• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

10-Day-Old Baby Denied Health Care Coverage

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
It seems that a newborn was denied being added to a policy by BC/BS because it had a pre-existing condition.

"The congenital heart defect causes the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart to become switched.

It's a condition rarely detected before birth."

link: http://cbs11tv.com/local/Baby.denied.coverage.2.1587978.html

So, I guess there was no need to try to fix anything about health care. The current state is just fine.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,573
126
Doug and Kim Tracy, who live in Crowley and are self-employed, carry health insurance on their other two children. They said they cannot afford insurance for themselves.

They paid out of pocket for Kim Tracy's neonatal care and the baby's delivery. Doug Tracy said they were told that they could apply for insurance for Houston within 30 days of his birth.

A spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas declined to comment but issued a statement saying, "Our policy is that if a family has existing coverage with us, a baby can be added to the contract within 31 days without the need for underwriting to assess the baby's eligibility."

But that's only if the parents have coverage, said the spokeswoman, Margaret Jarvis. Read that with the emphasis on parents.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/25/2068267/crowley-newborn-with-heart-defect.html#tvg#ixzz0jHOCfekf
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
So... now it's the company's fault because the parents made the choice not to insure themselves? Are you idiot liberals devoid of all rational thought?? (rhetorical question, I know the answer is "yes").
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
It seems that a newborn was denied being added to a policy by BC/BS because it had a pre-existing condition.

"The congenital heart defect causes the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart to become switched.

It's a condition rarely detected before birth."

link: http://cbs11tv.com/local/Baby.denied.coverage.2.1587978.html

So, I guess there was no need to try to fix anything about health care. The current state is just fine.
The healthcare bill passed by Democrats can't fix the issue of stupidity.
The parents decided not to get coverage for themselves which means their baby won't be automatically covered.

Legislation can't fix stupidity. Sorry.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
So... now it's the company's fault because the parents made the choice not to insure themselves? Are you idiot liberals devoid of all rational thought?? (rhetorical question, I know the answer is "yes").
On the other hand, why should a baby be punished because of the bad decisions of the parents? A life should be protected, but once one slides down the birth canal, fuck 'em? Are conservatives devoid of all rational thought and compassion? (rhetorical question, I know the answer is "yes").

Seriously, this isn't a matter of liberal/conservative. Our healthcare system fails the needs of our society at large, even with the recent reforms. For someone that young, insurance shouldn't even enter into the equation if we had a sane system in place.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,636
15,985
136
Under a single payer system we wouldn't be having this discussion. The baby would be covered, the parents would be covered, even the right wingers would be covered.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
The healthcare bill passed by Democrats can't fix the issue of stupidity.
The parents decided not to get coverage for themselves which means their baby won't be automatically covered.

Legislation can't fix stupidity. Sorry.
Yes it can (excusing your ad hominem against the parents which you invoked without knowing nearly enough to make a legitimate case). It would be very simple to make the issuing of insurance for newborn not contingent on the coverage of the parents. Make every person's policy separate, and allow group discounts to create the equivalent of existing family policies.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
On the other hand, why should a baby be punished because of the bad decisions of the parents? A life should be protected, but once one slides down the birth canal, fuck 'em? Are conservatives devoid of all rational thought and compassion? (rhetorical question, I know the answer is "yes").

Seriously, this isn't a matter of liberal/conservative. Our healthcare system fails the needs of our society at large, even with the recent reforms. For someone that young, insurance shouldn't even enter into the equation if we had a sane system in place.

The OP was blaming the insurance company because BCBS wouldn't add the baby to the parent's policy. That would be the policy the parent's didn't have.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
On the other hand, why should a baby be punished because of the bad decisions of the parents?
You are so right.

From what I heard the second the hospital learned that the baby didn't have coverage they unplugged it and dumped it on some curb.
 

jalaram

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
12,920
2
81
The OP was blaming the insurance company because BCBS wouldn't add the baby to the parent's policy. That would be the policy the parent's didn't have.
I understand what you're saying, but it could be said that the parents do have a policy.

Doug and Kim Tracy, who live in Crowley and are self-employed, carry health insurance on their other two children.
Are the kids paying for it? I'm guessing the parents are paying for it and have their names as the main contact. They just don't get benefits.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Under a single payer system we wouldn't be having this discussion. The baby would be covered, the parents would be covered, even the right wingers would be covered.
Yes, and the quality of care given would be similar to the quality of our education system.

Look at the problems in England and the lack of hospitals.

Instead of reading about how this baby is still alive after a major surgery we'd be reading stories like this:
Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html#ixzz0jHqHDOAR

or

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
I understand what you're saying, but it could be said that the parents do have a policy.

Are the kids paying for it? I'm guessing the parents are paying for it and have their names as the main contact. They just don't get benefits.
The parents have a policy for their two kids, not one covering themselves or other kids they have.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,636
15,985
136
Yes, and the quality of care given would be similar to the quality of our education system.
The most significant quality issue with our educational system is the quality of parenting. Figure out how to fix that and the educational system is fixed. The quality of health care doesn't really matter unless you can actually get it.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
On the other hand, why should a baby be punished because of the bad decisions of the parents? A life should be protected, but once one slides down the birth canal, f**k 'em? Are conservatives devoid of all rational thought and compassion? (rhetorical question, I know the answer is "yes").
The usual liberal bleeding heart logical fallacy. Show me where exactly anyone argued that the baby should be "punished" for anything, and show me where anyone argued that the baby should not receive the medical care he needs? For that matter, show me where any conservative argues that the health care system is wonderful and doesn't need any fixing? Just because they don't agree with socialist takeover doesn't mean they don't think it needs fixed.

The facts of this case are that the baby got the care needed, now it's a matter of who's paying for it. The insurance company -- correctly -- says that they are not covering it because the baby is not covered by one of their policies. Don't let the facts get in the way of your liberal knee jerk reaction though.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I understand what you're saying, but it could be said that the parents do have a policy.



Are the kids paying for it? I'm guessing the parents are paying for it and have their names as the main contact. They just don't get benefits.
The conditions for children being covered was that the family have coverage. If they had coverage for themselves then the baby would have been covered.

I understand that the child needs treatment, and it got it. What did not happen was "Hey, I want to sign my kid up. Here is a thousand bucks and a bill for a million".

Now it may seem cruel to people that the insurance company did this, but let's suppose someone decided to take accounting of who thinks this was a bad thing and simply debited their savings to pay for it. Suddenly there would be quite the reversal. It seems that someone should pay for this, just as long as it's an insurance company (which would soon be broke and everyone without coverage)

This is another ridiculous example of emotion overpowering rational thought. Too many people have the "well if you don't support this you are supporting baby killing" mentality.

Sorry no. Health care needs reform. We could have easily (and relatively quickly) have provided an insurance subsidy for people who find themselves suddenly in catastrophic circumstances. We weren't offered that as an option. Instead we get this huge hog of a non thought out bill.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,636
15,985
136
The usual liberal bleeding heart logical fallacy. Show me where exactly anyone argued that the baby should be "punished" for anything, and show me where anyone argued that the baby should not receive the medical care he needs? For that matter, show me where any conservative argues that the health care system is wonderful and doesn't need any fixing? Just because they don't agree with socialist takeover doesn't mean they don't think it needs fixed.

The facts of this case are that the baby got the care needed, now it's a matter of who's paying for it. The insurance company -- correctly -- says that they are not covering it because the baby is not covered by one of their policies. Don't let the facts get in the way of your liberal knee jerk reaction though.
Show us where the conservatives have proposed a comprehensive fix. The problems with the current system have been well known since at least Truman so that's six Republican administrations who could have proposed a fix.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
The most significant quality issue with our educational system is the quality of parenting. Figure out how to fix that and the educational system is fixed. The quality of health care doesn't really matter unless you can actually get it.
The most significant quality issue with our healthcare system is the quality of the patients.

As a country we are overweight, have bad diets and don't exercise.

Ask Hayabusa how many of the prescriptions he fills are for medicines that deal with those three problems.

In 1995 obesity cost our healthcare system $51 billion or about 5% of all healthcare expenditures. By 2003 that number was up to $93 billion.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,366
740
126
Ya... poor ppl, they have 2 children with preexisting condition, and no job and just enough money to pay to insure 2 individuals and THEN they appect another "gift from god" and suddenly get this shock... insurance companies are devils.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Show us where the conservatives have proposed a comprehensive fix. The problems with the current system have been well known since at least Truman so that's six Republican administrations who could have proposed a fix.
And several democrat administrations. You want the honest truth? Because Health Care Reform is lower on the list of things people worry about and want addressed by their govt.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY