1. Health
Elizabeth Davis

Another Blow to People With a Preexisting Condition

By March 19, 2013

Follow me on:

diabetic checking blood sugarIf you have a preexisting condition and haven't already signed up for Obamacare's Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, you may be out of luck until next January. New enrollments in the PCIP have been suspended.

Individual health insurance plans that cover preexisting conditions will eventually be available through the health insurance exchanges created by The Affordable Care Act.  But, those exchanges don't open until October, and insurance coverage purchased through them doesn't take effect until January 1, 2014.

If you applied for the PCIP prior to the enrollment suspension but haven't hear back, don't lose hope. Applications postmarked before the enrollment suspension will still be considered for coverage.

The suspension of new enrollments doesn't affect you if you're currently enrolled in the PCIP. Your health insurance doesn't change. And, if you used to be covered by the PCIP, but lost your coverage recently because you moved out of state, you may be allowed to re-enroll in your new state despite the suspension.

Unfortunately, those of you who have a preexisting condition and didn't apply for the PCIP before the suspension may have tough going until next January. In the meantime you can negotiate medical bills you end up having to pay out-of-pocket because you don't have insurance, search for other health insurance options using this tool, and learn other ways to save money on healthcare.

image ©iStockphoto.com/Pat138241

For a June 3,2013 update on additional changes to the PCIP, see More Changes as Pre-Existing Condition Plan Runs Low on Money.

May 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm
(1) penny green says:

So what kind of excuses and lies will they have in 2014? Very few people will be accepted with pre-existing conditions, I would be willing to bet on it! This thing is a massive load of BS sold and forced onto the American people and that is totally unconstitutional!

May 5, 2013 at 11:24 pm
(2) Bruce says:

Well this is where the Obama supporters, (not saying you are),,idk, but this is where they will see the light about the idiot in the white house. Obamacare is going to send this country into a trainwreck by fall if something is not done…period. Obamacare needs repealed. Leave the government out of health care

May 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm
(3) healthinsurance says:

Hi Bruce,
I’m conflicted about Obamacare. I feel like we absolutely had to have healthcare reform, and I appreciate the enormous effort it took to bring the Affordable Care Act to fruition, but I’m not sure the Obamacare plan is the best thing we could have come up with. There are parts of it I like, and parts of it I dislike.

That said, now that it’s the law, I hope it succeeds and performs as advertised. I am concerned, though, that some costs may be higher than estimated, and premiums may not be as affordable as people hope.

The fact that they had to stop new enrollments in the PCIP due to lower-than-anticipated funds remaining in the plan is worrisome to me.

I suspect that we may have to alter some parts of the law after it’s been fully implemented and we’ve had time to realize it’s full impact. But, that’s not unusual with sweeping reforms like this. Luckily, we’re a democracy so we can each vote our conscience when it comes to electing the people who’ll make those changes. If you like how it’s working, vote that way. If you don’t, don’t.

I, personally, am taking a “wait and see” attitude.

May 6, 2013 at 12:55 am
(4) sue says:

Really..stop this Obamacare crap already!!!

May 6, 2013 at 1:18 am
(5) C says:

What a novel approach to cover preexisting conditions! I think that I will do the same with my car insurance. Get coverage automobile collision coverage after the car accident. Tha should work too. Shouldn’t it?

May 6, 2013 at 3:13 pm
(6) steve says:

So, let’s get this right. You are all blaming Obama for temporarily suspending part of the Health Care Act allowing people with pre-existing conditions to be insured, while at the same time wanting the whole Act repealed and giving the “free market” approach a chance again — after they were the group that won’t insure pre-existing conditions in the first place? That’s an interesting approach. I wonder how that will work out for everyone!? You must all work for Blue Cross! Get a clue. I’m not thrilled with the Act either, but no one from from the “trust the free market to take care of your families insurance needs” approach has much to offer in this debate as near as I can tell, except for the occassional entertaining, mindless references to government conspiracies theories. And guess what: Someday you might have a pre-existing condition too! I hope for your sake it isn’t terminal if left untreated. Although watching you flip flop on the issue would be entertaining as well.

