Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
It boils down to the established understanding of what constitutes "family" coverage. That would be the adults and the children. Instead of signing up for that, they elected to pay for individual coverage. Now they want to sign up someone as another individual, not add to a family policy.Well, my confusion is about the age of the child. It's not like this kid is months old, its days old. Can you sign up a child for health insurance before it is born? If not, I don't see how the parents were irresponsible. They have paid for coverage for their other two children, so it seems like they would have bought coverage for this child too irregardless of the condition. I'm not sure them failing to purchase insurance for themselves is sufficient reason for their child to be denied coverage, especially when they pay for coverage for their other two kids. That just doesn't make sense to me. I'm missing something.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have to have coverage, just that I don't see how the connection between them not buying coverage for themselves and denying coverage for their child (when they buy coverage for their other children).
Do I like the situation? No, not at all, but the parents elected to do this for whatever reason.
We need to look at the situation and define it in reality. Yes, the baby was denied a policy. No the baby won't be denied health care. The real question in this case is who will pay for it. Should the parents be held accountable for their actions? Should the insurance company be forced to take this on although there was never a contract for them to do so? Should the hospital absorb the loss? Could should it then be able to recoup expenses through tax credits or other means? Should the government do it?
Lots of questions. The one which is not an issue is if the child will be tossed out. The answer to that is no.