• 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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
yes actually it would. If the parents are wasting money on buying BMW's and a 4k sq/ft house instead of doing the right and responsible thing then i won't shed a tear as they are forced to pay for it.

im not saying don't treat the child. The child will get whatever care it needs. paying for it will be done by donations, write offs from the hospital and doctors, etc.

i get pissed that people waste money on non-essentials then cry that things that are a essential are to expensive then want others to pick up the cost.
This is typical tea-bagger nonsense. I have a fundamental human right to housing, insurance (of all types), transportation, power, food, internet, and employment (or funds to replace employment). Who is the government to tell me what I can spend on those? It's the government's role to replace them if I can't afford them anymore.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
it might change an opinion, but they still aren't going to get insurance for the child. It won't actually change anything that matters to the health of the baby.

The child is still not going to get all of the therapy services that are "optional".

Sick babies are the most expensive claims I ever see. A few months in the nicu is a million dollar bill, and you aren't going to get that from write-offs, donations or bake sales.

i disagree. The baby is going ot get care. perhaps nto the best care possible. but then that goes back to the parents.

i understand that nicu is expensive. we been there with my daughter. I also understand health issues are expensive and to get the BEST care you really need insurance.

which is why we make sacrifices to have insurance. sure i could go and get a $100k car but why? a 15k used car last as long and the other money goes to important things.

i bet i also pay a hell of a lot more for insurance then most on this board.

I have little respect or sympathy for a family that would rather spend a extra $1000 a month on a better car or house then get something as important as insurance.

though the baby will be in my prayers and i hope the best for it.
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,219
5
81
i disagree. The baby is going ot get care. perhaps nto the best care possible. but then that goes back to the parents.

i understand that nicu is expensive. we been there with my daughter. I also understand health issues are expensive and to get the BEST care you really need insurance.

which is why we make sacrifices to have insurance. sure i could go and get a $100k car but why? a 15k used car last as long and the other money goes to important things.

i bet i also pay a hell of a lot more for insurance then most on this board.

I have little respect or sympathy for a family that would rather spend a extra $1000 a month on a better car or house then get something as important as insurance.

though the baby will be in my prayers and i hope the best for it.
I agree that they made a stupid move, they took a hell of a gamble. I believe from the very limited information that I have that they thought they could risk themselves without coverage but would be able to cover the child after its birth. They planned to get insurance for the kids, but either were ignorant that they needed to cover one of the adults to be garunteed coverage or decided to gamble it.

I guess my point on the "difference" comment is that my opinion, your opinion and whether we have respect or sympathy for the family is just so much wind.

I disagree that they will get all of the care they need if they have no means to pay for it. I admit I could be wrong here, but I don't think they will get in to see many doctors once the demonstrate no ability to pay. There is a very very large difference between care of uninsured and the basic care that most of us get, there is another level of the best care possible, but I think the largest gulf is between standard care and uninsured care.

Since no one else who was interested in if they qualify for CHIP has googled yet, I found the texas chip site and it looks like for a family of 5, they qualify if their "yearly family income" is under 51,580(4299 monthly) but no details on how the income number is calculated. I assume that it is gross and straight from w-2's. Children's medicaid is available for families making 25,970 or less
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,569
5,822
126
However, what should the punishment be? The child's life has been saved, regardless of the parents ability to pay. Should the parents be forced into bankruptcy? What kind of impact would that have on the child's life?
from the article they're here in texas (apparently houston is the babby, not the location). bankruptcy in texas is a minor annoyance. i understand that in other states you may have to give up nearly all your property in a 7. in texas you get to keep a shit-ton of stuff. they probably should file bankruptcy. of course, all that really means is that someone other than the parents will be absorbing the cost.

