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.

 

Newborn denied health coverage over ‘pre-existing condition’

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
rawstory.com...




Children might not receive protection from 'pre-existing exclusion' until 2014: AP

Houston Tracy was only a few days old when he ran into one of the most controversial elements of the US health care system: Being denied coverage for a "pre-existing condition."

The newborn from Crowley, Texas, near Fort Worth, was diagnosed with a condition known as d-transformation of the great arteries. The two major vessels that carry blood to and from Houston's lungs are reversed. Oxygen-rich blood flows back to the lungs; oxygen-starved blood flows through his body instead, damaging his heart.

Shortly after his March 15 birth, Houston's parents, Doug and Kim Tracy, were notified by BlueCross BlueShield of Texas that their son doesn't qualify for health insurance because of his "pre-existing condition."

"How can he have a pre-existing condition if the baby didn't exist until now?" Doug Tracy asked the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Story continues below...

The Tracys' health care situation is somewhat complex. According to the CBS affiliate in Dallas, the Tracys are small business owners who can't afford health insurance for themselves. They did, however, purchase plans for their two other children.


Is this the situation that the "for profit" medical industry has brought us to?

I don't know what the solution is, but for a nation that prides itself to being one of the "good guys" to sacrifice it's young for profit; It's hypocritical and just wrong.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by whaaa]




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I was reading a story the other day about a sister who donated a kidney to her sister so that she may survive. But then the donor was denied health coverage for having a pre-existing condition.

Obviously this infants condition is going to be very expensive. My heart breaks for the newborn. So the health insurance company doesn't want the cost. My guess is it will require major surgery by expensive professionals to reverse the problem, then a lifetime of monitoring.

IT must be a rare condition, I have never heard of it before.


That poor poor family.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Perhaps we can get that guy to yell at the newborn and throw bills at the baby?




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
OMG! Is this really happening in the US ?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This wouldn't happen here in Canada. The downside here though: the required procedure might take more time to happen then in the US, if she wasn't denied care.

Folks, don't buy into the argument that Canadian health care sux. There tends to be longer wait times and we do pay higher taxes (arguably) for "free" health care. Far and away, for the most part, our system is fantastic. I choose my Doctor and we choose the path to my care. Period. Rarely, there are times that the best course of action is to go Stateside or to another country for the best appropriate care; but then, sometimes Americans come to Canada for that very reason. Also, dental and vision care is not paid by the state for the patient.

No death squads. Now mindja....Revenue Canada (our IRS) isn't about to withhold tax returns for health care,either.

Jason



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by St-Patrick
OMG! Is this really happening in the US ?


Been happening forever...this whole health care reform thing corrected it, but wont kick in for a few years unfortunately..until then, the parents are just going to have to do what everyone else has done in this situation...go broke



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hthjason
This wouldn't happen here in Canada. The downside here though: the required procedure might take more time to happen then in the US, if she wasn't denied care.

No death squads. Now mindja....Revenue Canada (our IRS) isn't about to withhold tax returns for health care,either.

Jason


I was going to mention that the baby would probably be fine in Canada, as we often bump extreme instances like this to the front of the line.

However...Revenue Canada will hold your return for non payment of your health insurance and the health insurance act WILL take your wages if you don't pay them, but you wont be denied coverage. Read the fine print, I was in this situation when I was 18, and just by being covered you agree to a whole bunch. Now, the upside is you will always be covered, but you better make sure you stay current with the health insurance payments... +/- 40$ a month...depending on income in many areas.

..Ex



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
But, but, but... Healthcare reform!?!?!?!?!? I thought his majesty Obama fixed all of that! What happened?

O wait... that's right... None of the provisions kick in for another 4 years, after his highness' bid for re-election. I wonder why that is? If this BIll is great, will save so much money and so many lives, and we HAD to pass it right away, then why the long wait for it to go into effect? That alone should alert everyone to the fact that this bill is inherently flawed!

Oh, and they forgot to write in provisions to protect children anyway.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by hthjason
This wouldn't happen here in Canada. The downside here though: the required procedure might take more time to happen then in the US, if she wasn't denied care.

No death squads. Now mindja....Revenue Canada (our IRS) isn't about to withhold tax returns for health care,either.

Jason


I was going to mention that the baby would probably be fine in Canada, as we often bump extreme instances like this to the front of the line.

However...Revenue Canada will hold your return for non payment of your health insurance and the health insurance act WILL take your wages if you don't pay them, but you wont be denied coverage. Read the fine print, I was in this situation when I was 18, and just by being covered you agree to a whole bunch. Now, the upside is you will always be covered, but you better make sure you stay current with the health insurance payments... +/- 40$ a month...depending on income in many areas.

..Ex


40$ a month does not even cover my medication copays and that is after my insurance company forced my doctor to prescribe lower doses of some so they did not have to buy me as much as I am supposed to take. I pay way more than 40 bucks for my insurance and way more than 40 bucks on top of that for meds and they still deny me stuff. I would happily take the situation you speak of.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I'm just waiting for the ubiquitous "not out of my pocket" arguers to start somehow blaming the parents, or tell this deadbeat baby to go get a job and quit trying to leach off the system.