May 6, 2013 at 3:38 pm
(7) jmrm01 says:

Re: 1. Sorry, coverage of preexisting conditions is one of the centerpieces of the program, but it just doesn’t take effect for real until 2014. The program discussed here was a temporary program that was designed as a bridge until all of Obamacare is phased in. But, I’m never opposed to separating a fool from their money. Reply if you are serious about betting, and we’ll work something out.

Re: 2. Idiots have been saying stuff like that for over 50 years now. Medicare was supposed to cause a large scale conversion to Communism. Instead, we went from a country were only about a third of the elderly had any form of health insurance to a country were nearly all of the elderly have health insuance.

Re: 3. In five years, you’ll be waving a sign reading, “Get Government out of my Obamacare” just like the tea partiers afraid that the government with take over Medicare.

Re: 4. You are misinformed. The reason why there is a penalty for not having health insurance is to prevent gaming the system that way. The experience in Massachusetts is that people overwhelmingly want health insurance, and it only takes a small penalty as a stick and programs to make it more affordable to make health insurance coverage nearly universal. That’s why Obamacare is actually supported by the insurance industry even though it means they have to cover pre-existing conditions.

May 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm
(8) Nicole says:

Well this is the whole purpose of “Obama Care” is to stop private insurers from excluding people that have pre-existing conditions. The Affordable Healthcare Act goes into effect January 2014 so this all makes perfect sense – I don’t understand the story here – is it to make stupid rednecks upset? People that are all ready way too brain washed from FOX “news” comprehend that this is a good thing? More fear mongering!

May 7, 2013 at 1:57 pm
(9) LittleDoPeopleKnow says:

It’s always interesting to see how people who know so little feel compelled to speak.

C said ‘What a novel approach to cover preexisting conditions! …. Get coverage automobile collision coverage after the car accident.’

I have worked my entire life and have had medical insurance my entire life. If I were to have cancer, I could not change jobs without possibly incurring a heavy financial burden. Why ? Pre-existing condition. So if my company were to have lay offs or go out of business, I would be saddled with huge financial bills.

C, that’s why it is important.

May 7, 2013 at 2:27 pm
(10) Adam says:

Nicole… I am a Texan who speant 24 years in the military, bank over 6 figures, watch Fox sometimes and other news outlets, and may be part “Red Neck”. Once you used the words “Stupid Redneck”, you ID’d yourself as brainwashed. My kids know better, your post was fine and then you lost all credibility. Time will tell how the cost of Obama Care will pan out.

May 7, 2013 at 2:38 pm
(11) Christopher Coviello says:

They still can’t get a handle on medicare and social security spending, allowing the government to provide heathcare that is going to cause a huge burden across the board.

May 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm
(12) Witchdoctor says:

That’s not what it says. It says there will be difficulty until the law goes totally into effect in 2014. By then they have to have the system set up. The article smacks of fearmongering.

May 7, 2013 at 2:51 pm
(13) Mark says:

One thing people have to remember when shopping for insurance is to not be duped by companies like Lands Health. They sell limited benefit plans that they try to portrait as major medical. They do NOT cover any pre existing conditions for 12 months and even when they do the coverage is garbage. Avoid these types of plans they will just make you waste money or go broke or both. I cant believe Fraudulent companies like LANDS HEALTH are able to sell the garbage they do. Hopefully Jan 2014 will put these guys out of business.

May 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm
(14) Davin says:


You don’t know your insurance laws very well. If you are covered by insurance for a year and you change jobs then you only have to show that you are currently covered by your current insurance to the new company then the new company can’t preclude you from a preexisting condition.

I actually think there were some policies that needed to be changed… but really… let the government run things? Ever wonder about the crappy service you get at the DMV, post office lose your mail? Why do people who ship merchandise choose FedEx, UPS, or DHL?There is a reason why Government run business has a hard time, they don’t have to turn a profit, so they have no motivation to improve.

Bad service at a govt facility? Talk to the manager notice they seem to not care. There’s a reason, even if you hate the place you don’t have a choice but to do business with them.

Be careful with who you give power to, after all you will probably never get it back.

May 8, 2013 at 12:11 pm
(15) Peter says:

There is a huge misconception here. The law simply requires people to have insurance and insurance companies to allow everyone to have a policy. Private insurance companies are still providing the insurance. This is not a government takeover of medical care. There are some requirements for a minimum amount of coverage and there are subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance but private insurance companies are providing the insurance. The law mandates insurance exchanges so that people have a market place to shop for the best deal that meets their needs. Everyone’s feelings are different about this law. For me, my reality reflects my politics. For the record, I am a moderate republican who supports the law because I have a disabled child. I wanted to start my own business as an independent consultant, but couldn’t, because I could not get insurance to cover my daughter. With this law, I can now get insurance and I have my own business where I make 3 times as much as when I worked for a company. That means I am paying more in taxes and contributing more to the economy. It works for me. But I can see how some might disagree. I would have been against this law had it been a single payer system as it was originally intended.

May 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm
(16) slawea says:

Where does one begin… I have a p-e-c. Been type 1 for 42 years. Luckily have always had coverage thru employers and unions. The attack is not specifically against ‘obamacare’, but the 15 member board who now decides what care one may or may not get, based on cost effectiveness weighed against what the person in need has to offer back. Mom WAS on hospice, but she didn’t “die fast enough” so 20 year vet ins. was over-ruled. Parents have now lost house and care is all paid out-of-pocket because “they” (the board) have decided that she has nothing to offer back so it is not cost-effective to help her. Two people have been denied care for BRAIN ANEURISMS ’cause surgery is expensive and they aren’t worth it!!! “Keep your ins. and docs if you like them”…never mind the fact that this ‘board’ now tells your doctor of 23 YEARS what meds and procedures will or won’t be covered by ins. and medicare, which IS, IN FACT regulated by these people (if you can call them people). These are sub-human ANIMALS who, under this plan, control virtually every aspect of who is worth saving and who should just hurry up and die: you are too expensive to keep alive. Your posts are not based on the reality of us living (suffering) through this nightmare and grows worse by the day. THIS BOARD NEEDS DISSOLVING! FIGHT THEM, who by the way, were APPOINTED by our Pres and his minions in charge. It’s funny, the old saying, “Who died and left you in charge?” Answer? WE ARE!!!

May 8, 2013 at 8:34 pm
(17) Doug says:

I cannot understand the logic that it is someone else’s responsibility to pay for my problems. If I have expensive preexisting conditions, why should others have to pay for that? Too many people in this country believe that it is someone else’s obligation to pick up their tab. Remember when the tsumani hit Japan? You didn’t hear people saying “we need help…no one is helping us.” They said “we’re all in this together.” They took ownership of their challenges instead of expecting someone else to take care of them. The idea of placing the responsibility for your problems on someone else is ruinous for our nation. That’s why we’re broke.

May 8, 2013 at 8:44 pm
(18) JC says:

So while people who have a problem paying for other people’s preexisting conditions via tax, do you not have a problem paying for the welfare of prisoners?

The millions of prisoners – state and federal – who have either committed petty crimes or heinous ones are under the care of YOUR tax dollars. There’s not a problem over that? Really?

And what about your tax dollars going to 911 calls? Are you okay with your tax dollars going to people who abuse the system AND the ones who have genuine calls?

Good grief…

May 9, 2013 at 11:38 am
(19) LBM says:

In answer to Doug, we consider ourselves a “Christian” nation. “I was hungry and you fed Me. I was naked and you clothed Me. When did we do these things? As you have done unto THE LEAST OF THESE (my capitals, not His), you have done unto Me.” In the words of A. Lincoln, “…government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.” Are not those with less financial resources and existing health conditions also the PEOPLE of whom government is made?

May 9, 2013 at 12:14 pm
(20) Debra says:

She is right I have multiple sclerosis and if it wasn’t for president Obama signing a compassionate clause into law in 2009 for social security disability my 28 years of working would have been a fight. Republicans would have put me and other disabled adults in state homes.

May 9, 2013 at 1:22 pm
(21) Scott says:

Obama ‘You thought I meant universal coverage for preexisting contidions”? Waaw hawww haw. you suckas need to read the fine print. Pass the bill to see what s in it. LOL.

