to convince us that it "was only after the bill was signed did top Dems read it and realize there was a problem, why not tell us what the President knew and when he knew it? "

Simply having every single lawmaker sign that they have read and are for or against each bill would stop all this garbage. Once they have signed and complain they didn't read or understand what they read, their term ends immediately.
The same rule should apply to the President.

[Stephanie]

Sarbanes-Oxley for the congress? Me likey!

[BumperStickerist]

"adverse selection" - you don't really want to pay for insurance until you really need insurance,

at which point why should someone be forced to sell you insurance at a price as if you did not need the insurance in the first place?

-----

The analogy a lot of lefties give is the high-risk pool for driving. I pointed out to a friend that the distinction is that, with Health Care Reform, everybody gets a comprehensive policy, and you're not allowed to total the car.

....

[Stephanie]

BTW the law enforcing it should be heavy on paperwork and compliance requirements and should require a minimum of 1000 man hrs (as defined by the IRS) to comply.

The rules should be mandated in such a way that non-compliance is assumed and the congresscritter must prove their innocence and compliance. All appeals will be scheduled for approximately 1 year after the critter is removed from office.

[Porchlight]

Plus endless weeks haggling over the order in which they would evacuate from the bag.

Nancy would let up to 34 people out of the bag first, in order to be able to more efficiently asphyxiate the ones left. Then she would emerge unscathed wearing a periwinkle suit and carrying a huge gavel.

[Captain Hate]

why not tell us what the President knew and when he knew it?

That should be easy; find any of his talking points that match what's really in the bill. Here's a hint: It will be a very small number. There's a reason I call him "Odummy"; contrary to what Krauthammer keeps irritating me with, he's not very smart. That and being too lazy to read through the damn bill means that he was as ignorant on the content as he is on understanding how much the country didn't want it.

[rse]

Sounds like SEbelius will have broad regulatory authority indeed.

Sort of like how the EPA plans to ignore the language of the Clean Air Act and come up with more practical tonnage reqs for carbon dioxide.

No wonder they need judges like Liu and Sotomayor with the proper spirit of flexibility.

[bgates]

I think the Democrats should build on their successes in fixing health care and student loans by mandating that somebody needs to offer tuition insurance. Everybody would have to pay, oh, $1000 a year - with the normal subsidies for families struggling to get by on a 5-figure income - and if anybody ever ended up in college, the insurance pays tuition.

Naturally there would be no exclusions for a pre-existing education, so graduates (and dropouts) would be eligible for full reimbursement.

[Thomas Collins]

I guess San Fran Nan meant what she said when she asserted that the bill would need to be passed for people to find out what was in the bill.

[Frau Aufruhr]

Stephanie - They (the Big Carp Party) did, however, legislate us *into* the bag.

pagar - perhaps an Evelyn Wood reading course needs to be completed and then renewed yearly.

[Jane]

I'm telling you, the republicans need to offer an amendment to fix this problem. How fun to watch the democrats vote against it.

[Neo]

Politico reports:

The health care reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates — but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate.

Staffers and members on both sides of the aisle call it an “inequity” and an “outrage” — a loophole that exempts the staffers most involved in writing and passing the bill from one of its key requirements.

[Porchlight]

I totally agree, Jane. Anyone see anything about them doing it? I guess the Dems could just say "we're regulating our way out of this one."

Great to know the regulators have such power that silly little bits of legislation can just be left out and it doesn't matter.

[Thomas Collins]

Bgates, how about college graduation insurance, with low Board scores and failing high school grades being deemed a pre-existing condition that schools can't take into account when making admissions decisions.

[Frau Aufruhr]

Swaraj - the power of resistance via Indy.
LUN

[Frau Aufruhr]

Oops!Are we now bold? Sorry..but as someone else said, it's easier to read.

[Jane]

Porch, I wrote to Judd Gregg this morning. Who knows?

[MayBee]

In the past 24 hours, I have seen 3 reports confidently asserting this bill takes care of children with preexisting conditions immediately.

It becomes sadly obvious that Medical Reporters haven't read the bill, and are simply working off administration talking points.

[Jim Ryan]

Given, HHS's clarification, I see that insurance companies, under the new law they created with the Dems, are perfectly willing to insure my kids after they fall ill.

I'll go ahead and cancel my kids' insurance policy, then. There's no need for it now since they are healthy.

