Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage

[Andy9o8 0]

This would not have, could not have, happened in any First World nation other than the US. People are absolute morons (and I don't mean the insurance companies) because they don't know any better, and are oblivious that they have been indoctrinated by the very same interests that benefit from the status quo.

Ignorance kills.
Thank you for the butt-fucking, Sir! May I have another?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/health/main6335430.shtml

Quote

Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Coverage

(CBS) For newborn Houston Tracy, the historic health care overhaul came too late.

Houston, born March 15 at a Texas hospital, suffers from a defect in his arteries. When his parents, Doug and Kim, applied to have his corrective surgery covered under their insurance, they were denied, with their carrier claiming Houston had a pre-existing condition, reports CBS station KTVT.

The Tracys are fighting the decision by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas.

"They kept saying it's preexisting, it's preexisting, but I don't know how it can be preexisting on a baby that was just born," Doug Tracy said. "If it's mandated that everyone have health insurance, than how can one be denied?"

Legislation passed this week by Congress and signed by President Obama that would end the practice of denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions does not go into effect until September.

The congenital heart defect causes the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart to become switched.

"He was born with what's called transposition of the great arteries," Doug Tracy said. "It's heart wrenching; I hated it."

The Tracy's are both small business owners and do not carry health insurance for themselves. They do carry insurance on their two other children and tried to get insurance for Houston, but they found out Wednesday his coverage was denied.

The health care provider declined to comment specifically on the Tracys' case, and released this statement to KTVT:

"We will work closely with our customers to keep them informed of any changes that may result from the new law. We will continue to review the bill's requirements on our business and their respective time frames to ensure full compliance."

The Forth Worth Star-Telegram received this explanation from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas:

Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."

The condition Houston has is rarely detected before birth.

"My whole pregnancy was simple, it was easy, no complications, doctor visits were great," Houston's mother, Kim Tracy, said. "Perfect sonograms, great little pictures and then, he wasn't perfect."

Houston had life-saving surgery at Cook's Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth shortly after being born.

"He's doing really good," his mother said with a smile. "he's a little tough guy."

[lawrocket 3]

So they don't have insurance on themselves and no insurance for the baby. Then they apply for insurance for the baby after this condition is diagnosed and treated.

Andy - don't you think that indemnity should be prospective from the date of contract?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

My point was to illustrate that had that child been born in any other modern, First World nation in the world he would have had guaranteed coverage from the moment of birth.

Only in America. The most prosperous nation on Earth. And that's just shameful.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My point was to illustrate that had that child been born in any other modern, First World nation in the world he would have had guaranteed coverage from the moment of birth.

But in those other countries, the parents would be paying for this all along. Having a child without insurance seems risky, both financially and for the health of the upcoming child.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

My point was to illustrate that had that child been born in any other modern, First World nation in the world he would have had guaranteed coverage from the moment of birth.

Only in America. The most prosperous nation on Earth. And that's just shameful.

Tell that to Jayden Capewell.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

I guess that there's no profit in it for them

Poor little mite.

I insure my car, I shouldn't have to insure my kids - that's just sick

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

My point was to illustrate that had that child been born in any other modern, First World nation in the world he would have had guaranteed coverage from the moment of birth.

Quote

But in those other countries, the parents would be paying for this all along.

In those other countries, the taxes paid by everyone, including those parents, would pay not just for the roads and police, and fire protection and public schools and military, but also for national health service.

Quote

Having a child without insurance seems risky, both financially and for the health of the upcoming child.

Careful. Taken to its logical extreme, such a standard would prohibit pregnancy - or mandate the termination of a pregnancy - of the uninsured. In any event, it's the sort of thing that makes the rest of the Western world view America as somewhat cold-blooded. Hopefully some more non-Americans will weigh in here (instead of just passing-by yet another bloody Yank HC thread...)

• Quote

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

My point was to illustrate that had that child been born in any other modern, First World nation in the world he would have had guaranteed coverage from the moment of birth.

Only in America. The most prosperous nation on Earth. And that's just shameful.

Tell that to Jayden Capewell.

A tragedy that should never have happened; and if it illustrates a flaw, then it does. I think that the US has enough ingenuity - I know it has enough money - to put together a national HC plan that encompasses the best of what both the US medical system, and a modern, humane national single-payer health coverage system, has to offer.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Hopefully some more non-Americans will weigh in here (instead of just passing-by yet another bloody Yank HC thread...)

I have ZERO problem with my tax £s helping kids like this - ZERO It would be completely heartless of anyone object.

I would pull back all of our troops from abroad and spend all that money on building our next generations rather than assisting in destroying someone elses.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I have ZERO problem with my tax £s helping kids like this - ZERO It would be completely heartless of anyone object.

Then tell your government that you want your tax dollars funding American healthcare. If all right-thinking people I'm Europe think it's bad, then send America some foreign aid that will cover everyone. How could you and your countries be so "completely heartless" and allow these kids to be uncovered when your money could make the difference?

I'm really interested in whether you'd be willing to put your money where your mouth is. Or are you too heartless to cover this kid's bills? Or is it that you think people should take care of their own houses?

You've really opened yourself up here because while I see some nobility and idealism in it, there is a large part of me that thinks you haven't yet parted (and won't part) with a quid for tbe kid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Then I think that you'd be wrong. Individually, we can't help everyone but give what we can when we can.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Houston had life-saving surgery at Cook's Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth shortly after being born.

"He's doing really good," his mother said with a smile. "he's a little tough guy."

I realize and have sympathy for the parents and the child for the trauma they have experienced. However, doesn't the final outcome indicate that our current HC system worked in spite of the parent's negligence?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Then I think that you'd be wrong. Individually, we can't help everyone but give what we can when we can.

Excellent point. Andy posted something complaining that an insurance company decided it couldn't be a charity to this kid's parents. Heartless.

It is suggesting that the insurance company should be a charity. Not a for profit business. A charity. And people suggest that these individual companies should provide it for everybody.

"Society" taking care of people inevitably boils fown to a few individuals taking care of society. Perhaps had these parents thought, "I shall insure myself and baby will be covered" there would not be an issue.

It sucks that the hopital and surgeons are the big losers here. Well, them and people who pay their bills - it's people like us who pay for it, anyway.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

"Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."

the blame for this lies on the shoulders of the parents. if they had been insured themselves before she got pregnant, this would not have been an issue.

that said, i don't have a problem trying to find a way to take care of kids who are getting fucked because of their parents' irresponsible decisions, but lets not blame the system or society here, lets put the blame where it belongs.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[wmw999 2,130]

They do carry insurance on their other children -- they might have actually thought that constituted insuring their family. It's entirely possible they saved up their money to pay for the birth.

That said, had there been complications during the birth, they'd've had to have had a huge amount saved up to pay, and most likely they did not.

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)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

"Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."

the blame for this lies on the shoulders of the parents. if they had been insured themselves before she got pregnant, this would not have been an issue.

that said, i don't have a problem trying to find a way to take care of kids who are getting fucked because of their parents' irresponsible decisions, but lets not blame the system or society here, lets put the blame where it belongs.

The blame belongs:
(a) On a micro level, on the parents for not following the rules of the system as it currently exists in the US;
(b) on a MACRO level, on the US for being the only First World country* in the world for whom this child's condition would not have been automatically guaranteed coverage from birth.



* The others include, but are not necessarily limited to, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Norway Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

(b) on a MACRO level, on the US for being the only First World country* in the world for whom this child's condition would not have been automatically guaranteed coverage from birth.

it may be semantics, but fuck whether or not other countries are guaranteeing coverage from birth. if making sure covering children from birth is the right thing to do (and i believe it is), then lets work towards that without reguard for what other countries are doing.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

it may be semantics, but fuck whether or not other countries are guaranteeing coverage from birth. if making sure covering children from birth is the right thing to do (and i believe it is), then lets work towards that without reguard for what other countries are doing.

Thank you, I agree.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

(b) on a MACRO level, on the US for being the only First World country* in the world for whom this child's condition would not have been automatically guaranteed coverage from birth.

it may be semantics, but fuck whether or not other countries are guaranteeing coverage from birth. if making sure covering children from birth is the right thing to do (and i believe it is), then lets work towards that without reguard for what other countries are doing.

You're right - it's semantics (with all due respect, on your part).

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Apologies for going a bit off topic, but this is a very good example of how our entire system of priorities is fucked up. The cost flying the President or VP to give one speach to promote his agenda would be enough money to care for this child the rest of it's life.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[nanook 1]

Quote

I have ZERO problem with my tax £s helping kids like this - ZERO It would be completely heartless of anyone object.

I would pull back all of our troops from abroad and spend all that money on building our next generations rather than assisting in destroying someone elses.

You know, If we pull our troops from abroad, all those countries cited will have to increase their military spending considerably to make up for the holes left by us. All your free health care would have to disappear. Or something else would have to give. I think the U. S. should maybe stop "providing" free health care to the rest of the world and maybe start focusing on us.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Apologies for going a bit off topic, but this is a very good example of how our entire system of priorities is fucked up. The cost flying the President or VP to give one speach to promote his agenda would be enough money to care for this child the rest of it's life.

It's really not off-topic. It's the age-old debate on how best to allocate the expenditure of tax revenues.

Re: trips to promote agenda - surely you don't think that's done by one party more than the other, do you? And yes, I'm calling you Shirley.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The blame belongs:
(a) On a micro level, on the parents for not following the rules of the system as it currently exists in the US;
(b) on a MACRO level, on the US for being the only First World country* in the world for whom this child's condition would not have been automatically guaranteed coverage from birth.

+1

I can't believe so many people are blaming the parents ... that's just plain weird to a European

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I can't believe so many people are blaming the parents

The people from...
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Norway Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand
...aren't doing that.

[shropshire 0]

Why is it, I wonder, O,.K by some Americans for their tax $s to be spent slaughtering innocent people but not making life easier for the less well off, at home

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome