Fat Infant Denied Health Insurance

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

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??"

Haven't you heard. Fat babies grow up to be sick adults. They are a risk to the healthcare systems proposed by both parties: Demos would put them to sleep. GOPers would side with the insurance companies and let em get so big they bust. Know any fat baby fart jokes?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Demos would put them to sleep. GOPers would side with the insurance companies and let em get so big they bust.

ooh .... OOH.... I wanna play

and socialists would divide them up to feed the others

and communists would put them in charge of eating

and Libertarians would harvest their fat from their bodies for profit (and continue to feed them to replenish that supply)

and environmentalists would use them for insulation

and Green party types would,....well....take all their money and put them on gov assistance- ----- with everybody else

and

and

little help? I running out of cliches

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Fascists would create a cult of personality around them.

Our leader

[billvon 2,400]

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

The baby's weight is above normal. His parents should be able to get coverage for him despite that. "Just let him sicken and/or die" is not a very good plan for health care, although it undoubtedly is a profitable one for insurance companies.

[billvon 2,400]

> Demos would put them to sleep.

Maybe. The Miramar demo, definitely. The Skyshow demo, maybe not. And the SFO demo - there was enough excitement to keep the biggest porker of a baby awake the whole time.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

http://www.angelfire.com/...care/socialized.html

Just in case you don't know, angelfire is a free hosting service.
You might just have created yourself the page you linked to.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The baby's weight is above normal.

The Baby's weight is in the 99th percentile according to this article http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098. I would say that is a little more than just "Above Normal".

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile. The parents are free to shop around and see if they can find another Business that offers a product that would meet their needs.

People seem to forget that Insurance Companies are Businesses that sell a Product. Those products are well defined Insurance policies that will cover some things and not cover other things. People are free to either Buy them or to Not buy them.

No one is saying "Just let him sicken and/or die". The parents could always pay for their child's heath care themselves and if something really serious came up, There are many different programs available that would make sure the infant got treatment for life threatening illness.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile.

that's a great business decision to apply to applicants that are adults

really makes little sense for babies though....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile. The parents are free to shop around and see if they can find another Business that offers a product that would meet their needs.

People seem to forget that Insurance Companies are Businesses that sell a Product. Those products are well defined Insurance policies that will cover some things and not cover other things. People are free to either Buy them or to Not buy them.

You may not have intended it, but that's actually an excellent argument in favor of having public health care: because, as a matter of public and social policy, in the most prosperous nation in the world, a necessity such as health coverage should not be subject to the dynamics of profit-driven underwriting judgments.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Quote

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile.

that's a great business decision to apply to applicants that are adults

really makes little sense for babies though....

Why is that??
Why should a Business be forced to sell a Product that they will most likely loose money on?? That makes no sense.

The business offers a product. They do not discriminate. If you are above the 95th percentile in Height/Weight that product is not available. You are welcome to shop around for another product or pay for your own (or in this case, Your children) medical expenses.

It is not punitive although it is easy to perceive it that way. It is just a reasonable business decision.

And I am not opposed to a Public Option for these types of situations where Private Coverage may not be available.

My point was not to go on a witch hunt for the "Evil Insurance Company" when they are just being consistent in applying the rules.

[billvon 2,400]

>The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer
>their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile.

And that is:

1) no problem for them
2) a great argument for a public option.

>There are many different programs available that would make sure the
>infant got treatment for life threatening illness.

Great! And it would make even more sense to treat the infant BEFORE it became a life threatening infant.

Would you rather pay $5000 for treatment now or $300,000 for some ICU time later? (Another option is, of course, "let him die" but that is fortunately an unpopular option.)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

(Another option is, of course, "let him die" but that is fortunately an unpopular option.)

Just a late term abortion, according to some anti-life types.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Just a late term abortion, according to some anti-life types.

I'm surprised you support that. I thought you had a somewhat different set of morals.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

>Just a late term abortion, according to some anti-life types.

I'm surprised you support that. I thought you had a somewhat different set of morals.

The weather holds at Spaceland must have gotten to your head Bill...or maybe you're not really a duck and you're water logged. It was a sarcastic joke.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>It was a sarcastic joke.

My mistake. I guess I didn't see any humor in it so I mistook your meaning.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

My mistake. I guess I didn't see any humor in it so I mistook your meaning.

Sarcasm and satire at the late term abortion crowd. Having just seen a sonogram (in person) of a beautiful baby boy at about 4 1/2 months, I personally don't see much of a difference between a 3rd trimester and a 5th trimester abortion. Both are distasteful to me.

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

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

"let him die" but that is fortunately an unpopular option

And one that no one at all saying other than Left wing Pundits trying to use hyperbole to discredit the right. I believe that is the latest official Left party line if I am not mistaken. Simply accuse the Right of wanting to "Let them Die" if they dare question any part of Obamas Plan.

Again, A public option for people that can not get private insurance is a good idea if implemented in a way that does not kill private insurance and competition.

Quote

Great! And it would make even more sense to treat the infant BEFORE it became a life threatening infant.

