Home » Featured, Headline

No Pre-Existing Coverage: The Perils of Not Reading the Bill Before Voting on It

Jim Leahy 25 March 2010 One Comment

To the embarrassment of the Obama administration it was revealed today that Children with preexisting conditions are not covered in the great Obama Legislation passed signed on Monday. All of the geniuses’ in Obama’s administration and the Congress missed the fact that “The Children” who were the reason we had to pass it were not covered!

I am not writing this just to make fun of the best and the brightest but to give the Republicans in the Senate something to think of tomorrow and the next day when they are looking for something to change the legislation to send it back to the house.

Today Senator Coburn tried to pass a bill called “No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs to Sex Offenders” it would prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers and the Democrats defeated it! Yes it was a bill to force the Senate to change the Houses bill enough to send it back to the house to be voted on again, and the cause is a worthy one.

I have read that a bill offering universal coverage be introduced to get the liberals all worked up to vote to send it back to the house be introduced by the GOP. I have a better idea. The GOP should offer an amendment to cover children with preexisting conditions to be covered by a federal government with the high risk pool coverage put forth by John McCain. The American Spectator put it this way

“McCain’s proposal on high-risk pools was meant as a substitute for taking the drastic step of imposing such regulations at the federal level, which distorts the entire insurance market to address a problem that affects a small percentage of Americans. Requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions is popular in isolation, but inevitably leads to skyrocketing premiums, which leads to an individual mandate forcing healthy people into the insurance pool, which leads to subsidies, which leads to higher taxes. But regardless what side of this debate you’re on, the reality is that Democrats didn’t adopt the high-risk pool idea to incorporate Republican ideas; it’s just something to hold people over until the regulatory regime takes over in 4 years. (And remember, the reason they delayed implementation so long was that by postponing the bill’s major spending provisions, they made the legislation appear cheaper over the Congressional Budget Office’s 10-year budget window).”

I understand the risk, but the Democrats can’t afford to send this legislation back to the house again. What if the Republicans in the Senate proposed the children’s preexisting condition bill and the Democrats couldn’t vote for it? Imagine what the amendment could include? But mostly imagine how stupid the Democrats would look if they voted against something they swore was in their bill that they forgot to put in? Nancy and Harry you are idiots. It would be beautiful if done right.

One Comment »

  • Jeff Koenig said:

    The suggestion that pre-existing conditions for kids was “overlooked” falls very short of common sense. In fact common sense compels any man to understand that a hugely complex 1800 page bill (when first revealed) that appears over night was a product of potentially years of meticulous labor in anticipation of this opportunity.

    The suggestion also falls short based on Obama clear communication in various messages that there were going to be a lot of people that would not be covered because of pre-existing conditions. The said it, I believed it and now it’s here. Additionally Nancy Pelosi has repeated argued that a live baby is not even a “person” suggesting that the government would retain the right to destroy life in or out of the womb.

    Obama and the Democratic “morality” is clearly not a Judeo-Christian but Statist. The Statist morality is devoid of intrinsic human value but rather values humans only as they can be used and exploited to the end of those in power. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is given by the state, not by God. Similarly capital is owned by the government and only allowed to be used to further the cause of the party in power. So it make sense that when Obama talks about saving money, he is talking about saving HIS money, not the people’s money. The way Obama saves money is to first take it, then stop spending it on what he values as big expenses. Therefore it makes logical sense that Obama would first deny healthcare to kids with disabilities since in his eyes they have no reasonable expectation for the “investment” – they only represent a financial liability.

    The suggestion that pre-existing conditions were overlooked is ridiculous and probably only the beginning.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.