10-Day-Old Baby Denied Health Care Coverage

[Genx87]

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.

STDs cost us about 160 billion annually.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Republicans hate people and babies that can't vote for them.

So Dave, explain how my having to pay thousands more in order for my son to breath as well his having a father is a gift from the Dems?

 

[jalaram]

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.

My point wasn't that the parents were without fault. BCBS says that they require the whole family to have coverage. The parents maybe should've gone with a company that allowed better flexibility. My point was that they are customers and have a policy for their kids. If the new child was healthy, it would've been added as well regardless.

I tried to phrase my response so that I never brought up health care reform or if this was a bad thing that BCBS did. I'm relatively new to P&N, so I didn't realize how hard that is.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

First, republican != conservative. Republicans sold out conservatism long ago.

Second, which one of those six republican administrations had a supermajority in the senate, full control of the house and the white house at the same time?

Oh, and failing to present a better plan is not as bad as presenting a plan that takes us from bad to worse.

 

[Genx87]

My point wasn't that the parents were without fault. BCBS says that they require the whole family to have coverage. The parents maybe should've gone with a company that allowed better flexibility. My point was that they are customers and have a policy for their kids. If the new child was healthy, it would've been added as well regardless.

I tried to phrase my response so that I never brought up health care reform or if this was a bad thing that BCBS did. I'm relatively new to P&N, so I didn't realize how hard that is.

I am still wondering why this child couldnt be covered by SCHIP?

 

[DesiPower]

First, republican != conservative. Republicans sold out conservatism long ago.

Second, which one of those six republican administrations had a supermajority in the senate, full control of the house and the white house at the same time?

Oh, and failing to present a better plan is not as bad as presenting a plan that takes us from bad to worse.

This

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My point wasn't that the parents were without fault. BCBS says that they require the whole family to have coverage. The parents maybe should've gone with a company that allowed better flexibility. My point was that they are customers and have a policy for their kids. If the new child was healthy, it would've been added as well regardless.

I tried to phrase my response so that I never brought up health care reform or if this was a bad thing that BCBS did. I'm relatively new to P&N, so I didn't realize how hard that is.

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.

 

[rudder]

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.

Under the current system the child would be covered... despite stupid parents if the baby was born in Tennessee. Our backwoods state can do it... not sure why others can not. Our system will not bankrupt the federal government.

 

[IronWing]

First, republican != conservative. Republicans sold out conservatism long ago.

Second, which one of those six republican administrations had a supermajority in the senate, full control of the house and the white house at the same time?

Oh, and failing to present a better plan is not as bad as presenting a plan that takes us from bad to worse.

So ya got nothing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So ya got nothing.

Kind of like you who makes excuses for the government when they enact policies which kill people. Of course that would be a negative for your single payer system, and we can't have that. You've effectively demonstrated that you don't really care about people, you want the policy at any cost, including blood.

Now go blame the provider or insurance company for your lack of decency and sense.

We await with bated breath.

 

[nonlnear]

We await with bated breath.

It is so refreshing to read bated instead of baited. Thank you.

 

[umbrella39]

Bunch of sick people in this thread.

Life is sacred until it born, eh?

That's the slogan of the Right To Life movement if not mistaken.

I just checked their home page to make sure and here is what I found:

(about UHC) ...if not repealed before its most dangerous provisions come into effect, result in the rationing denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequent premature and involuntary death, of an unknown but immense number of Americans.

Wow, just wow. The truth has never been one of their strong suits.

 

[PokerGuy]

So ya got nothing.

As previously stated, "got nothing" (which is of course not true to begin with) is better then "got something terrible, but we're going to hammer it through because we need to show that we're doing something!".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why not modify the title for the truth
10 day old baby denied Health Care Coverage by parents

OR does the truth not fit in with your agenda

 

[Tom]

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 it's not the companies' fault. It's our fault for letting the insurance companies set the rules of the game.

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.

So it should appeal to conservatives and libertarians, who believe people are responsible for themselves, at least as much as kind hearted liberals.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

My problem is that if these parents had somehow managed to have this condition detected pre-birth, and elected to have an abortion, they would be cursed by many of the same individuals who are against this reform (or at least this version of it). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not sure I see why the parents deciding not to get coverage for themselves should somehow impact the ability of a 10 day old newborn to get coverage. They purchased coverage for their other 2 kids without covering themselves, presumably they should be able to do the same for this one. Luckily in a few months they'll be able to buy him coverage in the high risk pools, or once childhood pre-existing conditions are eliminated.

Using money as the sole reason for not doing good when we can is a morally gray area for me. I'm still working that one out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My problem is that if these parents had somehow managed to have this condition detected pre-birth, and elected to have an abortion, they would be cursed by many of the same individuals who are against this reform (or at least this version of it). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not sure I see why the parents deciding not to get coverage for themselves should somehow impact the ability of a 10 day old newborn to get coverage. They purchased coverage for their other 2 kids without covering themselves, presumably they should be able to do the same for this one. Luckily in a few months they'll be able to buy him coverage in the high risk pools, or once childhood pre-existing conditions are eliminated.

The child will not be tossed out in the streets. The government will (and I believe rightly so) step in and help or the hospital will suck it up.

As I've said, when you have to stay in business you have to clearly define the rules. If the rules aren't sufficient, the insurance companies could be compelled to provide coverage, however realize that costs will go up.

It sucks for all, and there needs to be well thought out options here but the child wasn't kicked out for being sick. Rather the insurance was expected to just sign on and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because the parents didn't want to assume the responsibility before hand.

Where is their accountability in all this?

 

[Tom]

The child will not be tossed out in the streets. The government will (and I believe rightly so) step in and help or the hospital will suck it up.

As I've said, when you have to stay in business you have to clearly define the rules. If the rules aren't sufficient, the insurance companies could be compelled to provide coverage, however realize that costs will go up.

It sucks for all, and there needs to be well thought out options here but the child wasn't kicked out for being sick. Rather the insurance was expected to just sign on and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because the parents didn't want to assume the responsibility before hand.

Where is their accountability in all this?

Hence, the reason for mandatory healthcare. btw, costs wouldn't go up, it would just be paid in a more orderly and transparent, even fair way. Which is what insurance is supposed to do.

 

[nick1985]

Lets all collectively place the blame squarely where it belongs.


Ready P&N? On 3. 1. 2. 3.

THE PARENTS

 

[alchemize]

My son had this very condition.

Of course, when my wife was pregnant, I pulled a fast one on the insurance company. See, I decided to pay the premiums for insurance. Somehow, they never caught on, and amazingly, his condition was fully covered by insurance! I don't know how I slipped that one past the evil insurance company...got lucky I suppose.

Since then, I've decided that an SUV, a big mortgage, and sushi is more important than insurance. I stopped paying my mortgage, and my insurance (kept making payments on the SUV, although it's really time we recognized that TRANSPORTATION is a HUMAN RIGHT!!!). I know the government will take care of me.

 

[nick1985]

lol

 

[WHAMPOM]

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").

You think it was a choice, you self-serving moron.
I suppose you would insure yourself first?

 

[MJinZ]

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.

Wow, you guys are all fucking idiots.

The baby should not be denied insurance because of existing conditions - regardless of whatever the hell is going on elsewhere.

The parents are fucking retards for not having health insurance for themselves. They are fucked if they something happens to them and they lose everything they have. More importantly, the children are fucked.

It isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a - are you a fucking idiot - issue. In this case, the parents are as much as the insurance company.

 

[Carmen813]

The child will not be tossed out in the streets. The government will (and I believe rightly so) step in and help or the hospital will suck it up.

As I've said, when you have to stay in business you have to clearly define the rules. If the rules aren't sufficient, the insurance companies could be compelled to provide coverage, however realize that costs will go up.

It sucks for all, and there needs to be well thought out options here but the child wasn't kicked out for being sick. Rather the insurance was expected to just sign on and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because the parents didn't want to assume the responsibility before hand.

Where is their accountability in all this?

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).

I don't have kids, so can someone explain to me how this works? If you buy insurance for your wife is the baby covered for x days after birth?

Last point is that I don't think it's going to be the hospital that sucks it up

 

[nonlnear]

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 missing something.

The paperwork can be arranged beforehand, but usually the policy is not bound until afterward (I think). There is a waiting period of a few days before signing, and then coverage is retroactive to birth. Then again I've only gone through the process while having coverage, and I may have forgotten a detail or two. It could be different if seeking an individual policy for an infant who is not a rider for the parents. In that case a policy might be bound beforehand, I have no idea.

The parents were irresponsible in one regard: not knowing exactly what they needed to do long in advance. I don't fault them for not having insurance on themselves. I do think they were irresponsible to let themselves be surprised by the legalities. I would have been all over that fine print backwards and forwards by the end of the first trimester and had an agent talk me through exactly what was going to happen. By the middle of the second I would have had a short list of confirmed options, and then everything would have been cool until the big day.