Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,473 Year: 3,730/9,624 Month: 601/974 Week: 214/276 Day: 54/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 36 of 184 (530273)
10-12-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jazzns
10-12-2009 11:23 AM


By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age.
My problem is with the above. This child is 99th percentile for height AND weight. Isn't this ratio typically proportionate? Without seeing a picture of the child, all I envision is a big baby, not necessarily a fat or obese one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jazzns, posted 10-12-2009 11:23 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 37 of 184 (530275)
10-12-2009 8:41 PM


Update
Per the Denver Post:
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."

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024