Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 1 of 184 (530123)
10-12-2009 11:23 AM


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."
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. They filled out the paperwork and awaited approval, figuring their family is young and healthy. But the broker who was helping them find new insurance called Thursday with news that shocked them.
" 'Your baby is too fat,' she told me," Bernie said.
Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance – The Denver Post
This really hit home with me because I have 2 children who both were/are chubby babies, >95 percentile, breast fed only. Our doctor always proclaimed their weight a sign of GOOD health and predicted that as long as we kept up good eating habits that they would trim out in their toddler years and be better for it in the long run.
My son is now taller than all of his friends the same age as he is, has a balanced appetite as in incredible health. That being said, he is an active 3 year old and plays lots with other kids, falls down, and occasionally needs a doctors visit. I CANNOT imagine not being able to provide health care for my child because some money grubbing insurance underwriter trying to find any excuse to deny people coverage and especially for this reason!
I am not the biggest fan of the health care overhaul that is currently happening because I believe it is a bandaid on the real problem in this country. The real problem is that we ALLOW profit to be made off the blood of our neighbors. Someone is making money right now denying that baby coverage which will potentially deny him care in the case that poor fate might fall upon him. I am presuming that if his parents are struggling to find insurance they probably could not afford the cost of a childhood accident, or unexpected condition.
So we are basically telling these people, if your house is on fire we your neighbors will help you put it out by virture of our public fire system that we have instituted to keep us ALL safe. But if your body is on fire, we would rather see you die or go bankrupt or both because we need to protect the profits of giant corporation who do nothing more than exchange money.
And what is even most infuriating, is that the biggest opponents of reform are Republicans who also claim to be "pro-life". Damn them for being more concerned about this child as a fetus then they are now! Hypocrites!
Free for all please.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 12:06 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 4:35 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 36 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2009 8:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 4 of 184 (530153)
10-12-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
10-12-2009 12:06 PM


I'm not going to suggest that this situation is ideal - but for the sake of disagreement, insurance does a lot more than 'exchange money', they manage risks and are massively essential for the economy (20% of the LSE is owned by insurance companies). The article almost makes it sound like underwriting is a bad idea!
Insurance is not bad as a concept. It is not even bad to make a profit off of it for things such as car/home/boat/etc. But when it has to do with your life it should be a crime to deny basic coverage over the statistical figuring of an underwriter who's goal is profit. Oh wait...it IS A CRIME in every other industrialized nation to make a profit on providing basic health care insurance.
Are health insurance companies allowed to make an underwriting profit?
Only in the USA. And it is a fundamentally disgusting fact of our system. Profit motives in this arena of our economy are incongruent with both our ideals and our best interests. We do not have profit motive in fire/resuce/police for a VERY GOOD REASON.
Does the health reform seek to change this?
Unfortunatly no. Well, not completely. Rather than make it illegal the reform simply subsidizes the losses and forces the companies to grant coverage.
Is there some valid acturial justification for not covering babies of these dimensions?
I am curious if you can think of one? Even hypotheically.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 12:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 3:22 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-17-2009 9:54 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 7 of 184 (530177)
10-12-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
10-12-2009 3:22 PM


Hypothetically? Sure - big babies get dropped more often or there is a correlation between large babies and certain expensive diseases or disorders.
And you feel that it is justified for people to make their living off of such "acturial justifications"?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 3:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 4:17 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 184 (530185)
10-12-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
10-12-2009 4:16 PM