[Jane]

I just called Gregg's office. I'm not the first to make that suggestion. We will see.

[Janet]

I posted this on the other thread...

Anyone listening to Rush? I just got home. He played audio of some guy talking about the decline of western civilization....I only caught the end. Really good. Does anyone know who that was?
The guy had a British accent I think.

[Naranjo Limon]

I'd allow everyone who has a pre-existing condition to buy a policy, but on top of a standard rate for an average "healthy" group I'd charge a premium equal to the expected cost of treating the pre-existing condition over the life of the policy...plus a fair profit margin on top.

[bgates]

how about college graduation insurance, with low Board scores and failing high school grades being deemed a pre-existing condition that schools can't take into account when making admissions decisions.

The only problem with that is the name "Obamacare" is taken already.

[Jane]

Okay I called my congressman and inquired as to whether he read the bill. I was told he did. I asked why he didn't say anything about the fact that kids are not covered for pre-existing medical problems when the president said they were.

She didn't know. He was in a meeting.

I think I have become a lunatic.

[bgates]

the republicans need to offer an amendment to fix this problem.

I don't see how that helps. Which member who voted for it before would you expect to flip in the face of the mild bump in the polls and the relentless media cheerleading, if offered a chance to vote for the same thing plus Health For The Children?

[Ignatz]

--I don't see how that helps.--

The logic is a little lost on me as well.

Bold off?

[Ignatz]

?

[bgates]

Speaking of relentless media cheerleading, there is some interesting news on the same page as this AP propaganda bulletin - the thumb up/down votes on the comments following it (pro-Obama/anti-Republican comments are being voted down by about 3-2).

[Captain Hate]

Okay I called my congressman and inquired as to whether he read the bill. I was told he did. I asked why he didn't say anything about the fact that kids are not covered for pre-existing medical problems when the president said they were.

To apply Clinton semantics (sementics?), he could have read the first page and not be telling a lie.

[Porchlight]

--I don't see how that helps.--

The logic is a little lost on me as well.

I can't speak for Jane but I think the Republicans being the first to offer the amendment would have PR benefits. Drawing attention to the Dems' lie screw-up, as it were.

[Porchlight]

Oh, and also, the Repubs could point out that the problem ought to be fixed by amending the bill, not just passing regulation that can later be undone. "Regulatory agencies should not be this powerful," etc. etc.

[bgates]

the Republicans being the first to offer the amendment would have PR benefits

In the eyes of the distressingly large fraction of the electorate which believes Congress should instruct insurance companies how to sell insurance, that "fix" would move the Republicans up to a respectable 2nd place behind the Democrats. In the eyes of everyone else, it would move Republicans back into a tie for last with the Democrats.

[bgates]

I think the Republicans should follow the logic the Democrats have laid out. Somebody, maybe WFB, said that if the 2nd amendment was treated like the 5th, the government would subsidize purchases of firearms for the indigent. Well, if gun ownership is a right the way health care is a right, there should be a law mandating a hefty fine for anyone who won't buy a weapon.

[Porchlight]

In the eyes of everyone else, it would move Republicans back into a tie for last with the Democrats.

Maybe so. It's not like I favor this type of thing. But pointing out Dem errors in embarrassing ways is sometimes the only option open to Repubs.

[jimmyk]

Here's a proposed amendment to the Constitution: Before a bill is passed, each member of Congress should have to take a multiple choice exam on what's in it. Anyone who doesn't get 90% or higher doesn't get a vote.

[Pofarmer]

Well, so far I've called my U.S. Rep., U.S. Senator(Bond, McCaskill is a lost cause), State Reps office, State Senators office, State Senate Pro Tem, State Attorney Generals office.

Yes, I'm pissed, and, apparently, I've got a few others riled up.

[Janet]

The Rush clip I was asking about was on Drudge. It was David Murrin author of Breaking the Code of History.

Health Care Law Signals US Empire Decline?
LUN for video. Wow.

[Hugh Dudgeon]

--I don't see how that helps.--

The logic is a little lost on me as well.

I don't want to speak for Jane, either, but doesn't the logic refer to the notion that the 'rats need to beat back all amendments so that the reconciliation doesn't have to go back to the house? Or is that old news already?

[Pofarmer]

I think I have become a lunatic.

Can we start a club?

[Hugh Dudgeon]

there should be a law mandating a hefty fine for anyone who won't buy a weapon.

IIRC a town in Georgia has such a law, passed in reaction to complete gun ban in some Chicago suburb.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Fox has just carried Hoyer's presser claiming that some Dem congresscritters who voted for HCR have received death threats.

Am I being too cynical in thinking this is a "change the subject" ploy to deflect the impact of criticism like Tom has highlighted?

[Captain Hate]

Am I being too cynical in thinking this is a "change the subject" ploy to deflect the impact of criticism like Tom has highlighted?

I don't think you're being cynical enough. How about Steny's a liar who shouldn't be trusted by anybody.

[Porchlight]

No, not at all, Jim Rhoads. The BS they pulled on the day of the vote with the fake accusations of protestors shouting at House members shows they have no trouble at all using these methods. We should expect it from here on out.

What a nightmare. Can we really afford to play nice anymore?

[Pofarmer]

The really scary thing is, I'm telling my legislators about this legislation,and, so far, none of the staff, at least, have had a clue.

[Pofarmer]

What a nightmare. Can we really afford to play nice anymore?

How far not nice do you wanna go? Because it may go to, all in, very quickly.

[Pofarmer]

And,I mean, my Lord, I'm READING LEGISLATION?!

Arggh.

[Ignatz]

Speaking of cynical, just how cynical is it for the donks to include in their HC bill, which establishes subsidies for those making less than $88,000 per year, the nationalization of student loans precisely on the premise that since the feds were subsidizing student loans they might as well just take it over and save all those billions by cutting out the middlemen?
No doubt we can count on the Food, Clothing and Shelter For All Subsidy Act to be passed in five years to be paid for by the elimination of all those pesky health care middlemen as well.

[Porchlight]

How far not nice do you wanna go? Because it may go to, all in, very quickly.

I don't know. I'm still digesting all of this. But the desire to maintain some sort of decorum would be a pretty poor reason to give up the country.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

I agree Captain. I guess I'm not too good at writing sarcasm.

[Janet]

Like I said before, there is already a place that takes care of one's food, clothing, shelter, & medical care....you can't fail, and you can't excel...it is called prison.

and the idiots cheer..O.BA.MA! O.BA.MA!

[MarkJ]

My humble suggestion: the quickest way to defeat and discredit ObamaCare might be to adopt a variation of the Piven-Cloward Strategy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

Obama has already promised the moon with this legislation. If everybody starts taking him at his word and demanding their new entitlements immediately it will result, as Marxists are wont to say, a "heightening of contradictions."

[Pofarmer]

Just talked to the policy wonk for the Senate Pro Tem here in MO. Sounds like they are getting hammered.

Haven't heard back from Luetkemier or Bond. Supposedly, debate on this reconciliation bill can only go on for 20 hours at the Federal level. So, it will all be over soon.

Just lay back and think of the Queen.

[Pofarmer]

Typepad still sucks.

[Porchlight]

I don't want to speak for Jane, either, but doesn't the logic refer to the notion that the 'rats need to beat back all amendments so that the reconciliation doesn't have to go back to the house? Or is that old news already?

No, you are correct. Any amendment that gets passed sends it back to the House. I knew I was forgetting something.

[Captain Hate]

I agree Captain. I guess I'm not too good at writing sarcasm.

The bold type disposed of any subtle nuance.

[Bill in AZ]

"Unintended Consequences" - an interesting book with bearing on these times. Just mentioning it would get me on the black helicopter list - 'cept we already know based on this bill that libs can't read.

[Jane says obamasucks]

I don't see how that helps.

Here is how it helps. The goal is to not pass the reconciliation bill without changes. The only way they can get changes is if some amendment passes. The democrats are being told they have to vote "no" on every amendment.

So if you make them vote "no" on cutting off free viagra for sex offenders or "no" on letting kids be covered ASAP then you look ridiculous. If you vote "yes" then the entire reconciliation bill becomes open season.

[Jane says obamasucks]

"They" (the democrats) not "you" look ridiculous. Every republican running against an incumbent in the country can say: Senator so and so actually voted to make sure pedophiles can get free viagra."

[Jane says obamasucks]

"They" (the democrats) not "you" look ridiculous. Every republican running against an incumbent in the country can say: Senator so and so actually voted to make sure pedophiles can get free viagra."

[Janet]

We are being led by our worst. Idiots and well...idiots. Without a competent media, I am not sure what we do. I blame the media for Obama ever being elected in the first place....and for half these congressional fools for still holding office.
Think of all of them that could have been "Ted Stevensed" if the media had wanted to...Rangel, Dodd, Frank,...It really is sickening.

[narciso]

I know Janet, instead the man who had campaign funds personally earmarked by
Cassani at AIG for his chairmanship, wrote
the Bank Reform bill, as well as his misunderstanding of his own father's role at Nurenberg

[Janet]

...and now the media/Dems are going into slander mode. From WaPo columnist Cortland Milloy - "I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."
Lun Newsbusters

[Janet]

Well narciso, We watch them treat Sarah Palin that way, and next thing you know they are treating all of us that way.

[Janet]

Imagine if Krauthammer had written that he wanted to knock every tooth out of Cindy Sheehan's head back when her every word was gospel?

[JeanD]

MarkJ makes an excellent point, and I think we should get on it immediately. Reading around a bit today, it seems clear from comments that no one knows what to expect, but supporters certainly expect their magical "free" benefits to be effective now. They operate from the mindset that the signing of the bill would result in a glossy manual of prize descriptions in their mailboxes yesterday.

Instead, they got some junk mail, and no prize catalog.

This, it seems to me, is a "teachable moment" if only the R's are smart enough to exploit it.

Make the Dems own it! Make them explain every lie and oversell.

Oh, and thanks all around for great links, anecdotes, and humor. Plus, what's the membership fee for the lunatic club, and can I get in free since I have the preexisting lunacy?

[rse]

is anybody else angry about today's announcement that Obama's cutting our nuclear arsenal?

To be fundamental apparently the transformation has to cover all types of government policy.

Fantasy zone.

[ua]

"We are being led by our worst."

Here is why: "Dems are morons"

Children up to age 26 apparently aren't covered Either.

Is any qualified person actually checking to see what is in the Healthcare fraud Bill?

[Sue]

ua,

We couldn't find out until it passed.

[Janet]

What rse? It doesn't seem like a good time to show our weakness? I mean, it's not like things are percolating in China, the Middle East, Europe, Africa,...
That David Murrin video I linked at 3:23 talks about us disarming.
Well, I guess we can call in our new allies, Burma.

[Janet]

Yo Big Head Jim Webb...tell your Burma buds to get in gear. We might need their help soon since we kicked Great Britain and Israel to the curb.

[narciso]

What was that line of Reagan go 'it's not just that opposition doesn't know, but even what they think they know isn't true" That
seems to the m.o, of this bill

[ua]

"We are being led by our worst."

Here is why: "Dems are morons"

Children up to age 26 apparently aren't covered Either.

Is any qualified person actually checking to see what is in the Healthcare fraud Bill?

[RichatUF]

rse-

Not sure when, but I recall Obama called nuclear weapons, "the president's weapons" and to get the Russians to like us he was going to make unilateral cuts anyway (a treaty is also kicking around, but it probably won't be presented to Congress before next year).

Anyway, Obama wants the money spent on nuclear weapons redirected to programs more to his liking, much in the same way he is slashing the space budget and redirecting that money to education and welfare programs. Here is an older article with an estimated maintainance number (I've heard of higher numbers and Brookings did a longer term study putting the cost over 5 Trillion from the 40's to 00's), and when you add in the cost of delivery platform, you are talking real money, even in the Saganist accounting of the Obama Administration.

[Pofarmer]

Well narciso, We watch them treat Sarah Palin that way, and next thing you know they are treating all of us that way.

All right, folks, the dehuminazation of an opponent in this way is a very dangerous step. Exceedingly dangerous.

[Ilpalazzo]

So.. this HISTORIC MONUMENTAL HISTORY-BOOK-WORTHY GOD-SEND bill was a flawed piece of junk? Say it ain't so!

[Porchlight]

narciso,

That was the lesson from 2008. EVERY conservative will get the Palin treatment from here on out. Why? Because it worked, that's why.

[Porchlight]

Oops, sorry narciso, meant to reply to Janet there...

[narciso]

Meanwhile, the enemy seems to get all the breaks, in the LUN

[Pofarmer]

Have talked to several of my Representatives staffs today. The general feeling seems to be"The more we hear, the worse this thing gets."

[narciso]

They didn't take my advice, burning all copies
of the bill, and pretending this whole year didn't happen, like Dallas in 1985

[Porchlight]

The general feeling seems to be"The more we hear, the worse this thing gets."

Well, at least it's not the reverse. I'd be really worried if the GOP started getting all sunshiny about this POS.

[MayBee]

Hot Air finds they didn't really make any provisions about the 26 year olds staying on their parents' policies, either.

[RichatUF]

narciso-

We'll have to see the salesmanship job the Administration and Congress do over the next couple of months. Normally that process would have occurred first, but in Obama's America, the public mood is an after thought.

And on the demonization of enemies, didn't the Clinton Administration get a lot of mileage out of that with an epidemic of white racist church arsons and angry white males?

[RichatUF]

Porchlight-

Give them time.

[narciso]

I guess Sheriff Joe, was on the case on this too, because no one messes with Sheriff Joe, like that stimulus money to phantom districts.
This feels like the Oceans 11 films but with
one of the bit players like James Cahn's kid
running the con

[Captain Hate]

From WaPo columnist Cortland Milloy - "I want to spit on them, take one of their "Obama Plan White Slavery" signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."

Pretty strong words from somebody named after an apple.

[Captain Hate]

Did TyphusPad fire all their development and support people because of Vomitcare?

[Frau Argwohn]

Comment from Hot Air:
"We’ve all been stew-packed for sure."

(Our long, bold nightmare will soon be over, Capt. --Sharpen your nuance.)

[Frau Argwohn]

Hey, at least we've been *deemed* cro-magnon.
Be that as it may, who made Milloy king of the carp heads?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

The bold type disposed of any subtle nuance.

I prefer italics, Cap'n.

[Barbara]

She can't write a regulation to stipulate something that is not authorized in the law. Well, she "can" literally, but she has no legal authority to do so unless and until the law is amended.

Here is the first peek at how the HHS bureaucracy will utilize its regulation making powers to enforce, adjust, and alter the law. Nothing new here.

[xisfromspaceimpregnatetimetravelnotus]

Kijiji ad is just your cokies going somewhere?

Why do we need to insure children? Poor people who can't afford insurance for their kids shouldn't have them. They reproduce for no reason other than they want to leave something behind, like something special from them. Maybe if we could pick the best ones and clone them it would be worth it, otherwise most people should not reproduce. It's just more forgiveness from the Pope.

Pre existing conditions are fireable offenses for federal employees. They have been fired for AIDS and acquiring it. They have been fired for getting pregnant. Congress agrees this is okay, so why worry about pre existing conditions? Obama is special? He won't even address this.

O is a coward. He sends people to places to do jobs he wouldn't come near. He uses his family as an excuse for hiding. He won't lead, but expects to sit there and be worshiped. He wouldn't even vote before he was put in.

[Neo]

Life imitates art.

Stupak reenacted the pivotal (poorly written) scene from "Star Wars, Episode III" ...
"What have I done ... My Master"

[Rick Ballard]

"knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads."

Boy, Neanderthals sure know how to hold a grudge.

[Rob Crawford]

Hey, at least we've been *deemed* cro-magnon.

I, for one, am sick of the eliminationist rhetoric from the extremists. They should all be drawn and quartered. Or maybe impaled.

[MaryW]

For those poor souls actually reading the bill, there is a good summary at

LUN or http://www.nahu.org/

Also included is a time line and information on the reconciliation package.

If anyone wants any other summaries feel free to ask. My better half has been working in this area for 40 years and we are reading the whole damn thing.

HSAs are still permitted but the bronze plan looks to be the appropriate level. Implementation of the $2500 cap on contributions is delayed until 2014 in the Reconciliation bill.

What we are finding is a mix of FSA/HSA language. It is not totally clear but I think the National Association of Health Underwriters has a better understanding of the bill's legalese than I do.

[Ranger]

Just a couple of interesting observations about just how scared the Ds are about the upcoming midterms.

1) This morning on WLS (Chicago's largest talk radio station) Jessie Jackson Jr. said that Obamacare is so exspensive it will require cuts in other social welfare programs to keep it funded. I take this as a desperate effort for Dems to sell independents that they really are "fiscally responsable." I doubt it will work, but it is funny they had to use a hard left Dem from a safe seat to try and make this pitch.

2) The Corner is reporting that Dems are now telling their base that they will try to pass the public option through reconsiliation next year. They are dangling this out in front of their hard left base to get them to come out and vote in November. Their internals must be telling them how demotivated the base is, even after the "great victory" the Dems just won.