May 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm
(22) IKnow says:

This goes to show you that ALL of Obama’s promises about his Health Care Plan were lies. He campaigned on the PROMISE that there would be absolutely NO MANDATE to buy the insurance. He said this over and over again. For all you idiots who forgot this, then just go back and look at the record. He said that we would all enjoy his plan because it would allow us to keep our favorite doctors, keep our same insurance plan if we liked it, and that the costs would go way down. All LIES, LIES, LIES !! Now it looks like the law is going to renege on being able pay the same if you have preexisting conditions. Obama is welding power like a dictator and our citizens are allowing to happen. Stupid fools, the liberals are.

May 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm
(23) Zephyr says:

C, if insurance companies weren’t responsible for driving up the cost of medical care, I might agree with your argument, but insurance companies should not be allowed to drop coverage when a medical condition develops, and they should not be allowed to refuse coverage to anyone, now that we’re required by law to buy it.

May 9, 2013 at 2:01 pm
(24) ubetcha says:

Much better under Sharia law

May 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm
(25) misinformation abounds says:

#8 – LittleDoPeopleKnow

Your scenario is incorrect. Group policies (which you get from an employer) can not and do not exclude pre-existing conditions. The only type of insurance that could exclude based on pre-existing conditions were private policies.

If your job provides a group policy and you develop cancer, you can change jobs without worrying about coverage so long as the new job also offers healthcare coverage. My mother did it twice. If you are pregnant and change jobs (yes pregnancy is a pre-existing medical condition), you are covered under the new group policy if your employer offers healthcare.

If you are unemployed or self-employed and have a pre-existing condition and get a new job that offers healthcare, you are covered by the group plan regardless of the condition.

The only people affected by the pre-existing condition clause of healthcare policies are those looking for private insurance.

May 9, 2013 at 3:22 pm
(26) Kevin says:

misinformation is correct, as and a self-employed business owner, who found it cheaper to buy private insurance for myself and family, and a separate policy for my one employee, I was pleased that my health insurer for the past 15 years, Pekin, recently informed us that, as of 1/1/14, they are getting out of the health insurance business due to the new requirements. It seems they do not believe they can offer universal coverage to everyone without taking into account pre-existing conditions and other factors (they will only be able to consider age and tobacco use in setting premium rates. Since my employee had cancer in the past year and is diabetic, I am sure I will have no problem finding “affordable care” in the private insurance market.

May 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm
(27) Monica says:

The insurance they offered for pre-existing conditions through the state is a big joke anyway. They want $600 per month with outrageously high deductibles and copayments. I did the math and calculated it would be out of pocket $13,000 annually before the insurance would pay anything significant. This is NOT insurance. I think it was just a test to see how much they were going to have to pay for those that are uninsured now and they have enough information to gather their statistics, which is why they won’t allocate anymore money to the program. Don’t trust your government, don’t trust an insurance company. They are all liars and thieves.

May 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm
(28) Beth says:

Since everyone else making comments has veered off topic, I felt I could add to it. Has anyone responding to this article read anything about Obamacare? Have any of you ever heard of the trickle down effect? Employers with more than 50 employees will be responsible to pay $60 per covered individual, yes covered individual, not employee, on an annual basis. If you have 60 employees (we’ll just count spouses for this excercise) so 120 (employees and spouses at $60 each that equals $7200 a year that an employer has to pay per Obamacare. Now, add on children, say 60 married employees with two kids each = $14,400.00. It will cost employers approximately $14,400 annually to insure their employees. So the employers options are the following, drop their coverage, cut all employees hours to PT, or stop giving annual raises. It has to come from somewhere…you the employee will pay in the end.

May 9, 2013 at 4:47 pm
(29) Dan says:

How many people knew about the deadline?..I didn’t and my wife could have benefited from it..what other “secrects” are being poorly explained to the American people..I get very conflicting advise on the new health care laws??How about you??

May 15, 2013 at 7:51 pm
(30) healthinsurance says:

Hi Dan,
You didn’t somehow misunderstand the deadline.

The original plan was that the PCIP would be available for new enrollees until January 1, 2014 when it becomes illegal for health insurers to refuse to accept new enrollees with preexisting conditions, or to charge them more for preexisting conditions. The government changed the original plan because the PCIP was running low on funds. They stopped accepting new enrollees before they had planned to in order to ensure they would have enough money left to pay the claims of the people who had already enrolled.

