Kids With Preexisting Conditions Still Not Covered Until 2014

Over at Firedoglake and the Daily Kos, the news has arrived that the new health reform has a drafting subtlety which gives the lie to Obama's notion that children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage starting six months from now.  Yes, this was reported two days ago by the AP, but still - cognitive dissonance presumably delayed the penetration of this news.

McJoan at DK is more explicitly daft with this headline:

Shocker: AHIP Already Finding Loopholes in Health Insurance Reform

Can't spell 'AHIP' without 'AP'.  Let's see - the AP had this story and got reaction from Congressional press flacks within "hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation".  Does that sound like AHIP discovered the loophole, called the AP, called Congress, then sat around for two days?  Since the flaw was in the Christmas-time Senate bill, my guess is that some Democratic staffers discovered this quite a while back; the notion that they just happened to be perusing the historic legislation a couple hours after it was signed is absurd.  So what did the President know and when did he know it as he touted the plan's immediate impact on sick children?

Let us not exempt the Firedogs from our wrath - deep thinker David Dayen explains how we got to this pretty pass:

What’s going on here is that some insurance company – or the trade group, AHIP – read the language in the bill and interpreted it favorably to their industry. They’re trying to wiggle off the hook of offering coverage for children with pre-existing conditions TWO DAYS after signage of the law.

Sure, that's what is going on - on his planet.  Back in reality, some staffer noted this after the Senate bill was passed; normally it would have been fixed in a House-Senate conference, but Scott Brown's surprise victory closed that door.  And since a provision like this will never fly under the Byrd rule since it is not budget-related, Dems sat on the bad news until it was too late to go back, overselling the bill in the meantime.

How Republicans missed it is beyond me - they should have been screaming that Obama is lying about his own bill and asking what other errors are being signed into law.  Too late!

Eventually the bright lights at Firedoglake and DKos may want to actually read the relevant legalese.  This recent post of mine should help get them started; the underlying Senate bill is available here (groan - I originally used a different .pdf, so my page numbering is not helpful).

As to what about this is "ambiguous" or subject to regulatory fiat, I have no idea.  The law is actually pretty clear - the new provision barring contracts from offering insurance subject to limitations on coverage of pre-existing conditions (Section 2704) is given effect six months after passage.  Hence the reporting that kids with pre-existing conditions who are currently insured must soon be covered for everything, with no exclusions.

However, this ban on "pre-existing condition exclusions" was defined in the old law which this bill amends.  The old definition was left intact and has nothing to say about whether insurance must be issued.  The explicit language in the new bill saying insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of health status appears in amended Section 2705.  Guaranteed availability and renewal are in amended sections 2702 and 2703 (this appears at p. 81 and following of the newly linked Senate bill).  All of these provision were originally slated to take effect in 2014; later in this bill certain benefits for children were accelerated by stating that Section 2704 took effect in six months for people under the age of 19.

But the guaranteed issue and no discrimination clauses were not accelerated!  Legally, Congress spoke quite clearly - kids currently covered must soon have any restrictions based on pre-existing coverage lifted from their contract.  But no insurer has an obligation to issue until 2014.

Well, if regulations trump statutes I guess Obama can fix this easily.  Otherwise, we need new legislation, which I doubt Republicans will oppose (but which they will no doubt amend.)

As to the broader question of what other surprises does this bill hold for us, who knows?

WAS THIS EVEN AN ERROR?  The Senate talking points on the glory of their bill opens with this:

How The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Helps Children
Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Children

Elimination of Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
o In recognition of the special vulnerability of children, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six month after enactment.

Only someone who knew nothing about insurance would read that to mean that insurers must issue to all comers; since the Senate put the must-issue requirement in a different section and provided new funding to interim high-risk pools for people with a pre-existing problem, any judge would infer they were well aware of the distinctions in play here.  The current language may simply reflect a compromise between folks who wanted to hold everything off until 2014 and people who wanted to move everything for children forward to 2010.

And since the Senate talking points are worded clearly and carefully, I remain convinced that some people have known for weeks that Obama was over-selling his bill based on phony intelligence.

THE ERROR WAS ELSEWHERE:  As I keep digging I am becoming convinced that the Senate knew what they were doing, even if no one else did - the original Dem talking points promoting the bill last December said the bill included this:

Immediate ban on preexisting condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of preexisting conditions for children.

As noted, "pre-existing condition exclusions" are a distinct concept; essentially, it is an insurance policy rider saying the child will be covered for everything except his (pre-existing) diabetes.  Consequently, such insurance is helpful if the kid breaks his leg, but does nothing for the ongoing diabetes situation.

But anyone familiar with the lingo would know that prohibiting coverage exclusions is different from requiring coverage (i.e., must-issue).  I think libs saw what they wanted to see, misreported this freely (amplified by Obama himself), and the Senate Democrats who prepared this kept their little secret to themselves.

One might even guess that had Republicans been involved in the final discussions they would have picked up on this.

LEST YOU THINK LIBS CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT:  Here is a paper from Timothy Jost of the Institute for America's Future, in which he appraises both the Senate and House bills.  He provides some useful examples of what "pre-existing conditions exclusion" actually means (my emphasis):

[The legislation in Congress] would end insurer discrimination on the basis of health status, prohibit pre-existing condition exclusion clauses, ...

or

Insurer refusal to cover pre-existing conditions: Mary just graduated from college and is working at a restaurant as a waitress as she looks for a more permanent job. She has been trying to find an insurance policy in the nongroup market that will cover her until she can find a job with health benefits. Mary has asthma, however, and most insurers to which she has applied have rejected her. One insurer offered her a policy but at a very high rate and with a pre-existing conditions exclusion clause that excludes coverage for any medical treatment related to her asthma or, in fact, for her entire respiratory system.

I think Mr. Jost understood the Senate bill perfectly well, even if Barack Obama did not.

Comments

[A penny for your island thoughts.]

Democrats are liars, Republicans are fools.
=========

[narciso]

The stupid is strong with these folks, do they
just base their statements on press releases,

[Neo]

At this rate, the worst damage that terrorists could do to this country is stay out of DC and let the “ruling class” destroys the country themselves. Inaction by al Qaeda would be completely indistinguishable from action, a win-win for them.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Napoleon Bonaparte

[That Cointegration thread leaps from height to height.]

Obama tried to take Vienna, and got Stalingrad instead.
==============

[narciso]

Btw, what are the odds that Tom Friedman, is wrong, magic eightball says yes, in the LUN

[Jim Miller]

It's the old problem: Should we attribute something to incompetence (Dems didn't know what was in the bill) or malice (Dems concealed what was in the bill)?

I vote for both. I suspect that at least a few Dem staffers knew the truth, but that the leaders may not have. (As most of you have noticed by now, Barack Obama is not a hard worker who pores over details. Nor, for similar reasons, would we expect Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid to know such details.)

[Donald]

If more children die, then cannot have more children, then there will be more soylent green for the people.

It's pretty simple when you get down to the um, science.

[narciso]

Ot, but this is what happens when you think you are too clever by half, in the LUN

[Captain Hate]

As most of you have noticed by now, Barack Obama is not a hard worker who pores over details.

Preznit Rupert Pupkin banged away on insurance premiums will be reduced, everybody will be covered immediately and overall prices will be reduced; all of which were lies. His stumbling over even softball questions reminded me of a seventh grader who watched tv instead of doing his homework trying unsuccessfully to bullshit his teacher in the subsequent class.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Perhaps the most amusing part is that they went through the whole ritual of voting down all amendments, putting themselves on record for Viagra for perverts and all, in the name of not changing the bill and not needing another vote.

And then had to send it back because of points of order the GOP raised after all the embarrassing votes.

[Old Lurker]

Krauthammer editorializes today about the inevitability of a VAT in the US to pay for our bigger government.

WSJ editorializes, also today, about the growing gap between government pay packages and the smaller deals in the private sector.

Anybody not seeing government consuming 50+% of our collective productivity cannot count.

US borrowing costs now spiking due to the global fear of soverign defaults on loans to profligate states. Best US companies are borrowing for less than the US.

Telegraph UK reports on Obama being truly, stunningly, offensive to the Israelis during their state visit, including standing them up for dinner.

Clinton dials back yet again the sanctions she would like for Iran. Could not be more of a laughing stock.

Like I said.

France.

[Appalled]

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time. Congress usually passes a "Technical Corrections" bill shortly afterwards, when they get input from all the agencies that notice this stuff when they begin crafting their regulations. Frequently, technical corrections have retroactive effective dates.

In the meantime, HHS will write an announcement which sets forth the President's interpretation of the bill, which willl have the force of law, because risk-averse insurance companies are not going to act in a way that invites litigation from the government.

Yes, it's a bit embarassing. But not unusual. And not hard to fix. Wish repeal were as easy...

[Captain Hate]

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.

Bills this size are pretty infrequent, no? And have any of them had the House speaker say "we have to vote on it so we can see what's in it"? Other than that I agree with what you stated.

[MayBee]

I'm also noticing the "Kids under 27 must be covered by their parents insurance" speech language is morphing to "in all new policies and some existing policies".
It apparently isn't automatic, and nobody knows exactly how that provision is supposed to work.

[Thomas Collins]

In the event the Fix Bill hasn't been linked yet, I have LUNed what I believe is the Fix Bill without the two Senate amendments.

[Ignatz]

--Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.--

Assuming facts not in evidence.

[narciso]

As I pointed out on another blog, if they couldn't get these two things right, and
they were ostensibly among the goals, what
else is in the bill that is salvageable; as with the stimulus, which goes to beach replenishment, not terribly much

[Thomas Collins]

This LUN is to the two Senate amendments to the Fix Bill.

[bgates]

Frequently, technical corrections have retroactive effective dates.

In the meantime, HHS will write an announcement which sets forth the President's interpretation of the bill, which will have the force of law

So, today HHS says "insurance companies must X", and tomorrow Congress says "as of yesterday insurance companies must not X" - does that trouble you?

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.

You know what I'm fond of doing when I know that a given process is guaranteed to produce numerous errors? Avoiding the process.

[steve sturm]

I agree it was pretty incompetent for the GOP to not read the bill and trumpet issues such as this. It's almost as if they thought they had won the fight and thus didn't need to put in any more effort.

And while there are 'mistakes' in drafting, where some staffer truly gets something wrong, I think more often it's where someone intentionally writes a provision in a certain way, usually at the behest of a contributor.

[anduril]

Here's a guy who really gets it: Don't let up until 'health care' bill is repealed. He's talking about the whole governing philosophy behind Obamacare and the Democrat party.

[Thomas Collins]

And now, this LUN is to the 2500 plus page bill passed on Sunday March 21st.

If these have already been posted, sorry for the duplication.

[Porchlight]

It's almost as if they thought they had won the fight and thus didn't need to put in any more effort.

I disagree. The amount of staggeringly awful stuff in this enormous POS would dwarf anyone's sincere efforts to root it all out. The media wasn't covering the stuff they *were* trumpeting. And I don't believe at all that they thought htey had it in the bag.

But I do agree with your second paragraph.

[Cecil Turner]

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.

Right. And those mistakes just happen to advance the benefits of the bill but fail to pay for them. (Just coincidentally providing a "free money" talking point whilst maintaining the endlessly-touted favorable cost estimate.)

This "mistake" is a microcosm of the entire bill. It promises "cost reduction" but actually increases overall cost dramatically and passes the bill to the taxpayer. It promises "deficit reduction" but actually raises taxes for several years before applying the revenue to fewer years' worth of the new entitlement, creating the illusion of solvency. It promises other savings (physician reimbursement) everyone knows will never pass. And finally it uses the most rosy possible projections and ignores the inevitable negative effects on the greater economy.

As mistakes go, this one is remarkably good propaganda.

[narciso]

I'm beginning to understand why John Stuart Mill, called the conservatives 'the stupid
party' for an illustration across the pond, look at the previous LUN. True, going through the whole bill, is kind of carving
out the innards of a Tauntaun, but it is the right thing to do

[William Teach]

The funniest thing about the pre-existing garbage in the bill is that it doesn't restrict the cost. So, an insurance company has to provide the coverage, but, they can charge an enormous amount for said coverage.

[Pofarmer]

Everything that I read in this bill is a new this or a new that. We are going to create, add, etc, etc. Nobody with half a brain believes this thing is going to cut costs.

Yep, healthcare with the efficiency of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS.

[bgates]

You want propaganda, Cecil? Check this out:

US healthcare reform is boon for India outsourcing companies

New member registration forms. More claims. Ever-expanding databases. And on top of that, pressure to cut costs.

The bulge in administrative work may look like a nightmare to American insurance firms and government employees. But to outsourcing executives here in India, it’s heaven-sent.

You youngsters won't remember it, but back in the election of aught-four the media were convinced that outsourcing was the moral equivalent of setting a puppy on fire and raping a baby with it. Of course, that was understandable when there were only 19 jobs for every 20 people who wanted one - not like now when there's a whopping 9 workers for everybody who's unemployed.

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for what is likely to be a very informative seminar on ObamaCare.

[syn]

Golly, the Left seems obtusely unaware the IRS now has their hands all over a human being's private health affairs.