I think they should have to pay something, and quite a bit, but I don't think it should financially ruin them. Then again, bankruptcy does only last 7 years.
that may be how long it takes to come off the report, but every credit app on the planet asks 'have you ever filed for bankruptcy?'



partial list of texas exemptions:
1) 10 contiguous urban acres or 200 non-contiguous rural acres (so that the well heads can stay in out of bankruptcy)

2)the property is provided for a family and has an aggregate fair market value of not more than $60,000 of: home furnishings, including family heirlooms; farming or ranching vehicles and implements; wearing apparel; jewelry not to exceed 25 percent of the aggregate limitations prescribed by Section 42.001(a); two firearms [this is Texas after all]; athletic and sporting equipment, including bicycles; motor vehicle for each member of a family or single adult who holds a driver's license; two horses, mules, or donkeys, 12 head of cattle, 60 head of other types of livestock, and 120 fowl [this is Texas after all]; and household pets

3) a person's right to the assets held in or to receive payments, whether vested or not, under any stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or similar plan, including a retirement plan for self-employed individuals (and a bunch of other descriptions, and more retirement plans including IRAs in another section)
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The baby was rushed to Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth where he had life-saving surgery.
Not really sure what the problem is, the baby received medical care regardless of insurance, age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or legal states.

Oh wait, but how is that possible when the "progressives" say that it doesn't happen?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Sorry, we're used to agendas.

Any company has to make a profit to survive, like you or I need money to buy things for our household. When anyone else does this it's reasonable. When health care is involved people suddenly lose their senses and demand that people who provide insurance effectively become slaves to the state. Well, that's how it shakes out.

So to control costs insurance companies have policies which allow them to calculate how much to charge (forgive me if this seems pedantic, if you are new here you may find it's amazing how the obvious escapes people, so consider that not everything I say is directed at you).

Now the insurance company could decide to change it's policies and allow this. What that would mean is that premiums would go up since what people are asking is that the insurance company absorb hundreds of thousands of dollars for next to nothing, and then be potentially dropped, never coming near recouping their costs. Remember that operating at a loss means closing your doors, and everyone else you serve goes without insurance as well. OK, that's something which can be considered, and then the insurance company will have to go before the government and ask for rate increases and AT will become livid because they are raping the world. You can see how that goes.

Now even if that happened one may say that the insurance company should have sucked up the loss and made an exception. At which time they would promptly be sued because they did so by others who would have done the same thing.

This is a lose/lose situation for them. They can't afford to operate at a loss, and can't afford to be sued by a whole crowd of people who want the same free ride but didn't get it.

The "evil" insurance people have children with mouths to feed, and the "angelic" critics don't care.

There is a disconnect between what is possible and what ought to be, but fantasy rules on internet forums and in DC.
This is all totally accurate. However, isn't this the point of the healthcare reform bill? It basically says, we are going to regulate insurance companies in ways which will damage them financially by forcing them to cover people who will incur costs in excess of premiums, but at the same time we will provide insurance companies with millions of new customers to make up for it. It seems to me that if you want to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, and you want to maintain a model of private, for profit insurance, there is a logic to that approach, at least in its broad outlines.

Perhaps the rhetoric of blaming insurance companies which has come from the left has not been helpful here and has obscured the issue to a large extent. Nonetheless, there is a core logic to this approach to reform.

- wolf
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Not really sure what the problem is, the baby received medical care regardless of insurance, age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or legal states.

Oh wait, but how is that possible when the "progressives" say that it doesn't happen?
It received socialized care. :)
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
Inaccurate. I am sure the hospital will try and recoup monies owed in a court of law.

This is just another example of the "progressive" lie. The baby got care. Period.
And if they can't recoup it, which is the most likely scenario, they will socialize this cost by passing it on to their paying customers.
The baby SOCIALIZED care. Not only that, but the only reason the baby got that care is because of GOVERNMENT MANDATE.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Inaccurate. I am sure the hospital will try and recoup monies owed in a court of law.

