• 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 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
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").
no we r not stupid tiese ppl need healthcare wtf is ur problems
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,580
5,833
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.
half-assed and piecemeal is the american way.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
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.
Ah, right. I hadn't factored in the unique American ability to make a complete mess out of anything. :D
 
Last edited:

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,219
5
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?
That is what the article is saying. If you have insurance you generally have 30 days to sign the baby up for coverage, retro active to their date of birth. So had the mom or the dad been insured, they could have had the expensive hospital stay and signed the baby up two weeks later. It gives parents the time to get home and over the birth before they deal with the paperwork,

I imagine they either thought this was the case for them still and they could insure the kid after they settled back into their home, or were taking a gamble that the baby would be healthy like their first two. In the second case, if the were taking the calculated risk and knew all the rules, then it would seem like they would have called up and gotten the coverage on the very first day. But you never know.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yes, the Texas SCHIPS would cover the kid (unless the parents make a lot of money.)

Yes, the baby could have been covered BEFORE birth.

Medicaid will also likely now cover the child.

Of course the child can get private insurance, but it's going to be expensive because of a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.

No, BCBS did nothing wrong.

Yes, the parents made bad decisions. However, the child will still get HC, the question is how much of a financial penalty will the parents suffer because of THEIR poor choices.

All our current HC reform does for them is minimize that financial penalty, the insurance - because of the pre-existing condition - will still be expensive, just less so. This is because WE are SUBSIDIZING the insurance for THEM.

After all is said and done, this boils down to a matter of protecting the financial assets of people making poor choices.

Fern
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,219
5
81
All our current HC reform does for them is minimize that financial penalty, the insurance - because of the pre-existing condition - will still be expensive, just less so. This is because WE are SUBSIDIZING the insurance for THEM.

After all is said and done, this boils down to a matter of protecting the financial assets of people making poor choices.

Fern
The entire insurance model is built around subsidizing insurance for "them". Pre-reform the majority of healthy people are still subsidizing the people who are born with birth defects or get cancer while they are on insurance. Unless they are forced off for being too costly.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
The entire insurance model is built around subsidizing insurance for "them". Pre-reform the majority of healthy people are still subsidizing the people who are born with birth defects or get cancer while they are on insurance. Unless they are forced off for being too costly.
Uh, no.

Creating a pool to manage risk may be similar to subsidizing medical costs among those in the pool, but I would argue that is different from subsidizing the insurance[/i] itself.

Fern
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,219
5
81
Uh, no.

Creating a pool to manage risk may be similar to subsidizing medical costs among those in the pool, but I would argue that is different from subsidizing the insurance[/i] itself.

Fern


So only the very sick buy health insurance, premiums are 100k per month.

Introduce a larger number of moderatly health and healthy people and premiums are 2000 a month.

It's really a moot point, because they will get the hospital care anyway, which the hospital will roll into your cost and you will still be paying for the medical cost. Except the treatment outcome is likely going to be worse, because they won't get all of the hospital care they need, only the stuff the hospital has to provide to avoid liability.

So we are already paying for them to be able to get some coverage/care, just in a very inefficient manner.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Uh, no.

Creating a pool to manage risk may be similar to subsidizing medical costs among those in the pool, but I would argue that is different from subsidizing the insurance[/i] itself.

Fern


I think the point is about how the uninsured are subsidized. Pre-reform it's done in an irrational way that probably costs more and gives worse results. For the uninsured person and for everybody else.

There is no way to avoid the cost of a society not meeting the basic needs of all it's members.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
I think the point is about how the uninsured are subsidized. Pre-reform it's done in an irrational way that probably costs more and gives worse results. For the uninsured person and for everybody else.

There is no way to avoid the cost of a society not meeting the basic needs of all it's members.
Health care is not a basic need. Many people in this world live their whole lives without seeing a doctor.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,578
618
126
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.
Will Obama also buy me a new sarcasm meter, because the one I had just exploded as I read your post. :D
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Health care is not a basic need. Many people in this world live their whole lives without seeing a doctor.
Many people may live their whole lives without seeing a doctor, but that doesn't mean they don't need to. Without healthcare, life expectancy and infant mortality rise to pre-civilization levels. That makes it pretty obvious that healthcare is a basic need.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
from the article they're here in texas (apparently houston is the babby, not the location). bankruptcy in texas is a minor annoyance.
...
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?'
If you answer "No", how are they going to find out you're lying if it's already off your report?
Doesn't make any sense asking/answering that question truthfully then.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
Many people may live their whole lives without seeing a doctor, but that doesn't mean they don't need to. Without healthcare, life expectancy and infant mortality rise to pre-civilization levels. That makes it pretty obvious that healthcare is a basic need.
I don't think so. They didn't have over the counter medication in the prehistoric era :eek:.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY