House to vote on health care reform Sunday.

[katmai]

Sorry I touched a nerve grabon

[garbon]

Sorry I touched a nerve grabon

I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars.

[DGuller]

Sorry I touched a nerve grabon

I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars.

Are people in gay bars that desperate?

[Grallon]

I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars.

Dubious, this joint has quite the collection of fat slobs.




G.

[Jaron]

I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars.

Dubious, this joint has quite the collection of fat slobs.




G.

[garbon]

Are people in gay bars that desperate?

There are always desperate men and those to drunk to know better.

@Grallon - there is a segment of the population for whom such is an ideal.

[Neil]

Sorry I touched a nerve grabon

I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars.

Fag hags need love too.

[PDH]

Are people in gay bars that desperate?

There are always desperate men and those to drunk to know better.

Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)

[garbon]

Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)

How do you know I'm not drunk now?!

[Agelastus]

Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)

How do you know I'm not drunk now?!

Your perfect use of the apostrophe is a big hint.

[garbon]

Your perfect use of the apostrophe is a big hint.

I always use the apostrophe correctly. It is one of my few causes that I champion.

[jimmy olsen]

Good that the kids will be covered, but the way this is being implemented will cause prices to rise even further.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152100463512126.html

* MARCH 30, 2010

Flap on Children's Coverage Settled
Insurers Say They Will Accept Pre-Existing Conditions After Dispute on Timing, Warn of Higher Prices

By AVERY JOHNSON
[PREEX] John Harmer

Jade Harmer, right, with her mother, Tina, earlier this year. Jade could benefit from the new health-care law.

Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.

The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't require them to accept sick children until 2014.

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must give sick children access to their parents' plans starting in September. "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Ms. Sebelius said.

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the "significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.

The industry group said it would comply with the broader interpretation after lawmakers expressed outrage over its narrower reading.

"Any attempts to create loopholes at the expense of children's health care are reprehensible and those who wish to take such action will have to answer for it," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D., W.Va.).

First Focus, an advocacy group for children, said the bill's intent was to protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied coverage. Bruce Lesley, the group's president, said it was "disappointing that insurance companies continue to look for opportunities to deny coverage to this vulnerable population.

Though sicker children incur more health expenditures, additional costs to the industry were likely to be minimal as the number of children who would be affected by the broadest interpretation of the law could be relatively small. The Children's Health Insurance Program is credited with extending coverage to about eight million low-income children who are not poor enough for Medicaid.

Roughly eight million children remain uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but just 1% to 2%—or 80,000 to 160,000—have a health condition such as cystic fibrosis or cancer that would disqualify them from private insurance coverage, said Sara Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the health-policy department at George Washington University and a children's health-care expert. Many of those children's families were unaware they could qualify for Medicaid or CHIP assistance or enroll in an employer plan, she said.

"We're talking nationwide about a handful of children" who might benefit from expanded private coverage, Ms. Rosenbaum said. "I can't imagine why insurance companies are fighting this so hard."

Insurer practices regarding pre-existing conditions vary, but companies tend to exclude coverage for childhood illnesses such as juvenile diabetes.

Jade Harmer, 13, of Fredericksburg, Va., might be able to benefit from the health bill's immediate provisions. Her mother, Tina Harmer, said the family's insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, wouldn't cover weekly $1,000 drug injections for Jade's multiple sclerosis.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which administers the Harmers' plan, couldn't comment on the specifics of the case. But Jena Estes, a vice president there, said the drug in question was not approved for use in children.

Ms. Harmer applied to several other insurers but said her daughter was turned down because of her health condition. She was hoping that with the new health-care bill she could find a policy that would cover her daughter's treatment.

"I've been keeping a close eye on health reform because I know it would help with pre-existing conditions, but a few things worry me," said Ms. Harmer. "Is it what they say it is?"

Write to Avery Johnson at [email protected]

[DGuller]

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

  As opposed to before the law, when you could choose not to cover treatments of your customers?  Excellent PR.

[Fate]

Good that the kids will be covered, but the way this is being implemented will cause prices to rise even further.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152100463512126.html

* MARCH 30, 2010

Flap on Children's Coverage Settled
Insurers Say They Will Accept Pre-Existing Conditions After Dispute on Timing, Warn of Higher Prices

By AVERY JOHNSON
[PREEX] John Harmer

Jade Harmer, right, with her mother, Tina, earlier this year. Jade could benefit from the new health-care law.

Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.

The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't require them to accept sick children until 2014.

The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must give sick children access to their parents' plans starting in September. "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Ms. Sebelius said.

AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.

In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the "significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.

The industry group said it would comply with the broader interpretation after lawmakers expressed outrage over its narrower reading.

"Any attempts to create loopholes at the expense of children's health care are reprehensible and those who wish to take such action will have to answer for it," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D., W.Va.).

First Focus, an advocacy group for children, said the bill's intent was to protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied coverage. Bruce Lesley, the group's president, said it was "disappointing that insurance companies continue to look for opportunities to deny coverage to this vulnerable population.

Though sicker children incur more health expenditures, additional costs to the industry were likely to be minimal as the number of children who would be affected by the broadest interpretation of the law could be relatively small. The Children's Health Insurance Program is credited with extending coverage to about eight million low-income children who are not poor enough for Medicaid.

Roughly eight million children remain uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but just 1% to 2%—or 80,000 to 160,000—have a health condition such as cystic fibrosis or cancer that would disqualify them from private insurance coverage, said Sara Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the health-policy department at George Washington University and a children's health-care expert. Many of those children's families were unaware they could qualify for Medicaid or CHIP assistance or enroll in an employer plan, she said.

"We're talking nationwide about a handful of children" who might benefit from expanded private coverage, Ms. Rosenbaum said. "I can't imagine why insurance companies are fighting this so hard."

Insurer practices regarding pre-existing conditions vary, but companies tend to exclude coverage for childhood illnesses such as juvenile diabetes.

Jade Harmer, 13, of Fredericksburg, Va., might be able to benefit from the health bill's immediate provisions. Her mother, Tina Harmer, said the family's insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, wouldn't cover weekly $1,000 drug injections for Jade's multiple sclerosis.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which administers the Harmers' plan, couldn't comment on the specifics of the case. But Jena Estes, a vice president there, said the drug in question was not approved for use in children.

Ms. Harmer applied to several other insurers but said her daughter was turned down because of her health condition. She was hoping that with the new health-care bill she could find a policy that would cover her daughter's treatment.

"I've been keeping a close eye on health reform because I know it would help with pre-existing conditions, but a few things worry me," said Ms. Harmer. "Is it what they say it is?"

Write to Avery Johnson at [email protected]

Clearly the answer is tort reform!!111111111