All of our comments are sent to a queue so I read (or glance) over many of them before I hit approve. As you can see, there isn’t any censorship. I just throw away all the spam. So in reading the blog comments, I noticed a lot of people telling people opposed to Health Care Reform to “Stop crying and get a job!”
While that’s a great plan in theory, with unemployment hovering around 10 percent, that’s not always easy and many qualified people are still out of work and another many work for businesses that don’t offer insurance.
But what happens when you can’t get a job because you’re an infant (I mean just out of the womb infant) and you’re denied health care because your parents’ insurance company (if they have insurance) says you have a “pre-existing condition”? Are you still a free-loader?
Check out this story of the Tracy family from Texas. Their infant son is being denied health insurance due to a pre-existing condition and since the provision that makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against kids doesn’t become law until September, the family is fighting for coverage now. A call to the Texas Department of Insurance hasn’t resulted in any results yet. So the baby is fighting to live and the family is doing it all without insurance.
[The Tracy's} paid out of pocket for Kim Tracy's neonatal care and the baby's delivery. Doug Tracy said they were told that they could apply for insurance for Houston within 30 days of his birth.
A spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas declined to comment but issued a statement saying, "Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."
But that's only if the parents have coverage, said the spokeswoman, Margaret Jarvis. Read that with the emphasis on parents.
You can read the entire story by clicking here
Tags: health care, health care reform
 |
Jason Bio: Email the author at: blog(at)rockthevote.com |
Tell her to contact Cook’s Children, they have charitable plans available for families in need to handle the expense of their children’s dire health needs. Most hospitals have private funding available for hardship cases, and if she can’t get coverage under the Texas Children Health System then she can qualify.
Also, a quick correction, the current law just signed won’t force insurance companies to accept children with pre-existing conditions until 2014, not September:
“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.”
Here is the link to the story from Associated Press (via Google): http://bit.ly/aCToxC
Quick aside about the get a job issue, with the insure you employees or pay a fine mandate in this bill don’t expect employers to continue offering private insurance as an employee benefit at their current rate. Many will opt to pay the fine as it is less than coverage, and for those employers that don’t offer insurance for their employees that are now forced to pay the fine expect them to contract and either stop hiring or lay off workers to pay the new mandate. Of course Democrats just expected businesses to eat the additional costs, but when companies like John Deere, Verizon and Caterpillar are going to be hit this year with an almost combined 1/4 Billion (with a B) in additional costs do you really think finding employment will be easier or harder in the future?
The article you link to makes Health Care Reform sound like it’s a pretty good deal for Americans young and older.
The biases of the article notwithstanding, the point of linking to it was to help correct your article and assertion that pre-existing conditions for children and young Americans start this year; the article, in fact, quotes one of the House staffers who helped write the legislation and states that clause does not go into effect until 2014.
Your quote:
“… since the provision that makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against kids doesn’t become law until September”
The AP article clearly states that part of the law ins’t applicable in this situation until 2014. A correction is in order.
@jason, If you require an additional source other than the AP here is the article from yesterday’s New York Times, “Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print”:
http://nyti.ms/dBYsFb
Sean…
You’re on the money my friend. Companies are responsible to their profits. Whether public, and responsible to share holders or private, and trying to stay afloat.
You gave an example of a private entity that offers a solution. It’s seperate from government correct? Others are out there. You just have to look. Big Brother is the wrong option.
As for pre-existing, any group coverage that is offered by an employer has to cover pre-existing conditions. I’m type-1 diabetic. I speak from experience.
It’s time for people to do their own homework. IF yo uhave an internet connection, it’s right there.
Hmm… Well, since pre-existing conditions are covered, how long until we apply this to car insurance? That way I can not buy it until I get in a wreck, then buy insurance and have them cover the pre-existing condition of being totaled. And they have to do it, because it’s just mean if they don’t.
The lack of basic insurance knowledge runs rampant on these boards, so it’s refreshing to see some of the previous posts.
In the case of this article: I think we can agree that the paperwork for dealing with a health insurer is a huge pain. However, if the parents were/are covered, and they had all paperwork in within the 31-day window, they can sue and they will win. If they were/are not covered, and/or they did not send in the paperwork and get it confirmed within the 31 days, then the child is not automatically covered and has a pre-existing condition. That whole “30 day window” has been a law for many, many years now.
The article seems to imply that the parent(s) were not covered — why is no one questioning that? Or did they just assume their child would be perfect and they could just get coverage “whenever”?
Whatever your position on Health Care, it’s now Law.
Now each of us must: 1.) evaluate carefully how each aspect promised in the “Bill” actually functions … does it help We the People?; and 2.) evaluate our elected representatives performance of their DUTIES to Vote in our best interests on such important issues … i.e., did they Vote FOR or AGAINST the Health Care Bill and was their Vote the Vote we would have cast in our best interests?
Those decisions are yours and yours alone.