I know this healthcare reform act isn't the answer, I know it can be done better - but for God's sakes, the sooner pre-x dies a horrible death the better. To deny a newborn coverage that could save its life is inhumanly cruel


After thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure the parents don't have grounds for a lawsuit - prex is defined as a condition for which any reasonable and prudent person would have sought care for no less than six months before the onset of coverage; is that not the key phrase? Six months? Kinda hard to book a specialist when you're in utero...

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Legion2112]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


this is the republican ideal! profit over all! the libs wanted a public option or single payer. but nooooo, profit must come first. do not try and pin this on obama. the repubs had 8 years in charge and did nothing!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Hey...v3_exceed

You're correct. It musta slipped my mind...must have my head uo my...

Is that a pre-existing conditon?


Jason



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The HC debate has exposed America's dirty big secret to the rest of the world: the denial of payment, hence treatment, by the insurance industry, and the use of car washes and bake sales to pay for treatment.

The HC debate exposes the conflicted notions of "family values" and monetary values of industry. When you force families to bear children who need medical care, but then deny them care, that is unconscionable.

When Mr. Stupak was assured that HCR would be pro-life both pre- AND post-term, he was declared to be a "babykiller!!" I posit that the real babykillers and anti-family values politicians are those that support denial of payment, hence treatment, for babies, and the forced bankruptcies of families due to medical bills.

Those that voted No to HCR care more about monetary values than family values. Those that voted No to HCR did nothing when they had the power to do something like this.

Does the HCR do enough, and in a timely manner? No. But at least it puts out there the notion that health care is a right, not a business deal, and THAT is the reason many find it distasteful.

Those religiously based GOP politicians proved you cannot serve two masters. They served their corporate masters well.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


It's stories like these that will relegate the GOP into the party of hate and obsolescence no matter how hard Rush, Sean, Savage, and beck try to keep up the charade of pro life.






[edit on 27-3-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
rawstory.com...

Is this the situation that the "for profit" medical industry has brought us to?

I don't know what the solution is, but for a nation that prides itself to being one of the "good guys" to sacrifice it's young for profit; It's hypocritical and just wrong.

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by whaaa]


I've heard so many hundreds of complains like this on the internet. The best solution if you really care is to start your own insurance company. I'd be more than happy to help guide you through it if you U2U me.

I'm sick of the attitude "Oh I don't know what to do... I'll just contact my congress and have them and the corporations they work for come up with something." Yeah, great plan bozos. Or not. You've got to do this stuff yourself. If history shows us anything its that people aren't going to implement solutions for you, though they'll implement plenty of laws and busybody stuff to make you think they are doing something when all they are doing is politics.

The very notion that there are two words: one for charity and another for politics should tell you that government does not work entirely for the public good nor will they ever. If politicians were so good we'd be calling them charity workers.

So again, if you don't like it, help fix it YOURSELF and ask people to join you. Again, I'll gladly send you basically all the ideas in the world on how this could be done.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest






So again, if you don't like it, help fix it YOURSELF and ask people to join you. Again, I'll gladly send you basically all the ideas in the world on how this could be done.


Thanks, but the information you speak of is readily available on the www.

I think it may take awhile but if enough people finally get sick of the status quo, perhaps we can get some people in office that really do care about the citizens instead of the mega corps. I would still like to think that the voting process the founding fathers put in place, can work.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
How did this woman die if she had other options at her disposal? Did she really have other options at her disposal or is this just the pundits on FOX news grasping at straws?

I ask only because there are so many conflicting stories in regards to US health care.

Some say she would have been treated, insurance or no insurance. Other stories claim that tens of thousands of Americans have died because they were unable to afford to insure themselves, and on and on the list goes.

How exactly does your current system function? Are people down there truly left to die if they cannot afford to pay for their treatment, are they treated no questions asked, or is the truth somewhere in the middle?

To an individual outside of America, it certainly seems confusing.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Yep, I was just discussing this now. And the fact is this isnt the first we hear of a such a case as these examples have been presented time and time again.

Iv come across both conservatives and liberals who agree that such situations facing americans like baby Houston here are disgusting and an example of this broken healthcare system. Something needs to be done regardless of whether you agree with this reform bill or not.

S+F



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Its not about dems and pubics, its about the second largest ponzi scheme on the planet...
And every one knows what the first is...



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by kozmo
 


this is the republican ideal! profit over all! the libs wanted a public option or single payer. but nooooo, profit must come first. do not try and pin this on obama. the repubs had 8 years in charge and did nothing!


And this is something new that started in the past 10 years? Yes the republicans should have fixed it but that was what Obama was elected to do. They went it alone and still didn't pass the public option. They did however decide to pass a bill that was a massive handout to corporations. It showed me exactly where their loyalty stands. Big companies are running both parties and you are completely blind if you can't see it.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join