Fat Infant Denied Health Insurance

[pirana 0]

Quote

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.

Then why are grocery stores allowed to make a profit? It does not get much more necessary than food. Should the food industry all be required to be nonprofit?

Playing devil's advocate a bit, because I'm good with a safety net type plan for all that can not feed theirselves. You give them powdered milk, humongous blocks of cheese, yellow cans with FOOD in big black block letters, etc. But not filets and artichoke hearts.

" . . . 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

[pirana 0]

Quote

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.

Watch out; being a voice of reason gets you branded as wanting the baby to die (in some circles).

And yes, I'm on the lookout for Life Threatening Infants. I've heard they follow behind the Gangs of Grannies.

" . . . 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

[pirana 0]

Quote

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.

That would put too many pilots out of work.

" . . . 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

[Andy9o8 0]

Why do you want to eat fat babies? Although I concede they're a high-energy food source.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

People 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.

Quote

There 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.

Under Ghia BHO's plan, fat babies found in the hopper would be aborted immediately to save these trips to the ER. It's called preventative maintenance.

Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They discuss patients among themselves, set prices, and stop people from shopping across statelines. Trouble is, Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana , is in their hip pockets. Imagine that, the chief architect is a liberal social democrat. Lucky, you're lucky to have this guy in your pocket.

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

[pirana 0]

Quote

because babies float . . .

And what else floats?

" . . . 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

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

because babies float . . .

And what else floats?

A duck!

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Watch out; being a voice of reason gets you branded as wanting the baby to die (in some circles).

Read on.. The mandatory "Want then to Die" accusation was tossed out as per the lefts Party Line (although the accuser did try to polish the turd a little by acknowledging that it was an unpopular plan. Yes, I would categorize a Plan that NO-ONE is suggesting could be fairly categorized as "Unpopular") but hey.. He did at least get his assigned daily "Talking" points in.

Just remember.. Disagree with any part of Chocolate Jesus`s plan and you are a heretic that clearly wants people to die.

One of these days I will finally learn to just shut up and enjoy the Kool-aide.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

So 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.

Why all the hyperbole, . . . from both sides. They had coverage (or at least an option for coverage), didn't like the price, went shopping around, got turned down based on obesity, and then used some connections to force a favorable decision.

This baby is not a poster child for any position other than a person should not allow a lapse in coverage while shopping around.

" . . . 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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Chocolate Jesus

Oooh, you're going to Hell for that.

[Thanatos340 1]

Buy you a beer when I get there. You are a lawyer, Right?? So no question I can count on your company at some point.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

because babies float . . .

And what else floats?

A duck!

Ergo, Billvon is a fat baby!

BUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRN!

" . . . 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

[Andy9o8 0]

Well, I manage the property and do occasional site inspections.

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

So 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.

Would not put it past Obama! He has done it before.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There is absolutely no question that child is abnormally large. 99th Percentile.

Uh, there have been a lot of questions raised here by multiple people.

[riddler 0]

Quote

And look how good they are doing.

If you think that environmental regulation was the reason for the auto manufacturer's demise, then you're right it's not a good parallel. Personally, I think that it was their poor financial decisions, and an overpaid union.

Quote

Once again.. The Press has spun a story to get the maximum shock factor without telling the whole story.

The entire point of group insurance is that it's for a group - that includes higher risk and lower risk clientele. Once insurance companies start offering "group" policies to select people, it's not group insurance, it's discrimination. And discrimination was certainly the point - there was NO medical reason to deny the infant - only one underwriter's personal bias. As a group insurance provider, you mitigate that by appealing and marketing to healthy people - not by denying specific children based on your assumption that fat babies are sick and/or dying.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[DougH 270]

"Group" insurance is offered to a employer or some other collective purchasing group. The insurer sets rates based on the group as a whole. They don't exclude certain individuals who are part of the group.

This is not the case in this story. Their employers group policy didn't exclude this child. They didn't like the rates of their "group" insurer, and tried to take out an invididual policy.

Since they are now an individual and not part of a overall group, the policy underwriters will base their cost on the actuaries perceived level of risk.

Their risk model may be off, but that is exactly how insurance is supposed to work. It is their perogative to do manual underwriting at that point and accept that child, or not to accept that child.

They should have stuck with the group policy until they found a cheaper viable alternative.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

And look how good they are doing.