Yes it would. And there are clinics and Public Options available just about everywhere that will do exactly that. I would prefer to see an option available where this child could get Insurance but I do not fault the Business (Insurance Company) for being consistent in their policies.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile.

that's a great business decision to apply to applicants that are adults

really makes little sense for babies though....

Why is that??
Why should a Business be forced to sell a Product that they will most likely loose money on?? That makes no sense.

The business offers a product. They do not discriminate. If you are above the 95th percentile in Height/Weight that product is not available. You are welcome to shop around for another product or pay for your own (or in this case, Your children) medical expenses.

.

Perhaps airlines could adopt a similar business practice. No fat bastards on board.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Business (Insurance Company) has a Policy that they do not offer their Product (Insurance Coverage) to people above the 95th percentile.

that's a great business decision to apply to applicants that are adults

really makes little sense for babies though....

Why is that??

because babies float into and out of the percentages quite a bit (see, they are very small), so that's not a good predicter of total med cost

(you weren't expecting a biz answer, were you?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Perhaps airlines could adopt a similar business practice. No fat bastards on board.

actually, that would be very nice, and would use less gas, and then the rest of us might be able to have more comfort and not subsidize their excess tissue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps airlines could adopt a similar business practice. No fat bastards on board.

actually, that would be very nice, and would use less gas, and then the rest of us might be able to have more comfort and not subsidize their excess tissue.

But the fat bastards would expel more gas, thereby increasing the planes' buoyancy, thereby saving on fuel costs, which savings hopefully would be passed on to the consumer.

[riddler 0]

All you folks that were "guessing" that there was something else wrong with the baby, or that the parents weren't signed up for the "correct" service - you're wrong. How about siding with people for a change, instead of rich, greedy corporations?

This just made the headlines of the Denver Post. They got called out, and now they're backtracking to save face:

Quote

DENVER — A Colorado insurance company is changing its attitude about fat babies.
Rocky Mountain Health Plans said Monday that it will no longer consider obesity a "pre-existing condition" barring coverage for hefty infants. The change comes after the insurer turned down a Grand Junction 4-month-old who weighs about 17 pounds. The insurer deemed little Alex Lange obese and said the infant didn't qualify for coverage.

The infant's father works at NBC affiliate KKCO-TV in Grand Junction and news accounts about the boy's rejection made national headlines.

The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat. The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system."

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kbordson 8]

Quote

All you folks that were "guessing" that there was something else wrong with the baby, or that the parents weren't signed up for the "correct" service - you're wrong. How about siding with people for a change, instead of rich, greedy corporations?

So... people NEVER lie? People never want more than they "deserve"? Only corporations are "greedy"?

And what would be wrong with having one standard criterion? Wouldn't that be "fair"? It limit discrimination and help prevent subjective interpretation of "health."

Granted one could argue... "but this was a 'healthy' baby"... so where would you put the cutoff for the 95% - 18years old? 12 years old? 12mos of age?

(and for the record - the article that you quoted didn't say what policy they were trying to sign up for, so they might have been trying to get the SOLO coverage... and that policy had "x" criteria.... but they could have opted for policy "y" which would have different criterion, but it just cost "this much" more)

edit to correct the formatting

[ianmdrennan 2]

Totally ridiculous. Kaiya is in the 25 percentile and healthy.

A friend of ours kid was so small she was in the 0 percentile. She's super healthy, and is still in the lower percentiles (she's a tiny kid)

It's not unreasonable to expect someone on the 'other side' of the percentile to be the same.

Percentiles, in infants, are totally ridiculous things to base insurance off of. Statistically kids even out by 2 years or so.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Percentiles, in infants, are totally ridiculous things to base insurance off of. Statistically kids even out by 2 years or so.

You may be correct. And you are welcome to start a Business and base your policies on that concept. Sounds like there may be a market for it.

In the mean time, Other Business have decided not to base their Policies off that idea. As long as they are abiding by the terms and conditions of the policies they actually sell, Go for it.

What people seem to forget is that Insurance companies are private Businesses that sell a Product. You can choose to buy that product (Along with its terms and conditions) or shop around for another product that better suits your needs.

Again.. It is wrong to force a company to sell a product they feel they will loose money on. Weather they are right or wrong about that is irrelevant. These are private companies selling a "Policy". That policy will have terms, Conditions and exclusions. If the policy fits, Buy it. If it does not.. DONT. If they don't want to sell it to you, Go somewhere else.

If there is Not Insurance available for you, Then yes, I support a Public option and do not mind paying higher taxes to fund that.

This company has decided to change their policies based on this, That is great for them More business for them.

The real problem with all this healthcare mess in my opinion is people have gotten so accustomed to "Employer provided" health insurance (In which they have very little choice in their policies) that they forget that CAN shop around. the whole "Group Policy" concept is the real problem. Do away with group policies and let people buy their own insurance and suddenly the Insurance companies will have to get competitive again. Also people will have a lot more choice and say in what coverage they want. Right now the Insurance companies just have to sell to employers and that is what they geared towards. Simple solution is do away with Employer Provided Group Policies. Make the Insurance Companies have to sell to Individuals and they will have to adapt to be more fair and flexible else they will go out of business.