JohnDeere 0 #51 October 13, 2009 Quote 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. Thanks for that!Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #52 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteAll 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 I'm still stuck on the fact (as set forth in the original article) that they had insurance and the insurance they had covered the baby. They just didn't want to pay the rate increase that went into effect when the baby was born, so they looked elsewhere--not that I blame them--and they were turned down. Their answer to that was to use the husband's connections to launch an attack on the insurance company, knowing full well that in the face of such an assault, the insurance company would have no choice but to cave. If this were their only way to insure their infant, I might have some sympathy. As it is, they look a little self-centered to me. With that said, it's ridiculous for an insurance company to deny coverage to an infant on account of obesity, particularly if the infant is breastfed. The only trouble is that if the insurance company goes ahead and insures all infants, they're also going to end up stuck with the ones whose parents' sum total of knowledge about nutrition can be synopsized with the phrase "fast food and sugary snacks."If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #53 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo... people NEVER lie? ... Didn't say any of that - just said you were wrong. Insurance company denied insurance, they were publicly called-out, they reversed their policy, and said it was a problem with their underwriting policy. That's about as black and white as you can get. If the couple had lied about something, the insurance co would have stated that as a defense. If they had selected an incorrect policy, they probably would have said something about that too. They didn't. Quoteso they might have been trying to get the SOLO coverage Sure, and Obama might really be a Muslim.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #54 October 13, 2009 QuoteIt is wrong to force a company to sell a product they feel they will loose money on. Most of the time, I would agree, but not all the time. The US government mandates that auto-makers fleets have an average gas mileage. That means auto makers must sometimes sell small fuel-efficient vehicles at break-even or even a loss. They make their money from larger vehicles, and therefore pushed SUV sales for most of the 80s, 90s and into this new millennium. So, the government has effectively forced the auto manufacturers to sell some of their product at a loss. The benefit is cleaner air. That's a good thing.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #55 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo... people NEVER lie? ... Didn't say any of that - just said you were wrong. Insurance company denied insurance, they were publicly called-out, they reversed their policy, and said it was a problem with their underwriting policy. That's about as black and white as you can get. If the couple had lied about something, the insurance co would have stated that as a defense. If they had selected an incorrect policy, they probably would have said something about that too. They didn't. Quoteso they might have been trying to get the SOLO coverage Sure, and Obama might really be a Muslim. Changing their policy does NOT make them any more "wrong" or the family "right" than a defense team agreeing to a settlement instead of going to court. It does NOT prove guilt OR innocence. They might have decided that it's better for public relations to try to stop this public trial (without a fair chance of "winning") And personally, I don't care if President Obama practices Wiccan beliefs. It has nothing to do with this topic. But if you feel that him being Christian or Muslim in any way influences a persons insurance issues in Denver.... believe what you wish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #56 October 13, 2009 >And one that no one at all saying . . . Which is why I said that it was an unpopular option. > I would prefer to see an option available where this child could get Insurance. I agree. Which is why I like the idea of the insurance exchange. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #57 October 13, 2009 QuoteSo I wonder what the baby was really denied coverage for. Ok, you caught us, we were trying to use this kid as the poster child for HC reform when in reality he is a heroin addict, an old habit he picked up while serving in Nam. And then there's all the STD's he picks up from all the hookers he bangs. This infant is really a louse who wants the gov nipple stuck in his mouth, not mommies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #58 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteNice 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. QuoteOr 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. Mitigating? You mean disallowing or disqualifying factor? Mitigating doesn't make sense there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #59 October 13, 2009 Quote So, the government has effectively forced the auto manufacturers to sell some of their product at a loss. And look how good they are doing. Back on THIS topic.. It looks like Rhonda may have seen what most are Missing here. This Family HAD Insurance. The issue was their premiums went up 40% when their child was Born (NOTHING to do with the child's weight.. Just Higher premiums because the Child was born and added to the policy). So they went to look for another CHEAPER Policy. When that Cheaper Policy would not accept the Child because the child was outside of the defined Coverage group for that Policy, The child rejected for coverage for THAT policy. How do you think they are able to offer a cheaper Policy than the one the Parents already had?? OH, They are picky about who they will cover. Well that makes sense. There is absolutely no question that child is abnormally large. 99th Percentile. I certainly see why an Insurance company would be concerned about talking on an abnormally large or abnormally small infant on an INDIVIDUAL Policy (Remember, they already had a GROUP policy that covered the infant. They just wanted something cheaper) because the likelihood there may be additional heath issues is much greater. Once again.. The Press has spun a story to get the maximum shock factor without telling the whole story. No victim here. Just people trying to sensationalize a story so they can get special treatment. No need for Government regulation on this. The child has coverage available. The parent just did not want to pay for it.As for the 40% increase that started all this.. Lets see a Couple already on the Policy.. They add a third person (33% increase).. Oh yea, That 3rd person is an infant.. First couple years that baby is going to incur some medical costs like shots, checkups and other normal things also being there is no medical history yet to know how healthy the baby really is, there is some extra risk so an extra 7% increase on the policy. Sounds reasonable to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #60 October 13, 2009 Quote 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... I'm using Bush's internetsssssss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 October 13, 2009 QuoteDemos would put them to sleep. Makes no sense, Dems want uni-care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 October 13, 2009 QuotePeople seem to forget that Insurance Companies are Businesses that sell a Product. Great, what a country; business before people......and they call us fascist. That's why the gov option, when business gets so corrupt that they disallow infants, or hell, adults for that matter, they need to have a competitor that keeps them in line. QuoteThere are many different programs available that would make sure the infant got treatment for life threatening illness. Exactly, parents can't afford preventative care or are otherwise disallowed, so we wait until he convulses and theeeeeen take him to the ER so they can try to revive him and theeeeeen pursue the parents until they BK and continue the idiocy over and over again. That's teh main dispute with HC, thanks for pointing it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #63 October 13, 2009 QuoteWhy should a Business be forced to sell a Product that they will most likely loose money on?? That makes no sense. They shouldn't, which is why we need a public option. You seem like a descent guy, you just don't seem to understand the dynamic from the other side. QuoteIt is not punitive although it is easy to perceive it that way. It is just a reasonable business decision. So was slavery. QuoteAnd I am not opposed to a Public Option for these types of situations where Private Coverage may not be available. I've never heard you say anything like that before. This is an extreme example, we could post example after another of other scenarios where you would say the same here, so let's quit the semantics and just offer teh public option and be done with the issue. QuoteMy point was not to go on a witch hunt for the "Evil Insurance Company" when they are just being consistent in applying the rules. I agree, let's just do the public option and let the ins co's operate as profits dictate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuote(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. I got into a lengthy discussion about this a year ago at my local univ where the anti-abortionists set up a display of pics of aborted fetuses. I told him that until he fixes his party and they quit trying to shoot-down every public HC option in the name of money/corp profit while simultaneously trying to abolish abortions in the name of love and compassion they will come off as a joke. Once their arguments are consistent and they also want every human to have HC however it has to be done, they will have a solvent argument that people will listen to. Again, until then it will be a joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #65 October 13, 2009 QuoteGreat, what a country; business before people Business are the People.This country is made up of small businesses that are owned by The People, The Large Evil Corporations are Owned "By the people" who are shareholders. The Businesses are what provide Jobs for the people. We have the freedom to start our own Businesses if we think we can do things better/smarter/faster/cheaper. Businesses and People are one and the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 October 13, 2009 QuoteI do not fault the Business (Insurance Company) for being consistent in their policies. Exactly, I fault the gov and the conservative extremists for advocating the gov not offer a public option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #67 October 13, 2009 QuoteTotally 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 Right, body typing infants is pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #68 October 13, 2009 In THIS case a Public Option is not necessary. The Parents had insurance coverage. they just wanted it cheaper and were turned don for the cheaper policy. Again I support a Public Option for people that can not get coverage in the private sector. That would not apply here. The Parents had insurance for the infant, They just wanted it cheaper and were turned down for the cheaper policy. Gotta admit though, The Denver post did a great job of spinning the story for maximum sensationalism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #69 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteGreat, what a country; business before people Business are the People.This country is made up of small businesses that are owned by The People, The Large Evil Corporations are Owned "By the people" who are shareholders. The Businesses are what provide Jobs for the people. We have the freedom to start our own Businesses if we think we can do things better/smarter/faster/cheaper. Businesses and People are one and the same. Just ironically the poor who go unrepresented are almost always the ones not owning the business or having insurance. So we are talking largely a class issue here. Of course then there's my GF who has been at her job for 29 years with the county, she has Crone's and cannot retire because of her preexisting condition; gotta love America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #70 October 13, 2009 QuoteIn THIS case a Public Option is not necessary. The Parents had insurance coverage. they just wanted it cheaper and were turned don for the cheaper policy. Perhaps they couldn't afford the policy they had, typical of young couples. QuoteAgain I support a Public Option for people that can not get coverage in the private sector. Or for people like my GF who would pay at least 400 month with a big deductable. She's played by the rules, yet she cannot enjoy a deserved retirement. There are endless stories that deem a public option necessary. QuoteThe Parents had insurance for the infant, They just wanted it cheaper and were turned down for the cheaper policy. Yea, it wasn't like they were operating on a showstring, they wanted that trip to Paris they were robbed out of when she became pregnant. QuoteGotta admit though, The Denver post did a great job of spinning the story for maximum sensationalism. Yes, other than Hanity, Limbaugh, Colter and a couple others the media is ALL liberal and ALWAYS out to deceive us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #71 October 13, 2009 QuoteOr for people like my GF who would pay at least 400 month with a big deductable. She's played by the rules, yet she cannot enjoy a deserved retirement. Is she Retirement age or Disabled? If so she can get Government Health insurance. If not she has to wait till age 65 just like the rest of us. Quotees, other than Hanity, Limbaugh, Colter and a couple others the media is ALL liberal and ALWAYS out to deceive us. I do not listen to any of the Right Wingers either and certainly do not consider thema credible "NEWS" source. They are entertainers. The Denver Post is Supposed to be a legitimate news source. (Unlike the ones you mentioned). Journalistic integrity is dead in this country and it is a very sad thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #72 October 13, 2009 Quote>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. They appear to have had coverage, or at least to have had it for the asking and paying. But they decided to pass on it and shop around. Not a very good plan on the parents part for financing their health care. If the story included all the pertinent info, we might know for sure and in exact detail what transpired; but the article was mostly a position piece." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #73 October 13, 2009 QuotePercentiles, in infants, are totally ridiculous things Our doctor put our girl in a negative percentile you heard me "negative" I tried to ask what the hell that meant and if he knew any math at that point ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #74 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteDemos 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) Sounds like a cross between The Matrix and Soylent Green. Maybe some day in the future our society WILL be powered by EXIT (Excess Infant Tissue)." . . . 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #75 October 13, 2009 QuoteQuotePercentiles, in infants, are totally ridiculous things Our doctor put our girl in a negative percentile you heard me "negative" I tried to ask what the hell that meant and if he knew any math at that point Wow. I have to ask, how tiny was she??Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
