Top House GOPer: Reform Must Block Insurance Companies From Excluding Pre-Existing Conditions
A top House Republican and GOP point person on health care is now saying reform must ban insurance companies from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions — which would seem partly at odds with the GOP leadership’s new health care bill.
GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers gave us a statement saying she doesn’t “believe that anyone should ever be denied because of a pre-existing condition,” adding that she supports an approach that “prevents insurers from denying coverage” in such cases.
By contrast, the House GOP leadership’s new health care legislation has been widely criticized because it would still allow insurance companies to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. That’s at odds with some Republicans who had previously insisted that banning such discrimination is crucial, though their current stance is unclear.
We asked McMorris Rodgers, who’s also the vice chair of the House Republican Conference, for a statement on this, and her office emailed this from her:
We don’t believe that anybody should ever be denied because of a pre-existing condition. We support legislation that prevents insurers from denying coverage as well as high risk pools that have been created to insure those who are considered uninsurable or who have chronic conditions.
McMorris Rodgers, however, appeared to suggest that she could still support the House leadership’s bill, claiming that it “includes a plan to ensure those who have pre-existing conditions have access to coverage.” That may be a reference to the House GOP bill’s provisions to help those with pre-existing conditions. But the bill doesn’t ban insurance companies from such exclusion.
McMorris Rodgers’ position reflects the challenge that the GOP leadership’s bill has created for those Republicans who still hold the view that banning such insurance industry discrimination is an indispensable plank of reform.
**************************************
Update: A Republican aide gets in touch to argue that McMorris Rodgers could support such a ban on insurance industry exclusion while simultaneously supporting the House GOP bill. That’s true, but it’s clear that McMorris Rodgers thinks such a ban is desirable, while others in the House GOP leadership don’t.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I guess it’s up to Rep. McMorris Rodgers to do everything in her power to delay the Socialist GOP Bill.
HIPA HIPA HIPA.
Prevent Insurance Companies from having access to, and the tracking of people’s health conditions or health histories. Also forbid them to ask any questions about a person’s health history or conditions.
It can be solved that easily. Just modify HIPA to make it a federal crime for any Insurance Company to violate those regulations. Since they must cover all, then they have no need to track people’s health histories. All they are required to do, is pay the medical bills.
My impression was that preventing denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions was something both parties agreed was necessary, and that this wasn’t an especially controversial idea.
The problem with preventing denial of coverage is that you can only make it work for the private insurers if you mandate coverage. Right? The Repubs don’t want to mandate/penalize businesses or individuals, but they want to maintain private insurance, so they are in a bind.
oddjob, the GOP bill doesn’t do that.
“oddjob, the GOP bill doesn’t do that.”
Which is weird, because like oddjob, I thought that was a common goal that bridged the aisle.
The mandate is a Republican idea. Republicans are only against it now because the Dems proposed it in their bills. I was listening to C-Span the other day and Lindsey Grahm said he was for mandates and he emphasized it saying yes, a Republican for mandates.
Seriously, do these dinosaurs in Congress not realize Google exists?
Republicans are always against Mandates. They prefer to pick them up in Airport bathrooms, and…….
Wasn’t Obama the one who was against mandates before he was for them?
Makes me wonder again where we would be in this h/c reform conversation if we had elected Clinton…
GOP leadership’s position is we should HELP those with preexisting conditions get insurance — but not that we should ban insurnance companies from discriminating against them
“Makes me wonder again where we would be in this h/c reform conversation if we had elected Clinton…”
I know where we were in this conversation last time Clinton tried to get this through Congress.
“GOP leadership’s position is we should HELP those with preexisting conditions get insurance — but not that we should ban insurnance companies from discriminating against them”
Do they say how we’re supposed to have our cake and eat it too?
Which is weird, because like oddjob, I thought that was a common goal that bridged the aisle.
Exactly.
“The mandate is a Republican idea.”
?
You recall the Democratic campaign? Clinton and Obama had a big disagreement over this.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html
“GOP leadership’s position is we should HELP those with preexisting conditions get insurance ”
Greg – can you be more specific? How are they planning on doing that?
GOP leadership’s position is we should HELP those with preexisting conditions get insurance — but not that we should ban insurnance companies from discriminating against them
Which unavoidably creates a pool full of only higher-risk people who necessarily will cost more to insure and thus will be paying higher rates.
How typical of the GOP to reward the wealthy and healthy while punishing those they claim to help.
“Do they say how we’re supposed to have our cake and eat it too?”
An establishment/expansion of high risk pools. Many people feel these won’t work.
Grayson’s comments are too-often over the top, but when it comes to his characterization of the GOP’s health care plan (”Don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly.”), it comes uncomfortably close to the reality.
“Which unavoidably creates a pool full of only higher-risk people who necessarily will cost more to insure and thus will be paying higher rates.”
What if the government subsidized these folks?
SBJ,
Are you calling for government subsidies?
Shrodinger’s Cat:
“There’s been a lot of confusion about this,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. “Our bill will help folks with pre-existing conditions, we just do it differently. We expand and improve high-risk pools and reinsurance programs as well as expanded options in the individual markets. We will also lower the costs by creating state-level plan finders. The Democrats’ big-government mandate will raise costs for every American with health insurance and cause more Americans to lose their current coverage.”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/boehners-health-care-bill_n_343792.html
@Liam….”Republicans are always against Mandates. They prefer to pick them up in Airport bathrooms, and…….
Thanks for a good Wednesday chcukle. My travels this year took me through Minneapolis twice and you can imagine my fear of using the restroom there.:-)
Thanks, Greg.
@Rukidding;
Well just avoid entering a stall next to one where their is toe tapping going on.
Senator Craig was tapping out a message in morse code:
It said: I-Da-Ho I-Da-Ho I-Da-Ho.
That is an old joke of mine, but this was a good time to recycle it, one last time.
Democrats must lead by leading and accomplishing reform — like health care which is tied to the deficit and the bankrupting of businesses. Those timid Dems who refuse to take issue with the insurance companies will lose their seats in the coming elections. Those who stand firm for the people will be re-elected to fight on!
The wins of GOP governors will be unfortunate for the people of Virginia and New Jersey. If the people of these states thought they had it bad under Democratic governors, they have seen nothing yet. How long will some people continue to be Fooled by these Wizards of Oz? How long will they continue to circle the Yellow Brick Road? Republican politicians will not deliver the change these people seek but instead will impede it delivering more good and services to big corporations and insurance companies which will only continue the decay of these states. This is very unfortunate indeed because the GOP primary objective is to say no the people and to spead fear — The Party of No and Fear — deceptive Wizards of Oz!
Well, I can say this.
Senator Grassley was for mandates before he was against them.
Wingnuts-
Please note that a commenter here criticized Grayson on this “librul” blog.
(Back to your regularly scheduled comments…)
Again, here is the difference between the Dem. and Repub. ideas on reform. I’m sorry but the Repubs. have no new ideas and it is not reform but de-regulation.
“Republicans would argue that their proposals would lower insurance costs, too. And, in a sense, they are correct. Letting people buy coverage across state lines, letting small businesses form special new groups, and siphoning off the sick into high-risk pools are all means for accomplishing the same goal–gutting the existing regulations of insurance. And without those regulations, insurance would become cheaper. But it’d be cheaper only because it provided less protection–and was available only to people or small groups with predictably good health.
And that’s really the key distinction between what the Republicans and the Democrats are offering. Because of their aversion to regulation and government spending, Republicans embrace reforms that make health insurance cheaper by offering less security. The healthy win, while everybody else loses. Democrats prefer reforms that offer a combination of lower costs and more security–not just for the medically fortunate, but for everybody.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/beware-republican-narrative
I think we’ve got it now:
Governing as progressives forces the Right to the center and centrists off the fence.
Governing as pro-corporate centrists pisses off everyone and gets nothing done.
Okay? We got that? We good? Let’s roll.
OT, here’s an update on the big Tea Party event promoted by Bachmann tomorrow. It may not be going too well.
“The tea partiers are launching the revolution. This week. But will anyone actually show up?
On Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann challenged viewers of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show to join her last-ditch attempt to kill health care reform. The fiery Minnesota Republican plans to hold a press conference at “high noon” on Thursday. She urged Americans to flood the halls of Congress that day, find their elected officials, “look at the whites of their eyes and tell them, ‘don’t you dare take away my health care.’”
Since then, so-called tea party patriots have been burning up the Internets trying to rally supporters to attend Bachmann’s event. But so far, their efforts haven’t amounted to much. The official Tea Party Patriots website laments that Bachmann’s rally is being stymied by a “media blackout”—meaning that mainstream outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post have ignored it.”
# sbj | November 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Which unavoidably creates a pool full of only higher-risk people who necessarily will cost more to insure and thus will be paying higher rates.”
What if the government subsidized these folks?
……………………….
SBJ,
Again:
Are you calling for government subsidies?
Because I can’t resist here’s the quote for the day, thanks to Andrew Sullivan.
“An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I’m also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O’Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!),” – Sarah Palin.
I’ve been going through old interviews regarding the races back in 2001 when Bush had 90% approval ratings and Mark Warner won the gubernatorial in VA.
I found this interesting gem.
In fact, that official, Steve Schmidt, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said, the two losers, Mark L. Earley in Virginia and Bret D. Schundler in New Jersey, were at fault.
”We’re glad the president did not campaign for these guys,” Mr. Schmidt said in an interview. ”No one wants to see him spend political capital on people who have run preposterously bad campaigns.”
Nice Mike, and BTW you have my sympathies on your new Gov. Being from CA I know what it’s like to have a Repub. in the top spot, even though he’s considered moderate. It doesn’t help that we have a dysfuncional state legislature as well, maybe you guys will fare better.
”We’re glad the president did not campaign for these guys,” Mr. Schmidt said in an interview. ”No one wants to see him spend political capital on people who have run preposterously bad campaigns.”
But Obama DID campaign for these guys?
Nice catch Mike.
yes sbj, Obama did campaign for these guys.
Wow, mike = much deserved kudos for that.
For any state with a bad governor – you have my sympathy. We’ve had over a decade of the worst.
Here’s a quick little insight into NY23 from one of Bill Maher’s writers.
“Doug Hoffman didn’t just have money to burn and the staunch support of Facebooking frost bunnies, Fox News and the Ghosts of Vanity Campaigns Past. He also had coots on the ground; an army of volunteers from the tea bag movement, the 9/12 Project and the fanatic anti-choice fringe. The problem was, they could shout at the polling places as loud as they wanted, and they did, but they didn’t live there, so they weren’t allowed to vote.
There’s probably a lesson to that. Something about politics being local.”
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/dud-baby-dud-the-lesson-o_b_345049.html
haah.. check out this interview.
“JIM LEHRER: Two other big races: The governor’s race in Virginia and in New Jersey. Read a trend there. If there is one to read.
MARK SHIELDS: I would say that….
JIM LEHRER: Democrats won both of them.
MARK SHIELDS: The Democrats had not won either of them since 1989.
JIM LEHRER: Now we’re going to get a trend here. ”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/political_wrap/july-dec01/sb_11-9.html
More proof the GOP realizes it is in an extremely tough position:
When he asked Cornyn, “But you are at least raising and spending money for Crist?” Cornyn shot back –
“No, we won’t be doing any of that until after the nomination.
thnx for the kudos. Just wanted to see what kind of parallels I could find.
Funny how VA and NJ flipped from Republican to Democrat and this year they did the opposite.
Bush had 90% approvals back in 2001. Obama is fairly high, of course he didn’t have 9/11 tailwind behind him to elevate him to those levels.
# sbj | November 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Which unavoidably creates a pool full of only higher-risk people who necessarily will cost more to insure and thus will be paying higher rates.”
What if the government subsidized these folks?
……………………….
SBJ,
Again:
Are you calling for government subsidies?
Still waiting for a reply.
haah.. check out this interview.
The MSM & its pundits always look for national tea leaf readings in the NJ & VA gov. races. More often than not they’re wrong to do so. It’s lazy thinking to fill empty air space with jibber jabber until the next commercial break.