Unless, of course, only human beings protected from the IRS's Universal Death Care are those fetus' living inside the womb up until the point She decides to perform her own Universal Death Care.

What poison comes from sipping the filthy Social Justice cup of Universal Death Care.

[Rob Crawford]

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.

Which is why they're a bad idea.

[Cecil Turner]

You youngsters won't remember it, but back in the election of aught-four the media were convinced . . .

Heh. Yep, and the funny thing about this debate is even though ~60% of Americans don't like this bill, the media can't seem to find any (except ones using racial epithets at rallies . . . and even they must have some sort of stealth technology, since they don't come across in the recordings).

[Danube of Thought]

Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time.

Name a bill this size, and I'll write it down and start a list.

the President's interpretation of the bill,...will have the force of law, because risk-averse insurance companies are not going to act in a way that invites litigation from the government.

If an applicant is denied, how does the government become a litigant in the resulting civil action? And in any litigation involving a statutory provision, how does the president's opinion of the statute's meaning become admissible evidence?

[Danube of Thought]

I'll accept any date after January 19, 2010 as likely date of discovery.

[Rick Ballard]

"So, an insurance company has to provide the coverage, but, they can charge an enormous amount for said coverage."

It would be more business like to raise all rates on the basis that the impact is unknowable for an indefinite period. Insurers are in this right up to the tip of their very brown noses and now they are set to reap.

[Rob Crawford]

the President's interpretation of the bill,...will have the force of law

YAY!!! We live in a dictatorship!!!

[Pofarmer]

"everybody" is saying the insurance companies are going to make out like bandits. Well, then, how did the 85-15 rule get in? And, how are they going to get around it?

(I think cathyf actually did the math on this for us once).

[Captain Hate]

Yep, healthcare with the efficiency of the DMV and the compassion of the IRS.

That would make a great slogan, Po. Part of the problem with the Repukes is they haven't had a first-rate strategist since Lee Atwater. And yes, that includes Rove. I have no faith in the current collection of country-club squishes to provide any semblance of leadership. Newt should be tarred, feathered and hauled out on a rail, for starters.

[every newspaper and tv station in the country]

Newt should be tarred, feathered and hauled out on a rail, for starters.

We deplore this typical example of the feebleminded and criminally insane rantings of the teabaggers and Republican-

Wait, Newt Gingrich? Oh, yeah, fuck him.

[sylvia]

"This "mistake" is a microcosm of the entire bill. It promises "cost reduction" but actually increases overall cost dramatically and passes the bill to the taxpayer. It promises "deficit reduction" but actually raises taxes for several years before applying the revenue to fewer years' worth of the new entitlement, creating the illusion of solvency. It promises other savings (physician reimbursement) everyone knows will never pass. And finally it uses the most rosy possible projections and ignores the inevitable negative effects on the greater economy."

I agree that the cost may go up, however, there is no guaratnee it will go up as much as the doomsayers are saying.

The premiums will rise for the rich and for the Cadilac plans. We will hopefully get premiums from the new young healthy customers, including the under 26 year olds on their parents policies. Pre-conditions and lifetime maxes are probably small percentages of the total for the under 65 year olds, as most under 65 year olds don't face the big time health problems. Plus we pay for the uninsured catastrophic now anyway.

So where are the studies to show that this will rise so much? The CBO scored it, and they said it didn't. I agree it might go either way and no one knows for sure, but I think there is an even chance it will not go up by that much.

[Rick Ballard]

"And, how are they going to get around it?"

By allowing the cost per claim to rise as quickly as possible (with accompanying increase in rates) and by cutting the time (overhead) used for cost control. The real money is going to be made by insurers who get in and purchase the correct "political approval" early. They will all be shooting for the administrative contracts which will accompany single payer.

[Danube of Thought]

Well, then, how did the 85-15 rule get in? And, how are they going to get around it?

And what is the method of enforcement? Isn't that part going to be fun to watch?

[bgates]

Name a bill this size

The giant stimulus bill Obama-Pelosi-Reid passed had lots of mistakes.

[sylvia]

"Act prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six month after enactment."

I don't know, it sounds to me like the language could do the job. "Excluding coverage" could mean coverage just for the condition or coverage for the child, ie the insurance. I agree with the commenter above that there has to be some existing process to resolve the legal language in the bills to make it more clear, as I'm sure this does have to happen a lot. It is too important not to leave some minor mistake in a bill which could have major consequences.