If you think that environmental regulation was the reason for the auto manufacturer's demise, then you're right it's not a good parallel. Personally, I think that it was their poor financial decisions, and an overpaid union.

Quote

Once again.. The Press has spun a story to get the maximum shock factor without telling the whole story.

The entire point of group insurance is that it's for a group - that includes higher risk and lower risk clientele. Once insurance companies start offering "group" policies to select people, it's not group insurance, it's discrimination. And discrimination was certainly the point - there was NO medical reason to deny the infant - only one underwriter's personal bias. As a group insurance provider, you mitigate that by appealing and marketing to healthy people - not by denying specific children based on your assumption that fat babies are sick and/or dying.

Insurance companies offer group coverage to pretty much any group that requests a quote; the criteria for being a group almost always being a common employer or professional organization. The rate offerred is based on the group's claims history and health history, and is determined by an underwriter. (Not sure what you meant by "select").

Even with guarantee issue there is still the need for underwriting in order to determine the rate offerred, though that may change if standard rate bands are mandated. (Thank God we'll still have actuarials around).

The kid was denied for a medical reason, only because the parents went shopping for a cheaper policy. The kid was not denied for being fat, as an addition to the existing employer policy. Added to an existing employer policy as a newborn, there would have been no health history review - it's an automatic add everywhere as far as I know.

The denial was based on a companies underwriting guidelines, not on the underwriter's personal bias. Even in the partial truths divulged in the article, that much was evident.

Insurance companies mitigate risk in a lot of ways, and one of them is by denying high risk individuals applying to get into a pool that is health history underwritten. If a person wants their child covered no questions asked, then they need to add them as a newborn to an existing policy.

If they decide to shop around, try to beat the price, game the system, or other such things; then they need to make sure to keep the guaranteed coverage in place while they do so.

" . . . 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

[xtravrtsoul 0]

Quote

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.

So if the baby was born over 8 pounds and now is 17 pounds which would be close to double the birth weight; then there has to be something else wrong?? Not neccessarily.

You create life, life does not create you.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So if the baby was born over 8 pounds and now is 17 pounds which would be close to double the birth weight; then there has to be something else wrong?? Not neccessarily.

easy to fix - just give the baby to a couple militant vegetarians for a month or two

...
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

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

As a group insurance provider, you mitigate that by appealing and marketing to healthy people - not by denying specific children based on your assumption that fat babies are sick and/or dying.

This is NOT about their group insurance provider. The group insurance provider was willing to cover the infant, No problem.

It was when the parent decided they wanted a Cheaper option and went looking for INDIVIDUAL coverage that the OTHER insurance that offered lower cost insurance said, Sorry, That child is not eligible for this policy.

No one is "denying specific children based on your assumption that fat babies are sick and/or dying". The LOWER cost alternative to this couples Group plan simply didn't cover ANYONE outside of the 95th percentile in Weight/Height. It is reasonable to think that someone that is FATTER than 95% of the people in this country, They will have some additional health problems.

This company has acknowledged that there was a flaw in their underwriting in excluding Infants on this and they have decided to change the policy.

No Conspiracy here, No one wanting to let Fat Babies die. Just a Couple that had a baby and did not want pay what one company was charging for health insurance so they went to a different company with cheaper rates and then cried when they didn't get their way. Pretty sad actually.

Makes for nice Hyperbole though if can get everyone to ignore what actually happened.

[xtravrtsoul 0]

Quote

Quote

So if the baby was born over 8 pounds and now is 17 pounds which would be close to double the birth weight; then there has to be something else wrong?? Not neccessarily.

easy to fix - just give the baby to a couple militant vegetarians for a month or two

Fixed
Done

and

Next.

You create life, life does not create you.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Their risk model may be off, but that is exactly how insurance is supposed to work. It is their perogative to do manual underwriting at that point and accept that child, or not to accept that child.

As I said up-thread when someone else said the same thing:

Quote

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.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Journalistic integrity is dead in this country and it is a very sad thing.

FYI, not entirely. If you want journalistic integrity, read The Christian Science Monitor. I know that sounds bizarre, but when it comes to slant-free news reporting, it is top-of-the-line.

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

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

So if the baby was born over 8 pounds and now is 17 pounds which would be close to double the birth weight; then there has to be something else wrong?? Not neccessarily.

easy to fix - just give the baby to a couple militant vegetarians for a month or two

and keep them off all forms of commercial travel.

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