It becomes a moot point on January 1, 2014 since people with preexisting conditions will be able to buy health insurance through their state health insurance exchange regardless of preexisting conditions then. But, it does mean uninsured folks with preexisting conditions may have to wait until next January to buy health insurance that will cover their condition.

I find it a bit alarming that the fund was running low on money, and hope that’s not a harbinger of things to come.

May 31, 2013 at 5:25 pm
(31) Joker says:

re 10. Isn’t the definition of “redneck” some one that says, “I’m stupid and I’m proud of it.” Sounds like you fit the bill.

May 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm
(32) James B says:

Obama care exempts Obama, now you are just beginning to see the reasons why. It only gets worse from here.

June 1, 2013 at 6:29 am
(33) Susan R says:

The problem with requiring insurers to take people with pre-exisiting conditions is too many will wait to get insurance until they get a pre-exisiting condition.
This was suppose to make health care affordable. How has it done that? Hospital aspirin still costs $5 to dispense and deliver.
Why should you pay a fine for having coverage that is too good?
Why are there death panels?
Why are minorities favored in the bill?
Why are they stealing money from medicare?
Why is Congress, the president and the rest of the feds exempt if this is such a fine system?
Perhaps some of you ought to read some of the bill that many of us “red necks” have done

June 1, 2013 at 8:17 pm
(34) healthinsurance says:

Hi Susan R,

The part of the Affordable Care Act that prohibits insurers from taking preexisting conditions (other than smoking status) into account when determining the cost of premiums doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2014. Until then, insurers in the private market are allowed to charge people with preexisting conditions higher premiums, require preexisting condition waiting periods, or refuse to cover them at all.

So, if you’re asking why banning preexisting condition exclusions hasn’t made healthcare more affordable. . . well, the ban hasn’t gone into effect yet. I don’t think anyone expects the law to make healthcare more affordable before it’s fully implemented.

Ultimately, I’m not sure that particular part of the law will make insurance more affordable. I do suspect it will encourage more people to get covered, but only time will tell. I’m a bit disappointed that more people with preexisting conditions didn’t sign up for the PCIP while it was still taking new enrollees. Although, I also understand that the premiums for the PCIP were out of the reach of some folks. And the fact that it barely had enough money to cover claims for the ones who did enroll (before enrollment was suspended) is really worrisome to me.

You mentioned a potential problem with forcing insurers to cover applicants with preexisting conditions. Are you concerned that people will choose to go without health insurance, saving money on premiums, and then as soon as they got sick, sign up for health insurance?

My understanding is that that the health insurance exchanges will have limited open enrollment periods, (just like Medicare and job-based health insurance does now) in order to prevent just such behavior. My understanding is that the first open enrollment period with health insurance exchanges will be longer than normal (since it’s the first ever) and run from October 2013 to March 2014. After that, the open enrollment period will be once per year, and much more brief.

That still won’t totally eliminate the problem you’re talking about, but it will certainly make it more difficult as people would potentially have to wait an entire year before the next open enrollment period allowed them to get coverage.
My concern is that they’ll just do what they’re doing now until the next open enrollment period comes along, but only time will tell. Initially the penalty tax for going without health insurance doesn’t have much of a bite. But, by 2016, it gets a bit more expensive so might motivate people more effectively. (See How Much Is the Health Insurance Penalty.)

I personally disagree with the provision that caps the max penalty at the national average premium for a bronze tier plan. If someone chooses to go without health insurance, why should we limit that person’s penalty to the lowest amount they would have paid if they had followed the law? Isn’t the penalty a stick meant to encourage them to follow the law? If the stick hurts less than following the law, why follow the law?

There is nothing called a death panel in the Affordable Care Act. If you’re talking about end-of-life counseling, you can read more here on About.com’s Urban Legends site.

If you’re talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board tasked with proposing ways to keep Medicare costs in check, it really doesn’t have anything to do with making decisions about whether or not a particular individual gets a particular treatment. Also, since the IPAB isn’t allowed to propose Medicare changes that would ration care, raise premiums, or increase beneficiary cost sharing, it’s hard to see this as a death panel or a path to new rationing.

If you’re not talking about the IPAB or the end of life counseling (addressed in the urban legends link) when you’re warning of death panels, please clarify for me the exact term the Affordable Care Act uses to describe what you’re calling a death panel. I’d happily research it some more. Citing the Affordable Care Act section and paragraph describing what you’re speaking of would also be very helpful.

We’ve actually been rationing care in this country for years. That is basically what managed care does. Anyone who has ever had to have an MRI pre-authorized or had to switch from an expensive brand name drug to a cheaper, older drug in order to have their health insurance cover the prescription has already experienced healthcare rationing.

Probably the closest thing we have to any type of actual “death panel” is the current process of apply to be on the organ transplant waiting list. These are people who will die if they don’t get an organ transplant, and they won’t get a transplant if they can’t get on the list. You can read more about that process here. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It’s been the process for years.

About minorities being favored in the bill. . . I’d like to hear more. In what way are you saying that minorities are favored?

I know there are some provisions that exclude Native Americans. For example, Native American’s are exempt from the individual mandate. However, that is because they’re already covered by Indian Health Services.

I’m not aware of any other racial or ethnic minority group specifically addressed in the ACA, but I’d be interested in the section and paragraph of the ACA that does address this if you’d be willing to supply that.

I do know that the premium subsidies to be available through health insurance exchanges when they open in October will only be available for people with incomes less than 400% of federal poverty level.

I don’t think the law is offering subsidies based on race or ethnicity. It’s offering subsidies based on income adjusted for family size, and without regard to race. If you have specific evidence to the contrary (citing the section and paragraph where it can be found in the ACA) I’d be very interested to see it. In fact, I might even make a blog post about it to share it with others.

Look, I work hard, and I pay a lot of taxes. I’ve spent a lot of the years of my life working 2 or even 3 jobs at a time, and I was grateful to have those jobs. I don’t like having Uncle Sam taking my hard earned money. And, I’m not convinced that Uncle Sam, or any other government, will ever spend my money as wisely, carefully, and frugally as I will. (Case in point- see my latest blog about the stupidest government health plan ever.)

That said, I also believe that there are some things that only a government can do. ( I know that not all people agree.) And, I do believe that healthcare reform was absolutely necessary.

I’m not sure the ACA is the best law we could have come up with to accomplish healthcare reform, but, hey, it’s what we have now. So, I’m willing to see how it works.

You bet I’ll encourage my elected representatives to change the parts of it that aren’t working well after we’ve given it a chance. I don’t expect it to be perfect, but nothing created by humans (or governments) ever is. I’m truly glad we live in a democracy because we have the chance (and responsibility) to tweak laws that aren’t working.

I, personally, am going to give it a year or two after full implementation before I come to a complete opinion about it, though. However, I totally support your right to come to your opinion now and act on that opinion now.

I appreciate you sharing your opinions. Your opinions and ideas challenge me to think about my own opinions critically, and analyze them carefully. Occasionally, a reader’s well-thought-out opinion and thoughtfully-argued points have influenced me to alter one of my own opinions.

Elizabeth Davis, RN
About.com Guide to health insurance

June 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm
(35) Manymoresurprisesinstore says:

Hey all–Get a COPY of this 2,000+ page “law” & READ it before you comment. Trust me, this tome takes quite a while to get through, (& MANY legal pads to keep track of all the law’s pathways! Oh yeah DON’T FORGET about the writing implements; Spares/Refills & all that!)Insurance companies have always “offered” PEC coverage to its’ customers; however, the premimum was just that: COSTLY$!
Just how many of you honestly think that now–since people are FORCED to be “Customers” the price paid will actually decrease? It’s called “Collusion” & “Graft”.
Remember that because of this: We now become “Criminals” & FINED TAXES if we don’t “buy” their “Service”! (There is actually an entire section showing just how much “revenue” is to be garnered from the “Refusists”, “Impecunious” & “Penurious” populous ANNUALLY & “where” it is to “FUND”–EXCLUDING approved projects that involve “Security Issues”–THEIR FUNDING IS UNACCOUNTABLE–For the “Protection” of HS I guess!)
How about the “exemptions” that are allowed? (Oh–DON’T believe that that part of this debacle was “removed” before “passage”. THEY WERE; However, They were then “re-worded” & replaced into other various parts of this Massive “Law”–Many things of which HAVE NOTHING to do with “Healthcare”!)
Oh yeah–to the list of supplies needed to work through your copy–Do include a LEGAL DICTIONARY. (It will be very useful!)
Yes–this entire thing is a TRAIN WRECK & HHS Head is the lead Engineer!
In reply to #3–Healthinsurance: PLEASE get a copy of the US Constitution; Read & Understand it–This United States is NOT a “Democracy”–We are set up as a Democratic REPUBLIC! (Democracy is TOTAL “Majority Rule”; Ours is a system of “Electing LEADERS(?) via a majority voteto send “Representives” to be OUR VOICE in/to Wash.DC.)
Get it: WE are “Their” BOSSES! US “Citizenry” HAVE THE SAY ABOUT ALL THINGS!!!
The lesson concerning The Electoral College requires a bit more of a “Complex” Comprehension & will be discussed at a later time.

June 1, 2013 at 2:50 pm
(36) redneck(Iguess) republican woman says:

I’m a retired, degreed, moderate Republican woman in Texas. Guess, according to some, that makes me a redneck. So, let this redneck share my perspective. Stupid is as stupid does — which makes you stupid for applying a liberal coat of disdain to all who might disagree with your political or personal platform. My husband is a “redneck” moderate republican who owns his business. He also suffers from high blood pressure. Insurance comes with very high premiums/ deductibles. We are caught in the middle. My children learned individual responsibility, and endured hardships like the rest of us. But they did it without government assistance (sometimes working 2-3 jobs at a time). I have no problem helping older people after retirement (I receive soc.sec), but not some welfare recipients living with a sense of entitlement. I don’t consider facelifts, cigarettes and home ownership essentials. I have no problem assisting those who cannot functionally inhabit the earth without some help. I DO have a problem supporting women’s abortions on demand for any reason (except life of the mother), teenage “counseling” to avoid facing parents, able-bodied welfare recipients who raid our personal coffers to further their poor choices. I DO have a problem supporting illegal immigrants who knowingly arrived in this country in disregard of our laws and don’t want to go through the process necessary to become qualified American citizens. I DO have a problem allowing government or anyone else telling me I have to pay for the mistakes, moral delinquencies and morally-differing political views of anyone else. Don’t make me responsible for someone else when I wouldn’t support my own family in such situations. Although it’s rapidly disappearing, I’m still an American. A country founded as a republic, which puts individual responsibility before government.

June 1, 2013 at 9:10 pm
(37) healthinsurance says:

Dear Redneck(I guess) republican woman,

I’m pretty sure King George III and the British Parliament considered the colonists rednecks in 1776, and look at what those rednecks accomplished.

Sometimes what’s meant to be a slur proves the point of the unintended compliment. I’ve no problem with folks whose necks are sun-damaged by hard, honest outdoor labor growing and harvesting food from the land they love to feed their families and the rest of the world. Why anyone would consider a physical sign (the sunburned neck) of honest hard work in a profession that epitomizes individual responsibility (running a small family farm or ranch) to be something to be embarrassed about is beyond me.

But then, my grandfather was a farmer, and my father and step-mother had a small cattle ranch in Washington State. So I guess, as the daughter and granddaughter of rednecks, I’m probably not intelligent enough to understand.

I may not agree with all of your political beliefs (although I do agree with some of them), but I’m happy to share a redneck heritage of hard, honest work and taking individual responsibility for the consequences of your actions in both your own life, and the lives of others.

Elizabeth Davis, RN
About.com Guide to health insurance

June 1, 2013 at 4:55 pm
(38) Eddy Current says:

TO 31 JOKER: Actually 10 ADAM seems a lot more mature than you because he made a logical comment with a real point. If you don’t agree with his point that’s OK but why not take the time to think up a coherent answer to his post!
I really want to pound on you for what you said to him (verbally of course-i have to be careful how I phrase this or some school administrator might read this and get his panties in a wad) but I’m trying to take my own advice.
There are a lot of things about Obama Care that seem just wrong–taking money from Medicare to help pay for this law and fining people for not buying a product (what ever was CJ John Roberts thinking?) and more. Now the IRS is involved in health care? How screwed up is that? IRS agent to surgeon: ” You will have to postpone his surgery until we complete this audit due to his being in the Tea Party!!”
Why can’t congress do something logical like helping insurance companies sell across state lines and let people decide how much insurance they want to buy? It wears the mind down but maybe that’s the point. The bill is so long so that things can be hidden in it.
For now, Harry Reid needs to lose his leadership position so congress can stop this president from creating more trouble in his last two years. And if Peloser gets the gavel back there will be even more misery visited upon the country in the name of ‘Progress’!

June 1, 2013 at 7:59 pm
(39) Mo says:

Looks like all the folks who didn’t care about Obamacare being shoved down taxpayers throats are finding out they’re getting screwed over as well. It’s going to get much, much worse.

June 2, 2013 at 10:09 am
(40) mcwreiole says:

The administration did not “suspend” anything, what they did was tell all the states that they will have to bear the entire expense of the pre-existing condition part of the healthcare act. This administration has made and broken many promises, why would you favor the implementation of 22,000 pages of rules and regulations called “The Affordable Car Act”? I think you must be convinced that you will get it for free. Trust me, we will all pay dearly for this scam of a legislative nightmare.

June 2, 2013 at 9:38 pm
(41) healthinsurance says:

Dear mcwreiole,
The word “suspend” is accurate, and taken directly from the letter sent by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight’s Richard Popper, Director of Insurance Programs Group.

The letter is dated 2/15/2013 and sent to the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan Contractors. Included within it is the following:

“To this end, we are implementing a nationwide suspension of enrollment until further notice and therefore direct you, as our contractor, to take immediate steps to implement this suspension. . . .”

You may read a copy of the letter here (pdf).

Additionally, at the official US Government site for the PCIP, there remains posted today the following quote:

“On February 16, 2013, the federally-run Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) suspended acceptance of new enrollment applications until further notice. The suspension also became effective in the state-based PCIPs on March 2. ”

Mcwreiole, I wonder if you’re referring to the May 2013 proposed CMS revised contract with the state-run PCIPs?

From the CCIIO FAQs on the subject: “CMS has requested that state PCIPs propose a contract amount that would reasonably approximate their claims liability during these last seven months of the program. CMS will work with states to negotiate an amount within the remaining funding available to the PCIP program. . . A state PCIP may notify CMS that it will not enter into the new modified contract. In that case, the enrollees will be transferred into Federally-operated PCIP.”

My take on this is that the state PCIPs could submit an estimate of their predicted claims for the remaining 7 months of the PCIP, but CMS was ultimately going to tell them what they would get from the Feds, and they could like it or lump it. If they didn’t like it, they could turn their state’s PCIP over to the Feds.

They had to decide by 5/10/2013 and several of them decided to turn their plans over to the Feds, but some did not.

If this is what you’re referring to, you’re right that it was a “take it or leave it” proposition. However, the Feds weren’t exactly saying the states had to bear 100% of the cost of the remaining months of the PCIP. My understanding is that the revised contract would have resulted in significantly less in the way of Fed funds for the state-run PCIPs than they had been getting previously, but that they would still be getting some money from the Feds.

There’s a serious financial crunch going on as we enter the last 7 months of PCIP coverage and are apparently scraping the bottom of the $5 billion barrel of money that was allotted for paying PCIP claims.

Elizabeth Davis, RN
About.com Guide to health insurance

June 2, 2013 at 7:22 pm
(42) Kathy Monacelli says:

I have to agree that the preexisting clause is only a detour for insurance companies. I will bet on it that preexisting conditions will have a separate price for people. Well, anyhow we only have 7 months to wait for Obama-care.

June 3, 2013 at 10:16 am
(43) susan says:

Obamamcare had good intentions . . . but it seems the consequences of implementing this massive plan may do greater harm to the average working person. Now that this has been uncovered, we should repeal the plan, and get the gov’t out of the health car e industry. The Gov’t simply can not have the IRS [ currently involved in several scandals ] administer a health plan. Repeal it now.

June 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm
(44) Leo says:

The law is just simply too long and incoherent for people to make sense of it. It should have never been passed and now even many of the people who passed it don’t even like it. It should have been simple, short, and concise. This is what happens when laws are thrown together and legislatures are forced to make a decision on them before they get a chance to read them.

December 5, 2013 at 1:07 am
(45) carla page says:

i,ve been told my PCIP will end jan/1/2014

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.

We comply with the HONcode standard
for trustworthy health
information: verify here.