Baby denied Health Insurance because too fat

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage.

His parents were shocked.

"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
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html

oh there's absolutely nothing wrong with american healthcare ...nothing at all, nosireebob
 
Well at least they're not killing the baby the way Obama's plan would.
 
"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding."

I think we're going to need to see these breasts.
 
Insurance companies deny people based on risk factors all the time. The baby was simply a higher risk and they probably didn't want to give it the "penny a day" plan. There is no story here.
 
if a person is at risk of having a disease shouldnt it have more probability to receive treatment?

"so you are death allergic to bees huh? well go to the last part of the line of the allergy attendance near that bee hive"
 
AWESOME...insurance companies are doing evolutions work, or should i say eugenics. It's about time somebody disposed of the damn vermin. :|


you do realize i'm being sarcastic right?
 
AtomicSpark said:
Insurance companies deny people based on risk factors all the time. The baby was simply a higher risk and they probably didn't want to give it the "penny a day" plan. There is no story here.
Click to expand...

While you're right that this is a fairly common, non-news worthy occurrence, the point is that it's wrong. The further point is that efforts should be made to change it.
 
I'm usually on the side of the insurance companies with the whole "pre-existing condition" bit, but this is just shameful.

Just goes to show you that once your business gets big enough, people cease to be people and become just numbers.
 
Why does the healthplan have a provision of no new private insurance enrollments after one year?

I don't want to lose my private health insurance. It's better than government can do and I will not use a state run system. I've already been there at the tribal hospitals which is run by the BIA, the same federal government people that would run this- **** that.
 
AtomicSpark said:
Insurance companies deny people based on risk factors all the time. The baby was simply a higher risk and they probably didn't want to give it the "penny a day" plan. There is no story here.
Click to expand...

this couldnt happen in pretty much every single first world country in the world except your own. I guess we just take it for granted that our citizens have a right to healthcare. americans gave that right away to the insurance companies. they get to decide whether you're "worth" the effort. whether you're profitable enough for them to keep doing business with you. this is ok with you?

anyways there are no risk factors that make any of us ineligible for healthcare. besides, it's not as if the baby needs a liver transplant just coverage, surely they could at least provide the bare minimum? or is profit more important that the health of an individual?

what you're esentially breeding is a walking time bomb of communicable diseases because no healthcare coverage means no treatment. 47 million of them just waiting to used by some terrist with a jar full of measals
 
Wow. I find this highly reasonable though. An insurance is not a charity.



Of course, if this were government-run I'd have the opposite opinion.
 
Well I am all for regulating the private insurers, but here in New Zealand there is a government run insurance scheme called ACC. It compensates victims for accidents and such things. But the government has managed it so poorly it's millions of dollars in debt. It's hard for a government to strike a balance between a state owned enterprise where you have to make a profit, and caring for it's citizens.
 
fairandbalanced said:
Well I am all for regulating the private insurers, but here in New Zealand there is a government run insurance scheme called ACC. It compensates victims for accidents and such things. But the government has managed it so poorly it's millions of dollars in debt. It's hard for a government to strike a balance between a state owned enterprise where you have to make a profit, and caring for it's citizens.
Click to expand...

I guess everything really is topsy turvy down undah! you have it backwards: "state owned enterprises" are non-profit. private run healthcare is for profit
 
CptStern said:
I guess everything really is topsy turvy down undah! you have it backwards: "state owned enterprises" are non-profit. private run healthcare is for profit
Click to expand...

No legally State owned Enterprises are required to make the corporation commercially viable., according to the Cabinet Manual In New Zealand. In simplified terms, it acts like a Private Corporation with accountability of a Public run organisation. This is also true with KiwiRail. Since the Rail system is publicly owned.
 
CptStern said:
I guess everything really is topsy turvy down undah! you have it backwards: "state owned enterprises" are non-profit. private run healthcare is for profit
Click to expand...

Because it makes total sense to run an enterprise in the red!

In order to sustain itself an enterprise needs to stay in the black. Look at social security it's going to the red and is going to fall apart in not too long.

You can't logically spend more than you make. It doesn't make sense unless you're speaking about debt and if you are adding further debt is just as stupid.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Because it makes total sense to run an enterprise in the red!

In order to sustain itself an enterprise needs to stay in the black. Look at social security it's going to the red and is going to fall apart in not too long.

You can't logically spend more than you make. It doesn't make sense unless you're speaking about debt and if you are adding further debt is just as stupid.
Click to expand...

Health-care is important, and it should be a right. If it means prioritizing spending away from other areas then so be it, there aren't many government services more necessary or fundamental than health-care. It is arguably as important as having a police or fire department.

The government runs lots of services that in and of themselves aren't profitable. Not to mention that by ensuring proper health-care for as many as possible the average cost per person would drop by keeping them in good health and avoiding emergency expenditures. As of now our tax dollars go to a lot of shit we don't need and doesn't help us (Iraq war for instance), that money would be far better allocated to health-care.
 
fairandbalanced said:
No legally State owned Enterprises are required to make the corporation commercially viable., according to the Cabinet Manual In New Zealand. In simplified terms, it acts like a Private Corporation with accountability of a Public run organisation. This is also true with KiwiRail. Since the Rail system is publicly owned.
Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with the healthcare system in your neck of the woods. that sounds more like regullatory body overseeing a private company

RakuraiTenjin said:
because it makes total sense to run an enterprise in the red!
Click to expand...

if it's government funded then it's the norm. just ask your local school board

RakuraiTenjin said:
In order to sustain itself an enterprise needs to stay in the black. Look at social security it's going to the red and is going to fall apart in not too long.

You can't logically spend more than you make. It doesn't make sense unless you're speaking about debt and if you are adding further debt is just as stupid.
Click to expand...


which is why a privately run healthcare system cares more about it's profit margin than you the customer. it's ok when it's the auto industry or toothpaste but when people's very lives are at stake squeezing out every last nickle out of the client while providing as little coverage as is possible (the norm in all insurance industries) it's appalling. Many of you are in favour of corporations making money on human misery and you'll willingly trade your well being for someone elses gain. really, it's like they have you hook line and sinker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top