Another Obama Victory: Family Discovers Their Infant Isn’t Covered Under ObamaCare

Posted by on Dec 01, 2013 at 11:46 am

At least Obama cares about the children. Oh, wait.

This baby’s not on board with ObamaCare.

Long Islander Cornelius Kelly found it would be no problem to secure a family plan for his wife and three older kids through New York’s health-care exchange, but his 18-month-old daughter was out in the cold. The baby would need her own insurance policy.

“I couldn’t believe what I was being told,” said the dad from East Quogue, in Suffolk.

Kelly said he was no fan of the Affordable Care Act, but when he received notice a few weeks ago that his current insurance plan was being canceled, he tried the New York State of Health Web site.

Kelly, 41, and his wife, Jennifer, 42, are self-employed and have always had to buy their own insurance. Kelly runs a title insurance business in Westhampton, and his wife is a pediatrician in private practice in Miller Place. “I initially went on with a lot of optimism,” he said.

Kelly said none of the plans offered out-of-network coverage, which was something he wanted. But even worse, they only covered his three older children, who are 3, 5 and 6.

When Kelly called a representative, he was told his daughter had to be 2 before she could be covered under a family plan. He would have to buy a separate plan for her, at monthly premiums that ranged between $117.21 and $369.31. The cost would be on top of a family plan with premiums ranging from $810.84 to $2,554.71 a month.

Weird, but Obama promised families would be saving $2,500 a year. Guess he lied.

Tags: , ,

8 Responses to “Another Obama Victory: Family Discovers Their Infant Isn’t Covered Under ObamaCare”

  1. JEFCare on 2/02/13 at 9:45 am


    Went into it with a lot of optimism = ‘voted for little Bammy. Twice’.

    No one deserves it more, chumps.

  2. Stewed Hamm on 2/02/13 at 9:54 am

    It’s a good thing all those kids were strongarmed into purchasing “free” birth control and illegal drug rehab coverage. There’s nothing more sad than a whole family of coked-up toddlers facing life as single parents.

  3. UWP on 2/02/13 at 10:17 am

    He tried getting retroactive abortion coverage in there people! How much more do you want!

  4. Bill Ayers on 2/02/13 at 10:24 am

    To the left babies aren’t human until they are valuable as political pawns, so up next waivers for babies! After all they are examples of the failure of the state to provide birth control to all citizens of reproductive age. But at least now we know the criteria now: baby >= 2 & child <= 28.

  5. Moses Lambert on 2/02/13 at 11:19 am

    Let’s see. $117.21 X 12 = $1406.52. $369.31 X 12 = $4431.72. Guess Obama didn’t lie; the Kellys will save that much by not insuring their baby.

  6. Coquimbojoe on 2/02/13 at 2:52 pm

    I am confused. Where’s the unicorn crapping rainbows I was promised? This is the most amazing of many mind boggling stories I have read.