More Obama lies about Health Care


Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2008
Children not going to be covered like Obama and the dems said.

How in the world do we trust these people when they can't even get their own bill correct. That's what they get for not READING the bill.

Children with pre-existing conditions WILL NOT ALL automatically be covered
Department of All The Damn GallDevil Is in the DetailsHealth Insurance Profit Protection Planobama
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 1:08pm — jawbone
Well, in 2014 all children will have to be covered and not subject to rejection. As will anyone who can afford to buy insurance.

But, under Obama's Big Health Insurance Parasite Profit Protection Plan (BHIP-PPP), contrary to statements implying otherwise, only some children with pre-existing conditions will have to be covered by health insurers in six months. This is a major and jarring detail about the vaunted great benefits of the new bill -- One of the benefits being touted as something Dems can run on in November.

From this AP article,, Gap in Healthcare Bill's Protection of Children.

Parents who have believed the Obama hype are going to be very disappointed. It's not nice to lie to parents who have children with serious, dangerous illnesses. Or even less dangerous illnesses.

Can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions? Well, only if you already have insurance and the child subsequently becomes ill. Read and weep. Then consider how these people will vote come November. Oh, Dems, haven't you learned? People hate, hate, hate being mislead and lied to!!!

Thefutureisnow posts this tidbit at FDL:

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 that Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot not 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. From AP

Translate: If there’s a family with a sick child that currently is without insurance, they can legally be turned down for coverage. The fine print: That pre-existing condition clause that kicks in at the six month mark only includes:

1. Those families that already have insurance and end up with a child who unexpectedly/suddenly is diagnosed with a serious illness; and
2. uhh, guess that’s it. Oh, wait, the writers of this forward-looking law assumed that, gosh golly gee whiz, if an uninsured family with a sick kid applies to get coverage and the insurance company accepts (whhhaaaatt?), the company can’t write in an exclusion that exempts coverage of that illness at the time of purchase. I know, I know…I can foresee this happening zillions of times.

Seriously: Even as I knew how awful this law is, I’m shocked. Deception and a sales job of the highest order.

It's not for nothing the AHIP 2008 draft was used by Baucus to write the Obama BHIP-PPP. He who writes the bill has the advantage, ainahey?

Now, my reading of the second AP paragraph seems to indicate that if the child is currently insured, but an ailment is not currently covered, it will be now. But I'm not sure about that...developing.

The article continues:

Full protection for children would come in 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.

In recent speeches, Obama has given the impression that the immediate benefit for kids is much more robust.

The article goes on to give examples of how Obama is misleading the public.

What other suprises will be revealed as the bill is reported on more closely? Oh, my. Our president lies? Or, is he close enough to accuracy for political bamboozlement work?
I think it was not as much a lie as a mistake. He wanted to have it in the bill but the morons writing it for him were far too stupid to get it right.

And to think these idiots will manage health care for us all.