[Pofarmer]

I agree that the cost may go up, however, there is no guaratnee it will go up as much as the doomsayers are saying.

Well, hell, it's all good then.

[sylvia]

"Act prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six month after enactment."

They should have switched it around. What the bill should have stated:

Act prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage FOR CHILDREN WITH pre-existing conditions, effective six month after enactment."

[Reader]

The Republicans seem devoid of the sort of brains that can read a bill and identify its true content.

Time for a third party.

[Danube of Thought]

The premiums will rise for the rich and for the Cadilac plans. We will hopefully get premiums from the new young healthy customers, including the under 26 year olds on their parents policies.

The premiums will rise for everyone. And the insurance companies have no idea whether the insured is rich or poor.

The CBO scored it, and they said it didn't.

The CBO, as it is required to do, scored what was presented to it and assumed that what was presented was true. There is not a sentient being who believes that it is true. Every congressman and the president know that the Medicare reimbursement rates scheduled for this spring will not occur (they have been waived every time they have arisen). Every one knows that the assumptions made about what future congresses will do are false.

The story of how the CBO scoring process was gamed and abused by this congress has been a major one for every person who reads the newspaper. Every person but one, apparently.

[Danube of Thought]

The giant stimulus bill Obama-Pelosi-Reid passed had lots of mistakes.

That doesn't count. The entire bill was a mistake.

[sylvia]

"The premiums will rise for everyone. And the insurance companies have no idea whether the insured is rich or poor."

Well maybe now they will. That's maybe part of the bill.

But the Rpub doomsayers are not taking into account the extra increase of premiums. I think the two could balance out. I think the CBO misinformation angle is exaggerated. I think there is some truth to that, but it is overblown.

[Rob Crawford]

The Republicans seem devoid of the sort of brains that can read a bill and identify its true content.

Huh? They're not the ones claiming the "health care" bill will bring Utopia.

[Danube of Thought]

Time for a third party.

It is never--ever--time for a third party, except for people who want to be assured of defeat.

OK, JOMers, you have my solemn promise: I will never again respond to any mention by Sylvia of statutory language or interpretation. At least, not until a third party wins something.

[Ranger]

"everybody" is saying the insurance companies are going to make out like bandits. Well, then, how did the 85-15 rule get in? And, how are they going to get around it?

(I think cathyf actually did the math on this for us once).

Posted by: Pofarmer | March 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM

This got in there because all the major health insurance companies are already within that threashold. What has been driving up premiums is not price gouging, but the rise in health care costs. BTW, the place where premiums will rise the most are where they are subsidiesed the most. The government is going to susidies small buisness premiums by 35% now and 50% in the future, so expext those premiums to go up by pretty much those %s.

[Danube of Thought]

Today's big surprise:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

[Sue]

Oh crap. MayBee tweets and Drudge does the red siren...

http://www.drudgereport.com/>Drudge

SKorean ship sinking, North attack suspected... MANY SAILORS FEARED DEAD... POSSIBLE TORPEDO ATTACK... 100 ON BOARD...

Just what this ineffective administration needs.

[bgates]

That doesn't count. The entire bill was a mistake.

That can't be disqualifying. You put the insurance industry gutting bill on your list.

[Captain Hate]

The Republicans seem devoid of the sort of brains that can read a bill and identify its true content.

Time for a third party.

Yeah, right; it's hard to identify something's true contents when you don't have it until shortly before it's voted upon. And which of the MSM outlets would give a forum to anybody expressing a negative view on Vomitcare?

Like it or not we're stuck with the Repubs. They need to focus on the economy because that's *the* winning issue. If they don't we're permanently screwed.

[Jack is Back!]

Obama was a mistake.
Biden is a mistake.
Pelosi is a mistake.
Reid is a mistake.
The '08 election is now considered a mistake.
The '32 election is now considered a mistake.

We are a mistake prone nation. You can correct mistakes but not their outcomes.

There are more mistakes on the horizon. If we had a mistake thinning law - then we could have an open season on mistakes and culled them down to something manageable but no, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Mistakes (aka the left) will not have it. Even now, the Federal government is now discussing regulating the amount of mistakes each person can make. But they have exempted themselves. They are likely to establish a new agency - The Federal Emerging Mistake Agency. Barney Frank's latest lover is being touted as its head.

We are all your mistakes now.

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for a thoughtful analysis on how a Constitutional amendment might be drafted to limit the Federal Government's intrusion into the health insurance area.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

Humm so the health insurance companies are set to reap a whirlwind much in the same way energy companies thought that they could by supporting "global warming"?

Sue-

The way these things go (ie: financial crisis, political crisis, national security crisis), and a bit surprised that it would have started with North Korea. Maybe the Obama Administration can dust off Carter and have him negotiate a successor agreement to the Agreed Framework. However the Lee Administration has taken a tougher line with the North and the Obama Administration is probably looking for a way to throw them under the bus as well.

Good Times.

[Sue]

Rich,

Good times indeed.

[narciso]

Notice how they waited till after this bill, passed to let this morsel out of the bag, And of course they are low balling it

[Danube of Thought]

There's a concise--and thoroughly depressing--analysis of the law regarding the commerce clause at the American Thinker.

[Pofarmer]

Remember, regarding Korea, we are not the worlds policeman any longer. It's all good, I'm sure they'll work it out among themselves.

[narciso]

Yeah I thought that,Rich, another
inconvenience to the glorious 'reset' just like the 'dog and pony show' now with Medvedev, Putin's "Charlie McCarthy"

[Der Hahn]

"Act prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six month after enactment."

I don't know, it sounds to me like the language could do the job.

Well, the first strike is that you're looking at the talking point, not the actual language, so it's not surprising it's studiously ambigious about the legal implications.

Strike number two is that 'coverage' is not 'issue'. An insurance policy usually offers multiple coverages, and paying a claim is a seperate event from issuing a policy.

And this is strike number three It is too important not to leave some minor mistake in a bill which could have major consequences. This ain't a mispelled word or the infamous 'foreign fruit, plants' misplaced comma. The talking point was obviously written by somebody who read the bill and knew the provisions because they didn't repeat the Obama mistake of claiming that kids with pre-existing conditions could get new insurance under this law.

[Old Lurker]

Rick nails it:

"They will all be shooting for the administrative contracts which will accompany single payer.

Ranger: "This got in there because all the major health insurance companies are already within that threshold."

I don't think that's right Ranger. The new rule is they must pay out 85% of their premiums in claims, and everything else including reserves, OH, taxes & profit has to fit into the 15%. I think that consumes 40% or so today from what I read somewhere.

[rse]

"After I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth," Obama said, adding it turned out to be a nice day and "birds were chirping, folks were strolling down the mall."

Just a quote from our CIC from yesterday's gloat tour.

Do you think when he walked out on Netanyahu to go have dinner CIC offered to tell him where he could find the cafeteria?

[Jane]

OK, JOMers, you have my solemn promise:

I'm holding you to it.

[Appalled]

DOT:

Name a bill this size, and I'll write it down and start a list.

Any budget and tax bill (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcilaiation Act of ____, Tax Reform Act of ___, etc, etc, etc...

Also, I think the stimulus bill is as long...

[Danube of Thought]

Beautifully stated, Der Hahn.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

"How Republicans missed it is beyond me - they should have been screaming that Obama is lying about his own bill and asking what other errors are being signed into law."

Funny, but the first thought that occurred to me was how long the Republicans kept quiet about this error. See Charlie @ 9:37 AM:

"And then had to send it back because of points of order the GOP raised after all the embarrassing votes."

[Old Lurker]

We are holding you to that DoT!

[Ranger]

I don't think that's right Ranger. The new rule is they must pay out 85% of their premiums in claims, and everything else including reserves, OH, taxes & profit has to fit into the 15%. I think that consumes 40% or so today from what I read somewhere.

Posted by: Old Lurker | March 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Hmmm... Intersting. I was under the impression that reserves were excluded (as they are already on hand). My understanding was that the insurance companies run around a 10% expense rate, with another 4% taken as profits and taxes (since the taxes come out of the profits).

[Pofarmer]

I don't think that's right Ranger. The new rule is they must pay out 85% of their premiums in claims, and everything else including reserves, OH, taxes & profit has to fit into the 15%. I think that consumes 40% or so today from what I read somewhere.

That's my understanding, too, and I do remember cathyf pointing out how the sharp pencil types could get around it,and, it seems, it was going to take a huge rate increase to do it.

[JM Hanes]

Appalled:

"Mistakes in bills this size happen all the time. Congress usually passes a "Technical Corrections" bill shortly afterwards, "

"Technical Corrections" bills are not intended to remedy monumental errors, like simply leaving out a key provision being sold to the public at every turn by the President and the Congressional majority. That sort of fundamental error is likely to be uniquely emblematic of a "bill this size" which no one has read and which was being written & rewritten as it came to the floor for a vote.

Here's a typical corrections bill, designed to rectify defects in legislation governing the Capitol Police:

Some of those provisions, including some that addressed single purposes without examining their full ramifications for the USCP, contain drafting errors, conflict with previous laws, or have other technical flaws.

It is explicitly designed not to affect major changes:

[T]he Committee has developed this bill to make technical corrections to sundry laws and repeal obsolete or duplicative provisions without substantive policy change.

[Old Lurker]

The reserves on hand are for the existing policies. Cover 30M more, and the required reserves increase.

When Cathy stops by, she can tell us the real facts, but I'd be surprised if checks for claims can be 85%.

[Pofarmer]

Even if CURRENT reserves are excluded, that just makes it a little longer death spiral as reserves are paid out and can't be replaced.

What I saw said 85% must be paid out as claims, 15% for overhead. Maybe this will be addressed, but, I sorta doubt it.

[Frau Weltschmerz]

Obama,Clinton and Iran - How's that Smart Diplomacy working?

Anyone else catch Larry Elder's IBD article about a constitutional convention? LUN

[Old Lurker]

Good LUN regarding the CBO projection of our national debt reaching 90% of projected GDP. Without looking into it, I'd bet the projection of GDP fails to account for the lower growth that must result from higher taxes and regulations, and if that's so, the 90% is too low. Also expect they are "trusting" Obama's projection of health care costs, and suspect they underestimate the interest costs on our riskier and riskier debt issues. Again, 90% is probably too low.

France...

[JM Hanes]

Technical correction: Not to ***effect*** major changes.

[Old Lurker]

Judging by the LUN, I have been slandering France.

[Sue]

Po,

We have 30,000 or so of our military in SK. Whatever happens, we're in. Whether Mr. Go For It realizes it, wants or or even notices it.

[Pofarmer]

Why don't you go on to explain what happens when the yield rises and the government is borrowing and spending at a rate of some 10% of GDP?

That would be a problem, right? It would be an even more serious problem if we took the current GDP (~14 trillion or so) and then accounted for just the on balance sheet guarantees - that is, the total debt (~$12 trillion or so plus the $5 trillion in Fannie and Freddie that Geithner has repeatedly said the Treasury will "backstop" - legal requirement to do so or no.)

This, by the way, is over 120% of GDP for debt, well beyond what is considered "reasonably safe."

That's from Denninger over that the Market Ticker.

Yeah, he likes to screech.

LUN.

[Ranger]

Speaking of "Go For It"... Remember when Bush said "Bring It On" and the press went appaplectic about how arrogant it was. Of course he was addressing his remarks to al Qaeda, a group we were already at war with. Now mister 'post partisan' tell the GOP to Go For It on repeal and the press swoons over what a tough guy he is.

[Sue]

Over at The Corner, someone writes in to say republicans should use "go for it" like Obama used "yes we can".

[Ranger]

Profarmer,

Those numbers still don't take into account the bad debt the Federal Government will have to take on to bail out the failed giant blue states like CA, NY, and IL. My bet is that will add at least another couple of trillion by 2020.

[Pofarmer]

We have 30,000 or so of our military in SK.

Yes, I know.

Whatever happens, we're in. Whether Mr. Go For It realizes it, wants or or even notices it.

Yep.

[narciso]

Well it seems only diligent researchers like Betsy McCaughey,unearthed Section 1200 of the bill, which Michelle Bachman, unearthed and
Sarah coined 'the death panels'

[Captain Hate]

Now mister 'post partisan' tell the GOP to Go For It on repeal and the press swoons over what a tough guy he is.

Those idiots are setting themselves up for the biggest defeat ever; so goddamn big it might permeate their dense skulls. It escapes them that this a/obomination was passed only because of chicanery with the rules along with raw political power. And done in the face of an electorate that said "hell no" to doing so. Do they really think that Ted Kennedy's seat going to a Repub was anything other than a clear message to shitcan HCR; and done after Odummy made a personal plea for Coakley's election so they could get this done without resorting to subterfuge? The voters told him to concentrate on the economy and he's ignored them at the peril of him and his dumbbell party. He's set himself up to be a failure of historical proportions and is too stupid to realize that. In fact he thinks he can't lose.

[Appalled]

JMH:

No, technical corrections are not supposed to be used to fix policy mistakes. But, my experience on the tax side of things is that when IRS feels a provision violates both Congressional Intent and IRS preference, they will issue a notice flagging the issue, warning taxpayers about their preferred interpretation, and begin lobbying Congress for a retroactive fix.