This is a simple fact of reality: You cannot expect that there will be 'no expense spared' to keep all people alive at all times. It'd be nice, but it isn't realistic.
Nobody is suggesting this. But every single individual should expect some level of basic care above and beyond the emergency room when it may very well be too late.
Insurance is by definition anti-individual. The entire point is that many individuals protect each other from large unmanageable losses by sharing risk. They are cooperative in nature.
Izanagi may be generalizing too much. The main point is that profit motive in private insurance encourages collecting permiums while denying coverage wherever possible. The only things standing in the way is government regulation defining what is or is not allowed in terms of the contract between the insurer and claimant.
Not necessarily. If that is what they are doing - then your financial system is to blame. The purpose of insurance is to manage risks by pooling them using the principle of large numbers with a view to indemnifying people for genuiune losses while repudiating the very large numbers of fraudulent claims. The premiums should be proportional to the payouts (ie., there should be little to no underwriting profit), and the only profit created should be in investments the insurer has invested in using the premiums that its customers supply.
That would be nice if that is how it worked in the US but its not. And it has nothing to do with our financial system as it has to do with our insurance regulation and the profit motive. Profit motive is fine as long as insurers are not allowed to scam people by issuing policys with a million little caveats in which they are allowed to deny claims, not required to demonstrate they have the appropriate capital to manage their risk, and as long as people do not DIE because of the decision of a bean counter!

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 4:16 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 4:56 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 13 of 184 (530186)
10-12-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
10-12-2009 4:17 PM


Of course. I do
I was about to reply a bit harshly but figure maybe it has something to do with the literal ocean between us.
Let me just ask you this, in the UK basic health care is essentially a right is it not? If so, do you agree that it should be?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 4:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 4:56 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 17 of 184 (530192)
10-12-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 4:35 PM


You basically did not respond to any of the points that I was making.
Nobody is talking about unlimited amounts of health care for everyone. It is noteworthy that every single other industrialized nation has defined pretty well a standard level of care for which every single citizen has a right to have.
That is greed, plain and simple. Not on the part of the insurance companies, but on the part of the OP who thinks that others should be forced to pay for your healthcare.
And yet we have absolutly NO PROBLEM paying for everybody elses "firecare" and "hurricancare" and "crimecare". Is it equally unjustifiable that people who happen to live in neighborhoods with low crime pay for the police who spend most of the time in the "bad" neighborhoods?
I find it APPALLING that you can call "greed" the desire to live when you have a perfectly manageable and cureable disease or accident, perhaps by no fault of your own. Nobody, not even the MOST liberal advocates of health care reform are advocating unlimited health care for everyone.
We have limited resources. We *cannot* afford everything that can be done to help people, and we don't have the ethical right to choose for them what can be done. The choice should be made by the person themselves, according to how many resources they choose to devote to it of their own.
Which is a TOTAL strawman of what I was saying, or what anybody is proposing a single payer or other universal system should be.
Also, what resources does that baby have if tomorrow he is diagnosed with lymphoma? Apparrently his only "choice" is to die?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 4:35 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:08 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 19 of 184 (530196)
10-12-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Modulous
10-12-2009 4:56 PM


So you do realized that what I am talking about is insurance to provide 'basic health care' by pretty much any reasonable definition.
I certainly do not mind medical insurance for stuff beyond that. I just hope you realize that in the USA, if you happened to get a treatable cancer right now, assuming you couldn't afford care or are unable to obtain charity, you would probably die. I don't think it is that way in the UK.
Luckily for that little baby, he is probably covered by the single payer system called SCHIP assuming his parents are poor enough.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 4:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 5:14 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 23 of 184 (530204)
10-12-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 4:56 PM


Why? Tell me your justification for why someone deserves something they cannot afford.
The easy answer is because we are not sadistic monsters without care for our neighbors wellbeing.
The perhaps better answer is because there is a public interest in doing so, AND the public wants us to. Overwhelmingly in fact.
Furthermore, it is the EXACT same reason why we give away free fire and rescue protection, free public education, free disaster recovery, etc. EVERYONE is better off because of those things and not just the people who are recieving benefits disproportionate to their contributions.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 4:56 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:21 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 26 of 184 (530207)
10-12-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 5:08 PM


Also, who is to say that the police spending a lot of their time in the bad neighborhoods isn't of benefit to the good neighborhoods?
Ummm...Yea!!! Exactly!! The same actually applies to basic health care it turns out!!
Jazzns writes:
Also, what resources does that baby have if tomorrow he is diagnosed with lymphoma? Apparrently his only "choice" is to
die?
Depends, can he pay for it? Can he get a loan? Loans happen all the time you know.
I'm trying to think of some dispationate argument to reply to this. But all my brain can come up with is that you are a sick fuck. Damn you!

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:08 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 29 of 184 (530213)
10-12-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 5:21 PM


Then this overwhelming majority should have no trouble passing the healthcare bill, right? Or perhaps this "overwhelming majority"
is a little more divided than you care to admit?
Since when has Congress ever had the exact pulse of the people? Its a representation. IT doesn't change the fact that the PEOPLE want it regardless of if Congress does or does not.
A public service I can support, but having it as the *only* option is not.
Nobody is suggesting that.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:21 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 6:34 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 30 of 184 (530215)
10-12-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 5:23 PM


I have 2 children who are both healthy, they were not always both healthy.
I have what some people call "gold plated" health care thanks to the job that I am fortunate enough to have.
And keeping my little girl alive and healthy completely drained my family's savings. We planned for her expenses years in advance. If I had happened to be poorer, she may not be alive today.
You are a fucking monster.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 5:23 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 6:37 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 184 (530283)
10-12-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 6:37 PM


How Very Sad You Are......
So your superior scenario would be draining someone else's savings to pay for your sickly child? I am still waiting for your justification for "My kid is sick, give me your stuff."
Not someone else's, just yours. I support holding a national referendum on health care and everyone who votes no will be taxed extra to pay for cosmetic surgery for illegal aliens. They will get a free coupon at the border. Those same people will also be forced to donate a kidney if they have 2 and their blood once a month. Those same people will also be except from any fire department or emergency response. 911 will be disabled on their phones so they can call their own private companies to help them.
I was a little upset at your responses until I thought about it for a minute. You are part of a dying and irrelevant minority in America. The "everyone for himself" crowd. You are pathetic and I feel sorry for someone who can care so little for his fellow human being.
I challenge anyone to have the same opinion about our health care system after the very first second of watching their baby on the monitor. I challenge anyone who believes like this idiot to be the one to explain to a mom that she cannot have her child because society is unwilling to regard her child with the same value as lifeless property.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 6:37 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-13-2009 12:02 AM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 184 (530308)
10-12-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 10:28 PM


So far I have heard a lot about why having healthcare for everyone is a great thing and something to be proud of, but nothing about why taxing people to pay for it is a good idea.
Because if it is worthwhile to do, it is worthwhile to tax for it. Unlike the Republican method of paying for things that are otherwise completely useless (like tax cuts for wealthy people, border fences, and war) which is to pretend like you have money and spend it anyway.
At least when progressives tax you Phage, you will be getting something for it. Don't worry though, we don't expect your thanks. Your careless indignation and -50 approval rating are thanks enough.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 10:28 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 11:05 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 46 of 184 (530309)
10-12-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
10-12-2009 10:02 PM


Actually - that was pretty much how modern insurance started
And then we figured out an even better way!

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2009 10:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 53 of 184 (530324)
10-13-2009 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phage0070
10-12-2009 11:05 PM


I didn't expect you to just come out and say it. You think healthcare is worthwhile for your kids, so you want to tax us for it.
No, health care is worthwhile for everybody.
I suspect you also think feeding and clothing your children is worthwhile, so you seem to want to tax us for that as well.
Yes! As it turns out, society as a whole becomes improved for everyone when we take very good care of our children. It is in fact what separates modern nations from 3rd world nations.
I suspect just about all you do of your own accord you consider worthwhile, so basically you are saying you consider it appropriate for public funds to be used for whatever you think should be done.
You have very amply demonstrated your inability to read in this thread so I don't know why I would try again but here it goes. It is not what I think, it is what the vast majority of me and my fellow citizen think. They just so happen to think that denying basic health care to 4 month old babies because their parents are poor is something that only a sick twisted psychopath would want to do.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 10-12-2009 11:05 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024