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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


My son is above the 97th percentile in both weight and height for his age. I assure you that he is very healthy and active. He isn't obese by any means. He doesn't eat all day nor does he eat any more than my other kids ate at the same age. He is just really big.

So should I go to jail because my son is just bigger than most kids his age?




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
And being so warm and kind, you will have no issue *paying* for this child's medical bills then? If you contact the publisher of the article saying you'd like to pay for his bills, I'm sure they'd put you through to the child's parents so you can pay.

It's so fantastic there's so many people will to help out!


The problem isn't that they can't pay, the problem is the insurance company wouldn't even give them the chance to pay.

The baby looks perfectly healthy, and is perfectly healthy. If the mom pays me a certain amount of money every month (like real insurance), then I would GLADLY pay for their health care bills, because I know over time she will pay it off (that is what insurance does).

So yes, I would GLADLY pay their health care bills, ESPECIALY if I had my own insurance company. I would do anything to save a life.




Originally posted by sos37
I agree with the other poster. Since you think it's such a great idea, please contact the family and have them deduct a portion of YOUR wages every paycheck so you can help their child maintain insurance.

Thank you.


You also made the same mistake. The family can pay for insurance, the problem is, the insurance company denied them insurance.

If the mom pays me like she would pay an insurance company, I would gladly pay the kids health care bills.

Unlike you people, if I saw some kid get hit by a car, I would rush to help him, and donate to help pay for his health bills. It seems like the majority of you would rather turn your back.




[edit on 13-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


....and you will be the person who gets in a car accident that isn't your fault, and you will be in critical condition, and on life support, maybe even in a comma, costing you $10,000 a day for a couple weeks. Effectively bankrupting your entire family (unless you are rich).

That could all be avoided with health insurance.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


The insurance company also feels this is a flaw... so your defense is defenseless...

The boy is NOT obese... only by adult standards... for an INFANT he is healthy.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
And this is where the flaw of a pure capitalist society is seen.

Someone pointed out that if this was a car insurance company, people wouldnt have a issue with them deciding not to insure someone for whatever reason they chose (although alcoholism is a choice that an adult makes, not a circumstance a baby is dealing with)

I think ultimately, socialism in some areas and capitalism in other areas is the "perfect" society...make sure everyone has the basics in life and let them work for the left.

If you think differently, question why you think that way...sure, a person whom smokes pot all day, unemployeed whom isnt even bothering looking for a job, etc doesnt deserve to live in the same conditions a hard working provider lives in, and heres the deal...they dont. but when 2 people are sick, it really doesnt matter who or what they are, they deserve to be treated, period. human life is either cheap or its irreplacable, make your choice and accept that...however, if you decide to choose the life is cheap philosophy, then never consider yourself anything less than morally bankrupt.

am I a fan if socialized health care? you betcha..(but not for elective surgery...want a boob job...work for it)

Heres a thought...lets say it went fully socialized...your company you work for suddenly no longer has to shell out loads of cash to cover you...more money to pay you per hour for your services (or stuff in their pockets as profit, but the more profit they make, the more they have to pay anyhow so chances are they will just toss the savings down to the employees to make them happy, or hire more employees)

I think a socio-capitalistic society is the pinnicle of cultural success.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted 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]


The insurance company also feels this is a flaw... so your defense is defenseless...

The boy is NOT obese... only by adult standards... for an INFANT he is healthy.

Um, I'm not defending the insurance company. I DID say it wasn't my opinion....read it again.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I think the Rocky Mountain health company is very small and
inexperienced. If you read this article, they seem to be
pretty naive.

www.gjsentinel.com...

They "don't have much experience with insuring children"? I don't
think this is a health insurance company you'd want to have your
family with.
-cwm



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

The problem isn't that they can't pay, the problem is the insurance company wouldn't even give them the chance to pay.

The baby looks perfectly healthy, and is perfectly healthy. If the mom pays me a certain amount of money every month (like real insurance), then I would GLADLY pay for their health care bills, because I know over time she will pay it off (that is what insurance does).


Again, that's fantastic of you. But you see, in the real world, not fantasy land, we have what's called a business model. And whether you can accept it or not, that's what keeps you in your underpants and eating your food and driving your car and living in your house with your electricity, etc.

And an insurance company is no different. They have shareholders who they answer to and staff to pay. They cannot just "hand out" money on what, statistically speaking, is a potentially high risk of large health bills due to existing health concerns - in this case, obesity. In the end, it's their money they're handing out. And "being nice" isn't a viable option for a successful business.

So yes, you go and pay out your money and help them - be the good samaritan that you are. And when they cannot pay you back, and you *need* that money, you can hold your head up high and say, "I feel good about myself".



So yes, I would GLADLY pay their health care bills, ESPECIALY if I had my own insurance company. I would do anything to save a life.


Not with your busines model you wouldn't - you'd have no money to pay for anything as you're basing your insurable customers on emotion, not logic or reason. You'd be paying out to *everyone* you had a sob over and your company would collapse as you'd have no money.



Unlike you people, if I saw some kid get hit by a car, I would rush to help him, and donate to help pay for his health bills. It seems like the majority of you would rather turn your back.


Somewhat correct. I'd call the police and paramedics and give my statements. But that's it. I feel no need to pay for others. That's why I pay my taxes.


[edit on 14-10-2009 by noonebutme]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 




news.bbc.co.uk...

should those parents go to jail because there baby is on the 99th centile

AT BIRTH



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   
There is no reason for a baby to be refused health insurance. The government is not the answer, they can barely run a DMV line, much less our health care.

I agree on a reform, but I havent seen anything logical yet.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
im sorry there is one thing in a baby being chubby... they all are. if not, then where does the term baby-fat come from?

but there is a huge difference between a chubby baby, and a overly fat, or obese baby.

i guess instead of seeing what the company sees, i guess we should go ahead and get the kid a wheelchair so he can move around like the rest of us, put in a mcdonalds every 2 feet so it doesnt have to go hungry ever (its a disease you know), and make sure to give him handicapped parking access (because who would want the little chunker to have to exert himself.

god, this is just a downward spiral of crap!

like seriously... 74.52.120.66...

[edit on 10/14/2009 by mahtoosacks]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





haha steve. you were really trying there and got shot down at every turn...

i feel bad for you, unlike that fat baby. i dont feel bad for anything that gets OVER-NOURISHED!



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


breast feeeding is on demand , was a larger baby when he was born

its not as if he can go for a run/walk/crawl even sit up on his own without help


so how , with breast feeding on demand , which health advisors actually want mums to do - is the baby `over nourished`?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
That child is not overweight, he is just too short for his weight. I should be 7 feet tall.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


breast feeeding is on demand , was a larger baby when he was born

its not as if he can go for a run/walk/crawl even sit up on his own without help


so how , with breast feeding on demand , which health advisors actually want mums to do - is the baby `over nourished`?


obviously then there is more to this story then just breast feeding.

possibly the mom eats mcdonalds 24/7 and its passing through to the kid?

who knows, but babies shouldnt be enormous, if all they get is a little tit.

i just dont see the problem with some small-time insurance company protecting its business model.

maybe one of the bigger ones could help, they probably charge more than the family wants tho huh.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by mahtoosacks
 


breast feeeding is on demand , was a larger baby when he was born

its not as if he can go for a run/walk/crawl even sit up on his own without help


so how , with breast feeding on demand , which health advisors actually want mums to do - is the baby `over nourished`?


obviously then there is more to this story then just breast feeding.

possibly the mom eats mcdonalds 24/7 and its passing through to the kid?

who knows, but babies shouldnt be enormous, if all they get is a little tit.

i just dont see the problem with some small-time insurance company protecting its business model.

maybe one of the bigger ones could help, they probably charge more than the family wants tho huh.


The mom is skinny, so she probably eats healthy. She may just be passing on extra nutrients to the baby than an unhealthy mom would.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join