A bix tax bill will usuaually yield a 200 page technical correction bill a year or so later. (The technical corrections bill for the stimulus is pretty wimpy -- only about 30 pages).

[Ignatz]

--Without looking into it, I'd bet the projection of GDP fails to account for the lower growth that must result from higher taxes and regulations, and if that's so, the 90% is too low.--

Yep, OL.
Many people unfortunately forget the real lessons of Clinton. He raised taxes substantilly early on. As now, many conservatives mistakenly predicted immediate doom. I doubt we'll have it now either.
What we did have was subdued growth coming out of the recession and markedly less tax revenue than originally envisioned by Tyson, Rubin, Summers and co.
But here's the key, Clinton sensibly agreed to a massive cap gain tax cut which massively spurred growth and economic activity and captured vastly more revenue than projected.
This band of simpering idiots is not only reupping income taxes ala Clinton but, blind to what he did and what caused his second term boom they are massively expanding cap gains, dividend and other investment taxes.
I still stick to my contention 2010 will be pretty good but 2011 and beyond will be bleek. It may only be flat rather than a recession but even that is a fiscal disaster that will dwarf the CBO numbers.

[Rob Crawford]

Those idiots are setting themselves up for the biggest defeat ever; so goddamn big it might permeate their dense skulls.

Naw. It'll be "stolen".

[Thomas Collins]

I agree with Appalled's analysis of what technical corrections means in the case of tax legislation. Technical corrections tax bills often make law changes that any normal person would regard as substantive new law, not technical fixes. In fact, a so-called technical corrections bill is a great chance for lobbyists to get more special interest provisions in whatever area is being addressed by the bill.

In any event, whether tax. health, energy or otherwise, Congress often names bills with titles that obscure what the bill really does.

[Jack is Back!]

Bush: "Bring it On"

Obama: "Go for It"

More change.

[Captain Hate]

Naw. It'll be "stolen".

Maybe; you have history on your side when they said that about the 2004 elections after Bush received over 50% of the popular vote, something that their idol Slick never attained. I'm thinking a Reagan-esque crushing following a 2010 repeat of 1994 that will hopefully leave them speechless. Probably not because that would make them capable of learning things, of which there's no evidence.

[maryrose]

His smugness and arrogance with that punative comment of "go for It" is immature and unbecoming a president.His mocking tone is juvenile and shows how thin-skinned he becomes when people don't agree with his Marxist ways. How appropriate that on the day Obummer decides to decrease nukes North Korea may have sunk a SK ship. Don't we all fell safer now? I said it from the get-go clueless and soft on terrorism. His so-called smart diplomacy has the Israelis pissed off and the Iranians laughing at his ineptitude.

[Carol Herman]

Here's the gamble. Pelosi is counting on the republicans to go to the cleaners; the same way Stupak went out and claimed he had a dozen votes. (When Pelosi held all the cards. And, for a year's worth of selling "the plan" wasn't accepted.) Till the republicans made all the wrong moves.

Republicans are still unwilling to own up to their own mistakes. Including NOT having anything you could hold in your hands; that would have been WHAT'S RIGHT WITH AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE. And, a real discussion of "fixes." Indexed. A book. And, a book tour. Not with congress critters. But with interested people willing to gamble that the MIDDLE buys books. And, wanted to see stuff in writing. While all they got was "we're in the minority, and we're good at saying no."

Now? Oh, Pelosi probably expects republicans to run on saying "no viagra for child molesters." Or an equal array of absolute nonsense. The middle will be forgotten, while stupid ads will be thrown their way.

Sure. Pelosi expects to lose seats! But she also thinks she won't lose so many that the majority chair changes. That's the gamble.

Sometimes? Gamblers are lucky. They get a good run. And, it doesn't stop. Power will still fluctuate. And, you can reach the middle if you're optimistic. And, if you can look at what just happened and see how the "trick" got done. Like hangovers, headaches always follow the 'spree.'

[Danube of Thought]

Pleasing analysis of Obama's poll numbers. Short version: apart from blacks, he's approaching late Bush territory.

[Jack is Back!]

Okay JOM community of ideas. Get your minds, hearts and intellectual force around this idea from Randy Barnett. Clarice doesn't think the idea of a constitutional amendment will fly but then none of the other lead balloons out there stand much of chance either. LUN

Me, I think it is the only way to kill the bill (law).