Posted on January 31, 2010.
Do you think this bill is comprehensive health care this ambiguous?? In recent speeches, Obama has given the impression that the immediate benefit to children is much more robust.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokesman for the Senate Health, Education, Work and Pensions Committee, another panel that drafted the bill. That was the year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person because of health problems.
Obama's public statements give the impression that the new protections for children were radical and simple.
"This is a bill of rights for patients on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans in pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from refuse coverage for children with pre-existing conditions. "................." To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the Secretary HHS is preparing to enact regulations next month that the term "pre-existing exclusion" applies to access to both a child to a plan and its benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans sold in the newly country six months from today, "spokesman Nick Papas said HHS.
That is why we have lawyers.
Yes. All legal language is ambiguous.
I watched the Senate debate last night on CNN and the Democrats kept repeating the phrases "this morning", "now", etc., because Obama signed the bill. I wonder what kind of physician offices and traffic insurance companies who want to receive immediate medical treatment or coverage.
Legislation of this size will be restricted in practice by millions of pages to interpret the bill, and thousands of lawsuits.
