It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I should have said "developed countries".

I don't want anybody leaving this thread thinking everything is just fine, and all the states take care of pre-natal women and new borns, and that southern babies are chubby and healthy because of the great plan.

That is simply not the case. You can narrow it down even more, and reduce the equation to rule out caucasions, and then it really shoots up.
Drugs have much to do with it, too, by the way, and women who simply do not take advantage of their options for whatever reasons. So there are reasons for it other than simply lack of options.

It is also true these women and babies wind up in free-clinics which are frighteningly inadequate to serve this population.

But the stats are the stats.




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
That baby is just a giant baby. Perfectly normal...just way big. He will be a BIG toddler to no doubt.

My friends baby was like this and her 17 yr old son is now 6 foot 7 and perfectly proportionate.
Big football guys and basketball stars make babys that are such a size.....

My son was born just under 10 lbs.........and with 4 months of growth it would have been reasonable for him to weigh 17 lbs......he did not though.....my 17 yr old is 5.9.......

ANYWAY the insurance company has now changed they're tune and they ARE insuring this normal big baby.... however its a dam shame that they had to be publicly embarrassed into doing the right thing.
Think of all the more shy people that are not quite willing to bring such a personal dilemma into the public light.........and never get things worked out for the better.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'm not really an advocate of Obama's healthcare reform for various reasons. But that child is obese. He is bigger than his mother. And yet she says she is "not going to withhold food" from him? To me she is very stupid to say (do) such a thing. You don't starve your child, but you don't give in to every whim he has (food). That child's weight is atrocious and if I was the insurance company, I would deny him, too.

Edit:

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
That baby is just a giant baby. Perfectly normal...just way big. He will be a BIG toddler to no doubt.

My friends baby was like this and her 17 yr old son is now 6 foot 7 and perfectly proportionate.
Big football guys and basketball stars make babys that are such a size.....

My son was born just under 10 lbs.........and with 4 months of growth it would have been reasonable for him to weigh 17 lbs......he did not though.....my 17 yr old is 5.9.......

ANYWAY the insurance company has now changed they're tune and they ARE insuring this normal big baby.... however its a dam shame that they had to be publicly embarrassed into doing the right thing.
Think of all the more shy people that are not quite willing to bring such a personal dilemma into the public light.........and never get things worked out for the better.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by theRiverGoddess]


The picture to me seemed like he was an overfed obese child. However, if he is simply a giant baby with proportionate anatomy, then I agree, he should be insured. But I maintain my stance against the stupidity of overfed babies' parents.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by OrphenFire]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
(the first two paragraphs below are the "Devil's Advocate" version of my position on this):

The boy isn't being denied medical care -- he's being denied medical insurance...i.e., his parents can't pay a few months' worth of insurance premiums (a few hundred dollars) to automatically qualify for unlimited benefits (which could potentially be millions of $).

The child can still get medical care at any hospital his parents can afford (albeit the more affordable ones are usually not the best). PLUS he can actually get free medical coverage, because it is illegal to deny coverage to any person showing up in any emergency room, or even ask if they can afford the treatment. However THAT is true only for emergency rooms, and not true for ongoing care. If this boy eventually needs ongoing care (i.e., a single doctor who treats a possible condition on a regular basis), then his parents would need to pay for it themselves.

NOW, before you go bashing me, like I said above -- that was the "Devils Advocate" version of what I think. What I really think is that it is unfortunate that if you don't have insurance and have a condition that needs a doctors' ongoing attention, that the level of care you get is what you can afford.

However, while that is unfortunate,how exactly can we propose to help the uninsured? Should the American Taxpayers pay for the insurance benefits of others? This would be sort of like the Welfare System -- those of us with jobs will pay for those who don't have jobs and can't afford insurance.

Most taxpayers think their taxes are high enough. Add the burden of paying for the uninsured in America will probably not sit well with many Americans -- however, there is probably no such thing as a tax that "sits well" with the taxpayers.

Health care may be too expensive, and the reason for that is debatable -- is it the fault of the hospitals, or the fault of the insurance companies. Either way, health care reform should be about lowering the costs of health care.

If the costs are lower, than more people would be able to afford it -- and insurance companies may be able to insure more people with "risks" or "pre-existing conditions" (allegedly like this boy).

[edit on 10/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
My above rant was about health care in general, but in this specific case...

It's important to point out that in this specific case, the article says that baby was in fact covered under the parents' existing health insurance, but when they shopped around for cheaper insurance, the cheaper insurance company denied coverage. -- which sounds fishy, because that is illegal in most states. That is, if I switch insurance companies and there is no gap in coverage (this is important) -- that is if I don't go a month without coverage -- then the second company can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

If the family let their insurance lag -- that is if they dropped their insurance for a while then tried to get new insurance, then that is partially their fault. A child born to an insured parent cannot be denied coverage by the parent's insurance company, and in switching companies without a gap in insurance, a person cannot be denied because of pre-existing conditions.

The bottom line is, if they had continuous coverage (even from multiple companies), the baby would be eligible for that coverage, no matter what. If the parents stopped the coverage of the baby's original insurance altogether, then the parents made a mistake.

In this case, the exiting company didn't deny coverge. However, they did raise their rates 40%. Some rate increase is expected when a child is born (and extra person to cover) but 40% may be excessive. The 40% may have been a combination of a "regular" annual increase PLUS the expected increase from the parents adding another dependent to the insurance plan.


[edit on 10/13/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I don't see it as a problem with the insurance company so much as I see a problem with their Dr.'s, nutritionists and nurses who set the guidelines. Granted, these guidelines are in place for years, and they didn't invent them, but our nutritionists and our food pyramid is ALL wrong. The pyramid is almost upside down in terms of what and how much we should be eating, and it's quite obvious that BMI indexes are utter crap. They do not work. Especially for infants.

There's many of us who wouldn't need to see dr's too often at all if we ignored the food pyramid, ignored BMI's and just ate the 40/40/20 that our ancestors (far back) ate. (That 40/40/20 is protein, carbs, fats/oils).

And we all need to throw away our scales.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
Insurance is a business, not welfare or a charity.


Umm, that's the problem and the reason for the much needed health care reform. Insurance IS a business, and as such, can choose who they wish to insure (to gain maximum profits). No insurance company wants to insure this child (along with millions of other people), therefore, a public option MUST be established. AT LEAST, the public option will NOT work for profit (and greed). Which makes sense...if no one wants them on their plan, then why deny the public option...do these people not deserve health care?

Just my 2-cents



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


I read up to here, although I know we all would like stuff to be fair it is not, first like somebody above said playing the devils advocate, the insurance is no a charity, they are talking about a private business or unless they talked about medicare or any goverment related program that offers help for heath purposes than I am wrong.

if you own your own business you could refuse ervice to anyone you see fit. same here.

I am really tired of the double standard aswell as the evil in big corps/companies.
___________________

Also great point that the poster above me, brings, if no private busines will provide insurance, automatic qualification for govt. aid.

"the kid is kinda big though... "

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Arsenis]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
dear whitehouse,no matter who you sign in as,or what tragic stories you fabricate,we dont want the "healthcare" you're shoving up my a**.
IF THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO,THEN HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO TRUST YOU WITH MY LIFE?
i love the way you're scoring a bill that isn't written/ do you ass-ume i'm stupid?
well pass what you want,because the fact that YOU MONETIZED THE DEBT,MEANS THAT WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE AN ECONOMY IN 2013!!!!

so run off to your little dark room and screw us to the wall like you've intended from the beginning by making up the bill in private,you traitors.

wake up everybody. obama wants to control healthcare because its the only solvent major business in america,and he can't stand see all that loot going by without getting a piece.

is everyone ready for black market healthcare? you better save your money!!!!!!

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasboy1022
It's simple!! EAT ACCORDINGLY!!!! PEOPLE FEED THEIR FAT ASS FACES WITH SOO MUCH # AND THEN BLAME IT ON SOME TYPE OF MEDICAL CONDITION!! IT'S ALL PASSED FROM PARENTS THAT HAVE UNHEALTHY EATING HABITS AND HER BREAST MILK IS EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING FOR THAT CHILD! WEIGHT LOSS IS SIMPLE PEOPLE, VITAMINS, PROTIEN, FOOD WITHOUT BUTTER, SEASONING...... SO ON!


