Demos mad their Obamacare doesn't do what they claimed - Updated

See update at the bottom The Democratics said ObamaCare would cause children to be covered for preexisting conditions this year. But it doesn't. Who are they mad at? Themselves? How could they be? They are mad at the insurance companies for not voluntarily doing what the law doesn't require. And for saying so. Seattle Times: Coverage for all children? Check the new health-care law's fine print. First, how insurance companies see the law:

Insurers agree that, if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and that it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014. "The fine print differs from the larger political message," said William Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies. "If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."

Now, those who voted for Obama's takeover:

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law. "The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate commerce committee, 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."

They don't talk about the law, but intentions: theirs good; insurance companies evil. They were in a big hurry to pass this thing. They passed it before we had the chance to read the whole thing. It looks like they didn't even take time to read it. They controlled the calendar. They can't say they didn't have time to know what is in their monstrosity. The state insurance bureaucrats' association agrees with the insurance companies:

Experts at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners share that concern "I would like to see the kids covered," said Sandy Praeger, the insurance commissioner of Kansas. "But without guaranteed issue of insurance, I am not sure companies will be required to take children under 19."

Should we be governed by the law that passed Congress or by what Henry Waxman and Jay Rockefeller III intended it to be? Update 3/30/10: Secretary of Health and Human Services Sibelius says she doesn't care if the insurers are right about what ObamaCare contains. She will defy the letter of the law with a regulation. AisiaOne

Sibelius said she plans in coming weeks to issue regulations that will erase any ambiguity about the law and make certain that by September of this year, "children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents' health insurance plan." "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Sibelius wrote. "Instead, we should work together to do the hard work of improving the affordability, quality and accessibility of our healthcare system."

Dear Madam Secretary, the problem isn't "non-existent loopholes;" it is the law. How about you obey it? This provision got left out. Get Congress to change the law to what you want it to be.