Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

Topic started on 13-10-2009 @ 12:14 AM by TheOracle

Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance

www.denverpost.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:14 AM by TheOracle

Another reason why the health care reform is needed. The family and baby dont have to suffer because of the insurer's greed. It is clearly not the child or parents at fault, I mean it's not like he should start to hit the gym at 4 months, so he can enjoy equal medical care!
I read somewhere that a former Utah governor tried to bring universal healthcare but as he said :
"the insurers won't let me"

Sad

www.denverpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:19 AM by stevegmu

How is not insuring someone who is a high risk greed? Insurance is a business, not welfare or a charity. They are private companies who can choose who they will or will not insure. That kid looks like he will have diabetes by the time he's on solid food.
Would you call an auto insurance company greedy is they refused to insure an alcoholic?

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:24 AM by Bunch

reply to post by TheOracle

And the republican response:No reform need it. The system is working perfectly. Let him die a quick death so he dont become a burden to the system.

It is ironic that this is hapenning to a family that can actually afford for insurance...this is crazy.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:26 AM by Bunch

reply to post by stevegmu

Cars....kids...cars...human beings....cars..... I'm I missing something?

Maybe I dont understand...

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Bunch]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:47 AM by ziggy1706

I think this is about mandatory health insurance, which is what alot are thinking its about. Go to prison and be fined for not having it..in this case, the kid was denied by the systems momentum. so does that mean, the 4 month gets hauled off to city jail, becasue the system denied him?

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 12:48 AM by sdcigarpig

This makes absolutely no sense. The childs diet is just breast milk, so why is the insurance company denying him? Why are the insurance companies so quick to jump on the denial road, instead of doing some good and saying, do a few tests, find out what is going on and see if it is something that could affect more than one child. Why are they choosing to be the villians instead of the heros. My advice to the parents is to get in touch with St. Judes to assist with the health of their child and take the insurance company to court.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:06 AM by MadDogtheHunter

Let me play the devils advocate here for a moment. DISCLAIMER: What I am about to post, is NOT my personal opinion, just a hypothetical viewpoint from the insurers side of things.....

The child is deemed to be obese. Obesity is a burden and a major risk for the insurers. Just like with smokers, they don't like to insure people that are deemed a major "risk". The potential insurer(s) see a future loss on said child.

Again, not my personal opinion at all. Just voicing what the insurance company is most likely thinking. I could be wrong...but I don't think so.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:15 AM by eldard

This is cool. I'm all for discriminating against fat people. Even at a young age.

*Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by semperfortis]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:43 AM by amazed

reply to post by eldard

That was just completely uncalled for. Especially from someone who is an adult in regards to a 4 month old child. Though I would sometimes expect it from some children who do not know better towards other children.

In regards to this issue, ALL children should have insurance no matter what. No matter if their parents are rich or poor, sick or healthy, all children should have health care.

Harm None
Peace

[edit on 13-10-2009 by amazed]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 01:50 AM by MadDogtheHunter

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by eldard

That was just completely uncalled for. Especially from someone who is an adult in regards to a 4 month old child. Though I would sometimes expect it from some children who do not know better towards other children.

In regards to this issue, ALL children should have insurance no matter what. No matter if their parents are rich or poor, sick or healthy, all children should have health care.

Harm None
Peace

[edit on 13-10-2009 by amazed]

Very well said. The children should NOT be punished for what TPTB decide to screw up. Children are people too, only smaller and less able to defend themselves.

Originally posted by eldard
This is cool. I'm all for discriminating against fat people. Even at a young age.

Work your butt off, fat**!

Sad, just sad.

[edit on 10/13/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 03:19 AM by Harlequin

how can the insurance comapny deem the child `fat` when BOTH his height and weight are on the same centile? that is the biggest indication that the child is growing properly , heck my own son was on the 95th centile till he was 2 - and now as an 11 year old he is `average ` height and weight

obama`s health care reform cannot come soon enough with crap like this.

greedy insurance companies.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 04:54 AM by ALLis0NE

Wow, I am appalled by some of the comments on this topic. It seems this world is full of heartless, emotionless, and careless people, and most of them have louder mouths then their opposites.

Denying an obese kid insurance because he is "high risk" is equivalent to a doctor denying to defibrillate someone who had a heart attack because he is "high risk" of having another heart attack, so there is no point, and it's a waste of resources to save his life.

Since that is the case, you might as well get rid of all fire departments and fire fighters because a house that is on fire is "high risk" and there is no point in wasting money to try to save it.

I understand that insurance companies loose money on "high risk" people, but I don't understand why we don't have a system that will still help these people. If health care reform will help people like in the O.P. then I am all for it.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 05:17 AM by whatukno

reply to post by stevegmu

The problem is this is exactly what insurance companies do. They don't really provide a service. Sure they will take a premium, until that is you develop something on their list that they can then drop you for.

Do you know that pregnancy is not covered under many health care companies because they deem it a pre existing condition?

This is what health care reform is all about. Insurance companies must be forced to allow everyone to be insured, and not drop a person because they have the problem of being insured and sick.

I grant you it is a business, and businesses are supposed to be in the game to make money and that's all right and good. But if you have bad service in order to make profits that's not good business.

"Oh thank you for your premium payment, oh what's that? A yeast infection 12 years ago? Oh that won't do, I am afraid we will have to drop you. Have a nice day, and pray you don't get sick."

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 06:50 AM by Maslo

I find this absolutely scandalous. How can USA call itself a developed country, when children with poor parents dont have acces to full healthcare?
Countries with half the HDP per capita of US provide full healthcare for everyone, not just children, payed by taxes, with little cost to patients.
Something is seriously wrong with the system...

EDIT: While unregulated private insurance company has the right to turn down anyone it wants, what will now happen with the child?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Maslo]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 07:08 AM by marg6043

[edit on 13-10-2009 by marg6043]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 07:08 AM by marg6043

reply to post by TheOracle

While the story sounds really like a poster propaganda for the health care reform I guess you have been behind when it comes to the latest news of what is going to become of pushed policies.

Private Insurance to raise cost after reform as much as $4,000

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dems scramble after warning from health insurers

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With the health care reform now the littler cute chubby baby will have health care but what the government is not telling is that is not public option, no free care and they will have to pay what the insurance wants them to pay because now private insurance are starting to realized that absorbing 40,000 million unisured is going to bankrupt their coffers, so either the government will have to give tax payer money for them to be able to come out with the cost or they will start closing their doors, either way we will be paying regardless becasue health care after all with the profiting or not profiting it does cost money, the money we will be paying because it will be mandatory

[edit on 13-10-2009 by marg6043]

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 07:16 AM by lpowell0627

There's a problem with this article.

In NJ, children are covered when one of the parents has insurance. This is the case until that child is 18 and/or 21 if attending college. There are no forms to fill out or tests done on said child to determine if the insurance company deems him/her insurance worthy.

Coupled with the claim that they most certainly can afford coverage, this just does not add up. I bet several insruance companies would bet on the health of a 4 month old -- regardless of weight.

I'll chalk this article up to being the rebuttle to the Republican sides':

One year old baby dead from swine flu vaccine.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 07:21 AM by whatukno

reply to post by marg6043

Here's how I see it.

Sure health care companies are in the business of making money. What they don't seem to understand is that competition is a good thing and if they want to compete with say a nationalized health care system they should. What they have to do is offer a better service for equal or less than the government run option.

Let them sell cross state lines, like they don't do that anyway.

I know the current plan doesn't have one but the other chamber says that they will put one in.

In that event capitalism wins. The best companies that can do it for less succeed the ones that raise the rates through the roof fail. Good. That's capitalism for you. Hopefully they won't get a tax payer bailout when they succumb to their own disastrous corporate policy.

reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 07:25 AM by Komodo

reply to post by TheOracle

yep .. my brother had to go in for a weight check up and he's WELL within his height and weigth, but if he didn't ..

they would have denied him as well.. This was about 2 months ago.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^