To follow up on this story, Myanmar's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (the party of Aung San Suu Kyi), says it will not take part in the country's upcoming election. They have decided not to register because of "unjust" electoral laws. The party's refusal to register means the NLD will no longer be legally recognized. The BBC South East Asia correspondent said the party's decision to boycott the upcoming election, rather than dropping Suu Kyi as their charismatic leader in order to participate in the election, was largely expected. If the party would have taken part in the election, it would have implied that they accepted the new elections laws and, more importantly, the military's constitution -- which the party has so far refused to do.
Some senior leaders of the NLD worried about the decision to not participate in the election. There is fear that the party will be rendered irrelevant, and that without a party they will have no power. However, proponents of not registering said if the party would have participated in the election, their actions would be constrained by the military. In addition, party leaders say that the decision to boycott the elections does not mean the end of the party. The deputy leader of the party said, "There are many peaceful ways to continue our activities." The party's decision to boycott the elections will definitely raise international concerns about the legitimacy of the upcoming elections (no date has been set yet by the military junta). (Full Story)
As if there was any doubt that insurance corporations are terrible, they go and prove us right again. Just days after Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are arguing that the wording of the law means they do not have to cover children with pre-existing conditions until 2014. One part of the law was coverage for children with pre-existing conditions and it's supposed to be implemented in September 2010. Obama said at a health care rally last week, "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions." The law was meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, and leukemia. The lawmakers' goal was to provide kids with access to insurance and full benefits. However, insurance companies are arguing that the law says if they insure someone, they have to provide coverage of pre-existing conditions for children covered in the policy -- BUT -- they say the law doesn't require them to sell insurance to somebody with a pre-existing condition until 2014 (starting in January 2014, the health care law requires health plans to accept everyone who applies for coverage). Insurance companies say the law that takes effect in September does not include a "guaranteed issue" requirement -- which means until 2014 they can continue to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions by simply not selling them insurance.
The law says that healths plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage "may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage" for children under 19. The lawmakers say the intention of the law is to provide children with access to insurance and then a full range of benefits once they are in the health plan. But insurers say the wording only indicates that children cannot be denied full benefits once they are in a plan. In the past, insurers have often limited coverage of pre-existing conditions sold in the individual insurance market. For example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but the policy would exclude treatment of that condition (in other words, 'We're covering you, but we're not really covering you. We're not covering the thing that will actually cost money.') As of September, insurance companies will not be allowed to exclude treatment of a specific condition. However, that's only part of the problem if insurers are refusing to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions (or children with pre-existing conditions) until 2014.
Congressional Democrats were furious to learn that insurance companies are questioning the interpretation of their law. Representative Harry Waxman (D-CA) said, "The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform." Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) said, "The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous." A research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University pointed out, "If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place." A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations that makes their views clear that "the term 'pre-existing' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan." But lawyers have said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it.
Until January 2014, people with pre-existing conditions could seek coverage in high-risk insurance pools run by states or by the secretary of health and human services. The new law provides $5 billion to help pay claims filed by people in these pools. (Full Story)
And tell me again why driving these despicable insurance companies out of business with a public option is a bad idea?!
No comments:
Post a Comment