This is just another example of the "progressive" lie. The baby got care. Period.
LOL. From who? Hospital has to pay their employees and care for the baby, whether the parents have a single dime to their names or not. What are they going to do, throw them into debtors prison? Withhold paychecks for the doctors?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
LOL. From who? Hospital has to pay their employees and care for the baby, whether the parents have a single dime to their names or not. What are they going to do, throw them into debtors prison? Withhold paychecks for the doctors?
Yeah, Patranus is just pulling this out of his...
He is convinced the hospital is going to waste money on attorney fees to get a judgment it has snowball's chance in hell of collecting. What they will do is socialize this loss by rolling it into all of their paying customers' bills.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
the rationale for mandating health insurance is the same as mandating Social Security. It isn't about being nice, it's about making people personally responsible for the virtually inevitable cost of their own care, that society would have to pay otherwise.
Yeah, and we've seen how well that SS thing is playing out now right? It's an enormous drain on the budget now, and worthless government crooks have replaced all the money with IOU's. That's standard operating procedure for the government... and now we're putting them in charge of our health care. Great thinking.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
You think it was a choice, you self-serving moron.
I suppose you would insure yourself first?
How do you know it wasn't a choice to have money to pay for other things like cell phones and suvs? I'd be willing to bet that both the parents have cell phone plans and other luxuries.

In other words, the gambled that they would not incur a major issue / expense, and they lost. The knee jerk liberals then have to put the blame on the insurance company.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
...should somehow impact the ability of a 10 day old newborn to get coverage.
When the cost-inducing event has already occurred or identified, it's no longer "insurance coverage", it's basically "paying the bill for you". The insurance company sells... gasp... insurance, they are not a charity to pay for the bills when you sign up for "coverage" after the expense is known.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,023
5,106
126
When the cost-inducing event has already occurred or identified, it's no longer "insurance coverage", it's basically "paying the bill for you". The insurance company sells... gasp... insurance, they are not a charity to pay for the bills when you sign up for "coverage" after the expense is known.
Exactly why private insurance is a bad model for a health care system.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Show us where the conservatives have proposed a comprehensive fix.
Show us where Democrats have proposed a "fix"? Shifting cost around and mandating coverage is not a fix.

On the other hand, why should a baby be punished because of the bad decisions of the parents?
The baby was punished?

A five-hour surgery to correct the defect was performed Friday, and Houston is doing well.

Nope, sure wasn't, he was treated.

the parents are for making a bad decision. Typical loony left tomfoolery.

PokerGuy said:
When the cost-inducing event has already occurred or identified, it's no longer "insurance coverage", it's basically "paying the bill for you". The insurance company sells... gasp... insurance, they are not a charity to pay for the bills when you sign up for "coverage" after the expense is known.
Not to the loony left.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
The article seem to say that if the parents has coverage, the baby is added without checking preexisting conditions. If not, then the baby's preexisting condition counts. I personally don't blame the insurance company for rejecting the baby, they are running a business and this is bad business, which company would want to pick that up?
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
You know, the fact that most of you have said in one form or another "the government or other unaffiliated people (donations) will pay for the baby's care" is a rather strong argument in favour of a single-payer system. You're already doing it, but in a half-assed piecemeal way.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
This is typical tea-bagger nonsense. I have a fundamental human right to housing, insurance (of all types), transportation, power, food, internet, and employment (or funds to replace employment). Who is the government to tell me what I can spend on those? It's the government's role to replace them if I can't afford them anymore.
No, you don't. You do however have the right to work, and provide these things for yourself, and it is not the governments job to "replace" anything you can't afford, it's the governments job to make sure that you have the equal opportunity to be able to provide these things for yourself. I hope my sarcasm meter is just in need of calibration, if not it's a sad state of affairs if you really think you are entitled to any of these things.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
Life should only be protected before birth. After birth everything is a choice and this babies dna chose this mistake and has to live with the consequences. Freedom means choice.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
You know, the fact that most of you have said in one form or another "the government or other unaffiliated people (donations) will pay for the baby's care" is a rather strong argument in favour of a single-payer system. You're already doing it, but in a half-assed piecemeal way.
The problem is that a "single payer" exists in principle in the form of Medicaid. The government has complete control over the health care of those who can't afford it, and it's half-assed on a good day.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY