Fat Infant Denied Health Insurance

[Andy9o8 0]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

Quote

Parents of "chunky" infant weigh in on health insurance reform
Frustrated parents of a big infant who is being denied insurance view the system as "absurd."

By Nancy Lofholm
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/10/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 10/10/2009 11:24:59 AM MDT

GRAND JUNCTION — Alex Lange is a chubby, dimpled, healthy and happy 4-month-old.

But in the cold, calculating numbered charts of insurance companies, he is fat. That's why he is being turned down for health insurance. And that's why he is a weighty symbol of a problem in the health care reform debate.

Insurance companies can turn down people with pre-existing conditions who aren't covered in a group health care plan.

Alex's pre-existing condition — "obesity" — makes him a financial risk. Health insurance reform measures are trying to do away with such denials that come from a process called "underwriting."

"If health care reform occurs, underwriting will go away. We do it because everybody else in the industry does it," said Dr. Doug Speedie, medical director at Rocky Mountain Health Plans, the company that turned down Alex.

By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.

"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is just something absurd about denying an infant."

[AggieDave 6]

I'm really sure that the infant's weight is the only issue. There couldn't have been any other conditions that wasn't addressed in the story.

Smells funny to me (the story).

Quote

He weighs about 17 pounds and is about 25 inches long....The Langes, both slender, don't know where Alex's propensity for pounds came from. Their other child is thin. No one in their families has a weight problem.

Something is wrong with that kid, not just the weight, not just the feeding. A four month old should weigh a little less than twice the baby's birth weight. So I wonder what the baby was really denied coverage for.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[tkhayes 126]

and this surprises you? on and on the debate goes..... just another 'unjust' example.

I guess the kid should have some motivation then to lose weight. Maybe their parents should get off their lazy asses and get a real job so they can pay for any health issues out of their own pocket. After all, it is not OUR responsibility to take care of fat kids......

single payer - the only answer, the final answer - so fucking obvious that it makes me scratch my head. But instead we are gong to pass some half-assed legislation that is not going to fix a goddamn thing.

[skybill 18]

Quote

and this surprises you? on and on the debate goes..... just another 'unjust' example.

I guess the kid should have some motivation then to lose weight. Maybe their parents should get off their lazy asses and get a real job so they can pay for any health issues out of their own pocket. After all, it is not OUR responsibility to take care of fat kids......

single payer - the only answer, the final answer - so fucking obvious that it makes me scratch my head. But instead we are gong to pass some half-assed legislation that is not going to fix a goddamn thing.

Hi tk,
The "last sentence" in your post says it all!! When it happens, we'll all have to live with it....or is it "die with it??"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I wonder what the baby was really denied coverage for.

For being abnormal in a society that only insures normal.

A 4-month old infant being uninsurable because he's "presumed" to have a "pre-existing condition". In America. In the 21st Century.

Disgraceful.

[AggieDave 6]

I was asking a question and you're making an assumption.

Would you care to answer my question?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I was asking a question and you're making an assumption.

Would you care to answer my question?

Actually, you were making an assumption - that there "must" be something else wrong with this kid or his insurability that got him denied - and you just put it in the form of a question.

What else (if anything) is the reason the kid got denied? It's your presumption. You answer it.

[AggieDave 6]

So you're saying that the baby's weight is normal and the insurance company should insure anyways?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So you're saying that the baby's weight is normal and the insurance company should insure anyways?

Nice try. I'm saying what I said.

So tell us - why else did the insurance company deny the kid? Or do you now concede that it was solely due to his weight?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Nice try. I'm saying what I said.

Great way of showing your opinion, by refusing to answer questions about your opinion. You must be related to Kallend.

Quote

So tell us - why else did the insurance company deny the kid?

I was asking. In my experience with insurance companies, there is usually more than one mitigating factor.

Quote

Or do you now concede that it was solely due to his weight?

Concede I will not, since the article does not cover any of the other information and you are unable to provide further information for your stand point.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

you are unable to provide further information for your stand point.

I have no such burden to do so. You're the one who presumes there's more to the story than is in the article. The burden is thus on you to "provide further information" to back that up.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I have no such burden to do so.

Fine. Then the article is here by called unreliable and of having no real informational value for a debate. Since you're leaving it up to me.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I have no such burden to do so.

Fine. Then the article is here by called unreliable and of having no real informational value for a debate. Since you're leaving it up to me.

I left it to you to find the "further information" that you presume must be there, somewhere.
Call the article whatever you want. You can call a goat a pig, but without any evidence other than your bare presumption, it's still a goat.

OK, back to work for me.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

OK, back to work for me.

.

I'm off today and the weather is crappy, so here I am on Al Gore's internet...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[wmw999 2,122]

I read the comments. At least one other family had the same thing happen with the same insurance company, and they were able to insure with a different one.

The insurance company has the right to do whatever they want to. However, so do people have the right to call it appalling.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Skyrad 0]

The reality of privatised medicine.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Ion01 1]

Quote

and this surprises you? on and on the debate goes..... just another 'unjust' example.

I guess the kid should have some motivation then to lose weight. Maybe their parents should get off their lazy asses and get a real job so they can pay for any health issues out of their own pocket. After all, it is not OUR responsibility to take care of fat kids......

single payer - the only answer, the final answer - so fucking obvious that it makes me scratch my head. But instead we are gong to pass some half-assed legislation that is not going to fix a goddamn thing.

Compare the care in the US to countries like the UK!
"Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was created on July 5, 1948. As with all government programs, bureaucrats underestimated initial cost projections. First-year operating costs of NHS were 52 million pounds higher than original estimates1 as Britons saturated the so-called free system.
Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens2.

Unfortunately for those requiring care, a mostly socialist health care system has problems. The articles and commentaries in this section identify some disasters caused by government intervention in the British health care system. "

http://www.angelfire.com/...care/socialized.html
In this link you will find far more examples of care being denied or other atrocities. If single payer is so great why do so many people come here for medical treatment? Why do we have so many of the best doctors and facilities in the world? Of course the link is full of facts so be very very careful!

[lawrocket 3]

Andy:

The solution is for you to buy coverage for him. Either you dish out the bread right now or you'll be dishing out the bread in the form of higher premiums.

Then there will be griping about the insurance companies raising rates because of the mega-cost of covering every 20 -year diabetic with massive neuropathy and chronic kidney failurem

Just say that you want the health insurance industry destroyed.

p.s. How come he's just been denied? Lemme guess - parents aren't covered so the kid has been uncovered.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RhondaLea 3]

I don't know how things work in Colorado, but in NJ, newborns are automatically covered under the existing policy until they are 30 days old. During that period, parents are required to add them to the policy formally. My daughter had her baby in March, and there was never a question about the baby's weight. (He was 9 pounds 13 ounces at birth.)

I think the real problem in the Colorado story lies here:

"Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born."

Trying to replace their existing policy is probably what nailed them to the wall. I hope they haven't let the old policy lapse.

Nonetheless, even though it does not appear to be an insurer declining to provide coverage to an already-insured family, it's still stupid.

Note to AggieDave, you'd be surprised what insurers will deny coverage for, and you'd also be surprised at the number of people who have suffered or died or both as a result of an insurer pulling coverage on the thinnest of excuses because a new condition would be so costly to treat.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[riddler 0]

Quote

http://www.angelfire.com

Everytime I post something factual with a link, my sources get questioned.

But dude, your link is to Angelfire

Quote

If single payer is so great why do so many people come here for medical treatment?

Because it's a big system. In fact, the biggest in the world. I've been to the UK, and I've known many Americans that live and work there, that also get medical treatment there. The Brits say the same thing, "poor Americans, they all come here for medical treatment." Governments are big, lots of people, and people travel around for different reasons.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kbordson 8]

I went to the Rocky Mountain Health Plans website and am guessing that the parents were looking to get a SOLO option for coverage of children. They want to shop around for the cheapest product... but then raise hell and stomp when they are not allowed to buy what they want. The reason that plan is probably called "SOLO" is because they target their audience to keep expenses low and thus the costs of insurance low. They don't want any suits for discrimination so they make the requirements completely across the board and no exceptions. Does it suck for them? HELL YEAH! But this is kinda like bitching about wanting safe driver rates with accidents and speeding tickets in your history. AND... drivers insurance is mandatory, so you're stuck going to one of those stupidly expensive ones.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I don't know how things work in Colorado, but in NJ, newborns are automatically covered under the existing policy until they are 30 days old. During that period, parents are required to add them to the policy formally. My daughter had her baby in March, and there was never a question about the baby's weight. (He was 9 pounds 13 ounces at birth.)

I think the real problem in the Colorado story lies here:

"Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born."

Trying to replace their existing policy is probably what nailed them to the wall. I hope they haven't let the old policy lapse.

Nonetheless, even though it does not appear to be an insurer declining to provide coverage to an already-insured family, it's still stupid.

Note to AggieDave, you'd be surprised what insurers will deny coverage for, and you'd also be surprised at the number of people who have suffered or died or both as a result of an insurer pulling coverage on the thinnest of excuses because a new condition would be so costly to treat.

I strongly suspect there is more to the story. (Think of how credible and complete mainstream news handles skydiving). Newborns do not require a health history to be added in the states with which I am familiar. If they went shopping due to rates, and ended up with no coverage, then they were either misled or not paying attention to what they were doing.

Elimination of health history underwriting will solve this type of problem, and should be a cornerstone of reform. Until that happens though, it is foolish for anyone to expect a company to take that step until regulation makes it mandatory for all carriers.

I suspect the lesson here is to not cancel or allow coverage to lapse unless something else is in place.

On the other hand, a person could allow coverage to lapse while shopping around, then when they get denied use their contacts in the media to whine about their victimhood.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

He weighs about 17 pounds and is about 25 inches long....The Langes, both slender, don't know where Alex's propensity for pounds came from. Their other child is thin. No one in their families has a weight problem.

Something is wrong with that kid, not just the weight, not just the feeding. A four month old should weigh a little less than twice the baby's birth weight. So I wonder what the baby was really denied coverage for.

so a 9lb newborn could be 17lbs at 4 months? Hardly seems unusual.

Percentiles at this age are a bit silly, anyway. A couple friends of mine had a girl that initially was in the > 90% percentiles for height/weight. The dad is 6'2", 200. But as the daugher got closer to one year, her numbers dove towards her monther, who is 5"4, 110 (?). And soon she was at the 40% and dropping. I suspect she just was a very healthy newborn.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Many decades of shortages, misery and suffering followed until 1989, when some market-based health care competition was reintroduced to the British citizens...

...and lasting peace and harmony was restored to the magic kingdom.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,623]

Are you just in from a parallel universe? That may be the biggest load of rubbish posted this year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.