US healthcare: a post mortem

[ecoli]

another loophole: there's a religious exemption to the lack of insurance penalties.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think it is such a slam dunk as the court has been wrestling with the commerce clause for a while now while the current court, at best, waffles with limitations under the commerce clause. It appears, at least in Lopez, Morrison and Raich that the drift in the court is toward affirming federal prohibitions under the commerce clause while limiting proactive measures that congress grants to itself.

 

Well, it doesn't have to be. It will certainly be interesting to hear the arguments on this one and the deliberations of the court.

 

Well much as I support individual liberties, I don't see the government ever letting go of the powers it has granted itself via the commerce clause and creative interpretation of the Constitution. The war on drugs, legal drinking age, seatbelt laws, for example. Healthcare really is just one more on the pile (which is why I think this question is rather off topic, and in any case I think everyone already spoke their mind on this topic as it relates to healthcare).

 

Good Points: I would have to say the attempt to reign in Medicare fraud and abuse... though I think that is a pipe dream.

 

Hm, I guess the government deals more with popularity than with economics. Accidentally denying someone medicare will get them very bad press, but letting a few people get away with fraud probably not so much.

 

I think popularity may be one of the reasons they didn't have the public option. If they did, then the government would have to make some choices as to which procedures to cover, and people might blame them for being callous. Much better to pay an insurance company to take this bad press.

 

Bad Points: I don't think they have thought through this legislation very carefully. It is easy to find loopholes in the program that do nothing but punish health insurance companies while funneling money into the Federal coffers.

 

Can you give an example of one (other than the one below)?

 

For example, by all rights the fines that people will pay for not having insurance should, by all rights be funneled back into the insurance companies who are the only losers under the new program. I've found nothing in the bill that shows this will happen.

 

But wait, who pays for giving care to the uninsured? Somehow I don't think it is the insurance companies (else you don't need insurance...). I think the way it goes is that these costs are required of hospitals, who pass this on as a cost of business to both the insured and the uninsured that can pay for it. So I think this money should go to directly to the hospitals, not either the insurance companies or paying customers. Then the hospitals don't have to pass on this cost to anyone.

 

It seems designed to ruin the health insurance industry while also making it harder for physicians to stay in business.

 

If this is so bad for health insurance companies, then why is their stock going up? I think this points to the people who actually know about the health insurance industry strongly disagreeing with you (much as they might complain publicly).

[toastywombel]

Why does it seem that if something is not directly allowed by the constitution that it therefore has no merit? How is that even a legitimate argument? Its just like saying, if it is not allowed by the bible it has no merit.

 

Again, the constitution is not perfect, it is a document written by men over 200 years ago, who had much less information available to them than us. Just because something isn't constitutional doesn't mean its not right.

[ParanoiA]

Why does it seem that if something is not directly allowed by the constitution that it therefore has no merit? How is that even a legitimate argument? Its just like saying, if it is not allowed by the bible it has no merit.

 

Again, the constitution is not perfect, it is a document written by men over 200 years ago, who had much less information available to them than us. Just because something isn't constitutional doesn't mean its not right.

 

Because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We use democratic principles throughout the execution of the republic, but we are not a democracy. So, merit means nothing to a constitution.

 

That's why we have such a thing as amendments. Amendments were thought up just for the very reason you very correctly laid out in paragraph 2. Amendments require 3/4 of the states to ratify - a very solid majority of the country - or a super majority you could say. Amendments are how you change the constitution.

 

The constitution gets its value from its rigidity. That's the whole point. That's why all 330 million of us could vote to hang toastywombel just for the fun of it - 99.9% yes vote - and we still couldn't do it....that damn constitution that guarantees due process, stops us. If it was a flexible document that only required us to believe our cause to have "merit" - then we'd obviously say it has merit and hang poor toastywombel. What kind of document is that?

 

If something has merit, then it should be passable as an amendment. We don't do amendments anymore, and I'm not sure why. I think it's because it's easier to just get a supreme court judge to interpet the document differently...

[Sisyphus]

We don't do amendments anymore, and I'm not sure why. I think it's because it's easier to just get a supreme court judge to interpet the document differently...

 

I wouldn't say that. The most recent amendment (27th) was ratified in 1992, 18 years ago. Some other gaps:

 

12th-13th: 61 years

15th-16th: 43 years

21st-22nd: 18 years

26th-27th: 21 years

[toastywombel]

Because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We use democratic principles throughout the execution of the republic, but we are not a democracy. So, merit means nothing to a constitution.

 

That's why we have such a thing as amendments. Amendments were thought up just for the very reason you very correctly laid out in paragraph 2. Amendments require 3/4 of the states to ratify - a very solid majority of the country - or a super majority you could say. Amendments are how you change the constitution.

 

The constitution gets its value from its rigidity. That's the whole point. That's why all 330 million of us could vote to hang toastywombel just for the fun of it - 99.9% yes vote - and we still couldn't do it....that damn constitution that guarantees due process, stops us. If it was a flexible document that only required us to believe our cause to have "merit" - then we'd obviously say it has merit and hang poor toastywombel. What kind of document is that?

 

If something has merit, then it should be passable as an amendment. We don't do amendments anymore, and I'm not sure why. I think it's because it's easier to just get a supreme court judge to interpet the document differently...

 

I was more making the point that simply saying, it's not constitutional, is not a good argument against something. Also it is good to keep in mind, just because the majority accepts it, doesn't make it right either. "Majority rule don't work in mental institutions". Much of our knowledge and information we have obtained, and eventually accepted as a society, was initially discovered by small groups of people working against what the majority saw as right.

Edited March 24, 2010 by toastywombel

[jryan]

Well much as I support individual liberties, I don't see the government ever letting go of the powers it has granted itself via the commerce clause and creative interpretation of the Constitution. The war on drugs, legal drinking age, seatbelt laws, for example. Healthcare really is just one more on the pile (which is why I think this question is rather off topic, and in any case I think everyone already spoke their mind on this topic as it relates to healthcare).

 

I don;t think they will go down without a fight, but the SCOTUS doesn't have a dog in these fights other than the law. It's certainly not a perfect check or balance, but it's something, at least.

 

Hm, I guess the government deals more with popularity than with economics. Accidentally denying someone medicare will get them very bad press, but letting a few people get away with fraud probably not so much.

 

I think popularity may be one of the reasons they didn't have the public option. If they did, then the government would have to make some choices as to which procedures to cover, and people might blame them for being callous. Much better to pay an insurance company to take this bad press.

 

It is a shamefully anecdote driven process, for sure.

 

Can you give an example of one (other than the one below)?

 

Well, there is the Louisiana exemption from Medicaid costs, house staffers who wrote the bill possibly exempted themselves, though the religious exemption touted by Democrats late last year apparently is also in doubt as the exemption is referenced in the bill, but in a section that doesn't appear to exist. That will cause some headache, I think.

 

But wait, who pays for giving care to the uninsured? Somehow I don't think it is the insurance companies (else you don't need insurance...). I think the way it goes is that these costs are required of hospitals, who pass this on as a cost of business to both the insured and the uninsured that can pay for it. So I think this money should go to directly to the hospitals, not either the insurance companies or paying customers. Then the hospitals don't have to pass on this cost to anyone.

 

Well, that's true. It should go to the health care providers directly. You and I know that the Fed will take their cut first, though.

 

If this is so bad for health insurance companies, then why is their stock going up? I think this points to the people who actually know about the health insurance industry strongly disagreeing with you (much as they might complain publicly).

 

Because the stock market is the stock market. How good of an indicator was the stock market when it came to Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Enron, Madoff Investment Securities, FNMA, FDMC and so on? You could point to any of them in 2007 as signs that their plans were fantastic...

 

I would guess that the investors see a large group of 16 million or more healthy adults who will be buying insurance in the coming year.. but that is no endorsement of the plan beyond the short term.

[Mr Skeptic]

though the religious exemption touted by Democrats late last year apparently is also in doubt as the exemption is referenced in the bill, but in a section that doesn't appear to exist. That will cause some headache, I think.

 

"Oops!" I think this one is for the best, however, as the religious exemption would have been yet another loophole most definitely not restricted to the people who honestly have religious reasons.

 

Because the stock market is the stock market. How good of an indicator was the stock market when it came to Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Enron, Madoff Investment Securities, FNMA, FDMC and so on? You could point to any of them in 2007 as signs that their plans were fantastic...

 

I would guess that the investors see a large group of 16 million or more healthy adults who will be buying insurance in the coming year.. but that is no endorsement of the plan beyond the short term.

 

True enough, I guess. Also a good point on temporary effects, since the provisions of the bill don't happen all at once either.

[ecoli]

I wouldn't say that. The most recent amendment (27th) was ratified in 1992, 18 years ago. Some other gaps:

 

12th-13th: 61 years

15th-16th: 43 years

21st-22nd: 18 years

26th-27th: 21 years

 

The amendment was submitted back in 1789, however. It took over 200 years for the proposal to be ratified.

[bascule]

The distinction is that auto requirement comes from the states.

 

No, the real distinction is that no one is forcing you to buy a car

[iNow]

Auto insurance or otherwise, the primary issue whose constitutionality is being challenged is the mandate itself, and time and again it has been reinforced that congress possesses the power to impose a mandate to purchase a good, even if that purchase transaction is performed with a private company.

 

The strongest case which can be made rides on the 10th amendment, and AFAICT, even that case is pretty weak given precedent.

 

This healthcare legislation is not precedent setting. The precedent has been set long ago, as the links I've shared in this thread display, and IMO challenges to healthcare constitutionality are exceedingly unlikely to succeed.

[Pangloss]

Ran across this link to the Wikipedia article on the new law today:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

[jryan]

Another strange thing about this health care bill, and I think the white wash is rather interesting....

 

Elimination of "preexisting condition" denials for children not immediate, contrary to President Obama's claim. Apparently the rules were supposed to take effect immediately for children and in 2014 for adults but someone way back when the Senate voted on the bill without reading it failed to read it....

 

Anyway, that is no big deal, really, as I don't think there will be major resistance to a new bill changing the law on minors to 2010. But here is the passage I found interesting:

 

Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law, even without Sebelius' fix. They could seek coverage through state high-risk insurance pools slated for a major infusion of federal funds.

 

The high-risk pools are intended to serve as a backstop until 2014, when insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to those in frail health. That same year, new insurance markets would open for business, and the government would begin to provide tax credits to help millions of Americans pay premiums.

 

As someone who worked as a social worker, this statement is not a surprise, but it is probably a surprising revelation to many. What they are saying, though not as clearly as I am about to, is that medical coverage for children with preexisting condition denials has been around for a rather long time. This bill really does nothing but transfer what was a state managed program into Federal control.

 

As such, this bill was never about getting children their cancer treatment.. that was already happening contrary to the sick children paraded in front of cameras. It has always been about giving the Federal Government control over that treatment.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Auto insurance or otherwise, the primary issue whose constitutionality is being challenged is the mandate itself, and time and again it has been reinforced that congress possesses the power to impose a mandate to purchase a good, even if that purchase transaction is performed with a private company.

 

The strongest case which can be made rides on the 10th amendment, and AFAICT, even that case is pretty weak given precedent.

 

This healthcare legislation is not precedent setting. The precedent has been set long ago, as the links I've shared in this thread display, and IMO challenges to healthcare constitutionality are exceedingly unlikely to succeed.

 

I think "time and again" is a bit too strong a phrase, as the only time I have seen that such a mandate was ever issued was in 1792, and was largely abandoned once the state could afford to equip actual armies, and repealed in 1903 when the program was determined to produce very poor quality militias.

 

And in any case it was never meant to compel a citizen to spend large sums of money every month for the rest of their life.

 

As I said before, I'd like to see the liberal response to a ramrodded reinstatement of the Militia Act of 1792 we'll see exactly how keen they are on the Commerce Clause and the reach of it's powers.

[Mr Skeptic]

As someone who worked as a social worker, this statement is not a surprise, but it is probably a surprising revelation to many. What they are saying, though not as clearly as I am about to, is that medical coverage for children with preexisting condition denials has been around for a rather long time. This bill really does nothing but transfer what was a state managed program into Federal control.

 

As such, this bill was never about getting children their cancer treatment.. that was already happening contrary to the sick children paraded in front of cameras. It has always been about giving the Federal Government control over that treatment.

 

What they are saying is that children with pre-existing conditions will now get healthcare, and in a few years that will be given by insurance companies. This high risk pool you talk about as if it is already there, what is it called? When was it started? It seems to me it is a new provision from the bill, a temporary provision.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0324/Health-care-reform-bill-101-rules-for-preexisting-conditions

The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let’s see ... that’ll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their

family

policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions.

 

Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014.

...

The new reform law does create a temporary backup plan for those uninsured who have health problems.

 

This Plan B is a short-term, national high-risk insurance pool. US citizens and legal immigrants who have preexisting conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool and receive subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

 

Under the law, the premiums for this pool will be the same as would be charged for a standard population of people with varying risks. Maximum out-of-pocket cost sharing for enrollees will be $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, per year.

 

This risk pool is supposed to be up and running within 90 days and then fade into the sunset on Jan. 1, 2014.

 

You have to be careful where you get your news -- if it sounds biased then odds are it's not the whole truth. And making assumptions based on it is even worse -- your link didn't say that the pool already existed; you added that yourself.

[ParanoiA]

As I said before, I'd like to see the liberal response to a ramrodded reinstatement of the Militia Act of 1792 we'll see exactly how keen they are on the Commerce Clause and the reach of it's powers.

 

Is this in reference to the mandate that the conscripted were to fund their own government required militia effects?

 

The best constitutional counter I've heard thus far is the Capitation Clause of Article I, section 9:

 

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

You cannot tax a fixed amount, per head of the citizenry.

 

And after hearing from some congresscritters that actually read part of the bill, they formed this as a tax break option. If I understood correctly, they see this like a tax break in buying a home. You only get the break, if you satisfy the requirement. So, if you have health insurance, you get the "break" of 750 bucks, or whatever they've decided it's going to be.

 

Essentially, they've framed it so it's a tax that everyone pays and proof of insurance coverage relieves you of the tax.

 

So, it would be difficult to make the case that it taxes by capitation. But I still think they have a better shot at that than the forced product purchase argument. De facto, we all understand what's going on here. But legally, they've done a good job of walking that line.

 

Frankly, I wish some states would talk about seceding, like Texas. That's our only hope of retaining some free population on the earth. All the rest are hell bent on making us all the same, boring, stale sheeple guided by a fair master. Because I sincerely believe that our countrymen think those days of governments turning on their citizens are for history books.

 

Giving the government lots of power is how you evolve as a citizenry. That growth, development, morality, altruism, all come from non-profit government - not from greedy private industry. And anyone who fears or dislikes big government is a tea partier, fundamentalist white christian male that hates minorities and women getting power. At least that's what I heard on CNN last night. But yeah, Fox spreads lies and propaganda...nobody else.

[jryan]

 

You have to be careful where you get your news -- if it sounds biased then odds are it's not the whole truth. And making assumptions based on it is even worse -- your link didn't say that the pool already existed; you added that yourself.

 

The pools do exist in most states already. And as a social worker one of my jobs was to match these same children with state and federal programs. For example, for chronically ill children it was common to get them into either SSD or SSI through the Social Security administration, and from there they are eligible for Medicare and Medicaid... but in most cases even that step was unnecessary as SCHIP and CHIP and numerous other state and national programs already existed to meet the child's insurance needs.

 

Heck, in many cases the primary assistance was coming from pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and private charities.

[ecoli]

The exchanges are something I do like about this bill. I think it's demonstrative of the power of marketplaces, and what insurance could be if it wasn't tied to an employer.

 

I think it's also probably ok (though not strictly necessary) that these are run by the states (private exchanges work well enough for stock markets, right?).

[Mr Skeptic]

Please answer the criticism of Republicans portion of this in the other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=553276#post553276

 

But it's those specific changes that are extremely suspicious. Insurance? Seriously? We, the weirdo right, keep pointing out this terrible broken down product of insurance and most don't even attempt to defend but rather just point to some anecdotal example of a cancer patient being denied coverage after paying in for 15 years.

 

But also, Republicans seem to have been using every procedural abuse possible in order to pass the bill, rather than compromising.* In all, a single Republican vote in the house (Anh Cao, R LA-2, whose vote wasn't even necessary), with every single other Republican opposed. They forced the Democrats to compromise among themselves.

 

The Democrats did a stellar job compromising among themselves: they achieved a 95% agreement of 89% agreement necessary in the Senate, and achieved a 85% out of 85% agreement necessary in the House.

 

Take a while to let that sink in. To amend the Constitution requires only 75% agreement. It is hard to get such high levels of agreement. Having this sort of agreement necessary means that any very small group of legislators in the party could block the bill, so that the bill may need to have special concessions just for them, if everyone else wants it to pass.

 

Now, the above is only valid if a significant number of Republicans were willing to vote against things they believed in simply to attempt to kill the bill (possibly due to pressure from the rest of their party). Had every single Republican been willing to compromise if offered something to win their vote, rather than simply opposing the bill, the agreement level that would have to be reached would have been a much nicer 51%. The Republicans have fully betrayed their constituents in this: they failed to kill the bill, and they failed to compromise for a better bill.

 

Note that it was squarely the responsibility of the Republicans to play the compromise game since the Democrats could (and did) do it all by themselves. Having Republicans willing to compromise would have afforded the legislature much much more flexibility in the bill, and, assuming the Republicans are representing their constituents, a much more satisfactory bill for the people. Instead they forced the Democrats to do what they had to do to reach agreement among themselves.

 

Think of it this way: compromise is like if your toe had gangrene and you have to amputate it. If instead you stubbornly refused, you have to amputate your whole leg instead. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two unwanted options and make the best of a bad situation. I think the Republicans failed to do this, and failed the American people and especially their constituents.

 

 

* From what I hear. I know the Republicans did suggest a few bills, but the Democrats did not accept this. I don't know whether Democrats chose their own bill because they liked it more or because it was their bill, but I think it was for both those reasons individually. Compromise is not offering an option worse than the other side can achieve by themselves -- it is offering them a better option.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[iNow]

From what I hear. I know the Republicans did suggest a few bills, but the Democrats did not accept this. I don't know whether Democrats chose their own bill because they liked it more or because it was their bill, but I think it was for both those reasons individually.

I think it's important to note... as this "Republicans were excluded from the process" meme continues to propagate... that there were over 200 Republican amendments which made it into the final bill. If Republicans were not allowed to participate, I sure would like to know how so may of their amendments made it into the final bill which ultimately became the law.

 

 

Also, you don't get to refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame Democrats because they didn't meet with you.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, all that is a very fair analysis. I do get the compromise / objectionist dilemma and what you stand to lose and gain by it. I think in this case that the vote was close enough that neither party could have been said to blow it with a lack of compromise tactic. It's a calculated decision, and the democrats edged them out.

 

And it's not over. Texas attorney general Greg Abbott, among many reported to be preparing for a judicial fight, has an interesting take since the Commerce Clause covers commerce already in existence - it does not give congress the power to "instigate a business transaction" - to forcibly initiate commerce. He is challenging the constitutionality of the bill on those grounds.

 

Regardless of anyone's personal position on that point, it is possible he or someone else could win and therefore cancel the bill altogether.

 

But had republicans compromised, the mandated insurance coverage possibly could have been a point for democrats to sacrifice - leaving us without the potential for an even more favorable Supreme Court ruling.

 

Of course, they still could have compromised and possibly maneuvered around that mandate so that it still carried a possible unconstitutional mechanism for the SC to rule on - but of course, that would be even more irresponsible, and an insult to the office and their charge if not outright illegal.

 

(Incidentally, Bush junior had no problem signing law that he thought very well could be unconstitutional as he counted on the court to make that decision. That's a disingenuous approach to the office - all branches have a duty to the constitution. If you want a reference, I'll get you one tomorrow. I forgot my book today.)

 

So yeah, you're absolutely right. Had they compromised, they could have made it a better bill for all of us. But me, I'm playing for all the marbles and I'm happy they didn't compromise and I'm hoping the judiciary does the right thing.

[Mr Skeptic]

So yeah, you're absolutely right. Had they compromised, they could have made it a better bill for all of us. But me, I'm playing for all the marbles and I'm happy they didn't compromise and I'm hoping the judiciary does the right thing.

 

Well, I don't think you'll be so happy with their choice when the legal challenges fail. On the other hand, if they do manage to kill off most of the government's power I will be very impressed and would consider the healthcare bill a decent sacrifice for that.

[Pangloss]

The only problem I would have had with a couple of Republicans jumping ship is that they would have had to do that over bennies for their home states (nothing else would have been palatable to Democrats) and that it would have left moderate Democrats (the kind I like) twisting in the wind.

[jackson33]

According to Alt, never in the history of the nation has Congress adopted a law requiring people to purchase a product or service simply because they exist inside the confines of the United States.

 

“There simply is no legal precedent in American law for what it is Congress is trying to do with this particular mandate,” Alt said.

 

Those who fail to purchase coverage will incur a penalty tax. Different than an income tax or excise tax, Alt called this form of taxation “a tax on being, a tax on the person— the functional equivalent of a head tax.” [/Quote]

 

http://www.pepperdine-graphic.com/news/legal-expert-challenges-law-s-constitutionality-1.2202043

Robert Alt

 

Robert Alt is a Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. [/Quote]

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/A/Robert-Alt

 

iNow; I understand all your established precedence since 1935 and the basis for interpretations leading to those rulings and the likelihood, today's US Supreme Court, will be asked to again judge, what should have been done by the 50 States of today. Those founders, never intended for either a party or the Supreme Court to establish or deny the fundamental right choice of Americans. I also am aware of 'Prohibition' on a National Level and how why it was returned to the States, ie the people, adding this was done under the Constitutional Method, an amendment.

 

In Supreme Court rulings issued in 1995 and 2000, "the high court said the commerce clause is limited to economic activities that substantially affect interstate trade." (I was an attorney in the latter ruling, United States v. Morrison (2000)). As UPI noted, "the weight of Supreme Court jurisprudence seems to favor a Commerce Clause challenge" to the healthcare legislation........

 

The individual mandate does not regulate activities, much less economic activities, but rather inactivity, by penalizing those who decline to buy health insurance -- like a young, healthy person who doesn't need it. That exceeds Congress's powers under the Supreme Court's Morrison ruling, as I explained earlier.

 

The healthcare legislation also contains potentially unconstitutional racial preferences for minority applicants, and lower standards for treatment of patients in predominantly-minority institutions. These drew criticism from the Civil Rights Commission. [/Quote]

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Attorney-Generals-challenge-ObamaCare-Healthcare-law-increases-deficits-imposes-marriage-penalties

 

Remember, until 1995, IRS had unheard of rights, by comparison to today. No longer can they confiscate land or assets, WITH OUT due process or an agreement, with in a States territory among other then practiced policy. Not mentioned in the current HCB is this due process, meaning any person that is, may or could be liable, would have legal standing and must be argued and considered in any court action, this one important factor, to your evaluation of precedence.

 

Having mentioning all this; Congress did pass a Law, a 2600 page law of complicated and complex laws involving hundreds of potential alternatives in the event one or more may possibly be struck down, contested or found intolerable by the general public. Short of the repeal of the entire Bill, as these different programs take hold (I'm hearing even Child coverage for pre-existing, will not be covered until 2014) and by Congress itself (SC cannot do this) the Bill will STAND and according to it's 'moving goal post' terminology.

 

I've address this to iNow, but am seeing a good many opinions, that indicate the bill will go away, by some Court Action, it will not. IMO, the end result, short of repeal will be 'Single Payer, Federally Provided Universal Health Care System. Another new development, is the 'Education Finance Law', which is also now law, will be used to encourage (their word) force (my word) medical professional into certain areas of medicine.

[iNow]

I'm hearing even Child coverage for pre-existing, will not be covered until 2014

I'm unsure where you've been hearing that (although, I do have my suspicions), but it's simply untrue. It's possible that it was a simple misunderstanding, so I will include more information than is relevant to my rebuttal to ensure deepest clarity (and will bold the part that addresses directly your mistaken suggestion above).

 

From the link in the very first post of this thread:

 

 

WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

 

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

 

*

Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

 

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

 

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

 

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

 

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

 

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

[Pangloss]

It's something that's going around. This AP story is from two days ago and I just pulled it up at Google News:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0

 

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.

 

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

 

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

 

But I think we need to wait a bit before drawing definitive conclusions. It's a big bill. There are going to be misunderstandings, even within the government.