STOP YELLING.

And what are you talking about? A 4 month old baby doesn't do ANY of the things you are rambling on about. Mothers milk not working?????

*sigh*



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
have you ever seen an insurance company check out a newborn? when i had my daughter, she was automatically added to my policy. get real people,. don't you think this is just a might timely????????????
:

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


we need healthcare reform but not the bills currently in the house, a goverment option will be the nail in the coffin for America, we cant afford. Make it a law that Insurance companies can not deny health insurance to any one, as A matter of fact anyone who wants to sale health insurance in America mst registar with OPM, and become part of the federal Health benefits plan, and allow all Americans to purchase Health Insurance under the current plan for federal employees. This also goes for 65 and up, take the current money we spen on medicare and the goverment can use that to pay for the 2/3 premuims that Federal Employees and Congress get. Its to damn easy and to damn simple. But do you think anyone will listen? Hell no they wont...

BTW because I did not read the four pages of things posted here the Insurance company changed there mind and allowed for the baby to get insurance....



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Its pathetic the US health system, watch the film SICKO for a better understanding



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


That baby is breast fed. It's 4 months old. So what should this lady do? Put her four month old on a diet? Furthermore the picture was shot at an angle to deliberately make that child look bigger than he is. I've had to take nude pictures to help a classmate with an art project years ago in the absence of actual fat women willing to be photographed. She merely photographed it at angles which stretched out the body making my 5'7 135 pound butt look closer to 190. There's some handy ones you can google up if you ever do need to make someone look bigger or the handy photoshop.



[edit on 13-10-2009 by antonia]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasboy1022
It's simple!! EAT ACCORDINGLY!!!! PEOPLE FEED THEIR FAT ASS FACES WITH SOO MUCH # AND THEN BLAME IT ON SOME TYPE OF MEDICAL CONDITION!! IT'S ALL PASSED FROM PARENTS THAT HAVE UNHEALTHY EATING HABITS AND HER BREAST MILK IS EVIDENTLY NOT WORKING FOR THAT CHILD! WEIGHT LOSS IS SIMPLE PEOPLE, VITAMINS, PROTIEN, FOOD WITHOUT BUTTER, SEASONING...... SO ON!


study some biology and you'll find its not as simple as you say. Meanwhile, I'm sure you're all for the 5'9" 90lbs females out there, like that can be healthy either.

by the way.. caps lock.. it's not cruise control for awesome anymore. sorry to tell you.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Yeah 17 lbs is atrocious...
Obviously you don't have kids.

The kid eats nothing but breast milk. He is not obese. He is just a really big 4 month old. The parents haven't done anything wrong. You are suppose to feed them as much as they want to eat at this age.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The child should get health care pending an investigation into the parents. If the parents caused this they should be fined or jailed and their child taken away.

If you are raising a child so poorly that NO insurance company sees him living past 10 then there is a much BIGGER problem here.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CoffinFeeder
 


Don't you know all babies should be pencil thin? Furthermore all women should have the bodies of Victoria's secret models. Men can be fat but they must have money.

Get to dieting people.

/sarcam

[edit on 13-10-2009 by antonia]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
The child should get health care pending an investigation into the parents. If the parents caused this they should be fined or jailed and their child taken away.

If you are raising a child so poorly that NO insurance company sees him living past 10 then there is a much BIGGER problem here.


But the child is being breast fed. How could a parent cause this? By their genetics...that's the only way to affect a child at such a young age. The child is not eating processed foods and I challenge anyone to tell me how an infant "exercises".

Just sayin'



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It's so wrong but i can't stop laughing. I mean, what madness is this? People actually saying the parents of a 4 month old breast-fed baby are at fault for making their kid fat. We already have pregnant women who refuse to eat properly for fear they will gain weight (www.momlogic.com...) and now we are gonna put the babies on diets. Whats next? Baby treadmills! I'm foreseeing a market for that right now.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by antonia]



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join