White House to Drop Pre-Existing Clause from Health Care Reform?

On Friday the White House responded to President Barack Obama's problems with health care reform by announcing that former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe would be "stepping up"  his advisory role in the Administration. The very next day Plouffe wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post and suggests the White House could  drop Obama's longstanding promise to ban insurer's from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.

Gay men and especially black gay men should be extremely concerned. Black and Latino gay men are more likely to be HIV positive and much more likely to be uninsured or under-insured. Some insurance companies deny coverage to people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Health care premiums for PLWHA can be more expensive. Insurers have also been known to retroactively cancel policies for policyholders who test positive for HIV. 

Plouffe's op-ed reads in part:

If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless.

AMERICABlog's John Aravosis adds: "Before anyone argues that Plouffe was simply using children as an example—that the legislation could still cover everyone—look at what else happened in the last two days. CBS News reported the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely. But even worse, the NYT talked to folks on the Hill and health policy experts, and they were told the compromise package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else."

And this from Pam Spaulding: "In a state of panic to pass something, anything, the Democrats are turning on the big bus, revving the engine, and Pelosi, Reid and the President are fighting to floor it  and run over all the people with diabetes, MS, AIDS, and any other chronic, expensive illnesses who have been waiting for...what was that word? Oh, that's right—CHANGE."

Is there health care "reform" without banning insurance companies from discriminating against the HIV positive? Absolutely not.

Comments

[Diva1961]

Aaaaaaarrrrgggghhh!!! This is so insulting. The idea that so much is said, yet little is done to back it up. If he does this the president won't have to worry about the teabaggers and republicans voting him and his people out. The dems and independents who voted him in will do it. I'll vote republican (which the mere thought makes me ill) and let them have at it since all the presidents legislation is beginning to look like the republicans' anyway. So what does it matter what party is in office if everything coming out of it looks like it's coming from the same party. The republican party.

[Face and Waist]

Oh hell no. HELL NO.

[Dalton]

"Gay men and especially black gay men should be extremely concerned. ... Black and Latino gay men are more likely to be HIV positive and much more likely to be uninsured or under-insured."

And yet the vast majority of us refused to participate in the health care debate, refused to hold the White House and Dems accountable and rationalized every time the president and Dems threw gays under the bus. If you aren't sitting agt the table you're on the menu.

We're already under the bus and they want to back it up and leave tire tracks across our face. Sorry, but I won't allow it. If this is true, just so the Republicans will support this sorry bill, there will be hell to pay. How in the frick can you change health care insurance without regulating the insurers?

[Dalton]

Oh and kudos to Rod for the HIV angle and pointing out how GBM would suffer most. And I'll say it again..if more of us spoke up and demanded accountability this wouldnt happen.

We'll see what happens with this. I'm expecting them to start denying they want to drop pre-existing, just like they denied for months they were dropping public option.

[Observer]

*sigh*

[Otis]

This 'reform' was already watered down with the deletion of the public option and the expanding of Medicare. Now they want to get rid of pre-existing clause?!? I want so much to believe that Obama is fighting for what he proposed, but this is bs. The White House continues to go in the wrong direction by moving away from a more liberal/progressive agenda that supported controlling cost and covering more of the uninsured.

This is really disappointing. It's one thing when the Rethuglicans try to kill reform, but the Dems are doin' a pretty good job by themselves. If this represents the next 3 years, I'm sorry to say that my vote for Obama is becoming less likely everyday.

[Georgia Peach]

i'm not even sure where to begin.
*big sigh*

[Chitown Kev]

smh

[Derrick from Philly]

I'm with you, Miss Georgia--sighing and cussin'. It just gets worse. Put the present bill up for a vote, and let the baastards (and a few beetches) filibuster! Paint them as obstructionists! Rod was right: the President and the Democratic leadership let the Republicans frame the debate. I keep believing that there is some rational reason behind what's happening--something other than fear and appeasement. But the "cave in" is disappointing.

yep, disappointing.

[kevjack]

I have one question:

At this point, who ISN'T under the bus?

[Jim J]

I am so disappointed...I don't know where to begin. It looks like Obama's singular achievement will be...getting elected! Rod is so right about the President and the Dem Leadership. I had such hopes for this administration. Here's a scary, appalling thought: America's LAST Black President. If you aren't worried about THAT, then you aren't paying attention!

[Ricbound]

Personally, I think a federal mandate on private insurance companies of any kind is not the proper route to take anyhow. It sets a dangerous precedent.

And while the emotional response to the pre-existing conditions clause is understandable (that being it's a sham and morally inept), it's equally understandable from an insurer's perspective why it exists. Insurance is built around "the possibility" of needing financial coverage "when" you get sick. Covering someone who is already sick is not insurance, and that's not what these companies are in business to do.

However, I believe the issue can be resolved. Sick people should not be punished for being sick, that it obvious. Why not allow individuals with pre-existing conditions to sign up for Medicare coverage? This will guarantee they will not go into the poor house in order to be treated, while also not forcing insurance companies to cover them.

Also, it eliminates a sizable portion of uncovered individuals and families from the pool of uninsured in the country.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=881550383]

No public option, expanding Medicare, no money for abortion, now a possibility of no pre-existing condition clause? They should stop calling it health care reform, period. The Dems made the mistake of trying to push it through too quickly, fussing about trying to get SOMETHING passed before the midterm elections this year, then stepping back and caving in too many Republican demands, like the Dems always do. Something this big shouldn't be allowed to be ramrodded through the legislative branch so quickly, all in the name of re-election come November. And that's not even mentioning the Republicans being complete d**ks about it and saying NO automatically to everything. I find it amazing sometimes that anything gets done in DC.

[Nathan James]

THe fact that insurance companies may deny coverage to persons with "pre-existing" conditions has been the bane of my existence, all my life. I was born hearing-impaired, and have repeatedly been denied health coverage because of that. NO insurance carrier in America covers hearing aids. I am out of pocket for the cost of purchasing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing my hearing aids. It seems perfectly OK for insurance execs to say to me, "you have to live without one of your five senses, because we aren't going to pay for your hearing aids. Too bad you were born that way, but it's on YOU."

Ricbound says, "Covering someone who is already sick is not insurance, and that's not what these companies are in business to do." According to this thinking, those who are "already sick" and do not have the financial resources to pay for their care should die, because insurance companies are "not in business" to cover the already ill or injured.

What everyone forgets is, health insurance execs will NEVER be denied care or coverage like so many of us are, so they care little for what happens to people who must live--and sometimes die--without insurance. Here's a disgusting little industry secret to think about: If you are diagnosed with, let's say, a massive heart attack, and your doctor wants to do a bypass on you, your insurer will drag out the authorization process for that as long as possible. The insurer is secretly hoping you die before the procedure can be performed, so it won't have to pay for the surgery. If insurers could accelerate your dying process, they WOULD. I know this from firsthand experience, working in the healthcare system. THIS is the problem that really needs fixing--the mentality of insurers that human life is worth only the value of the premiums collected...

[Honut Sinti]

*&^%HDkh)*)(7F**K97Blip(*S&