What happens to a 7 month old w/acid reflux?

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Well if parents wouldn't continually take their babies to the hospital over acid-reflux this wouldn't be a problem.

Why should the ins. co's eat thousands of dollars per baby. Most babies get acid reflux(the 10% number in the article is bs), and most parents rush their kid to the ER for no good reason because of it.

Maybe I am cold hearted but insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover newborns that are born with various conditions. A private company shouldn't be FORCED to eat thousands of dollars because you think they should.

The baby denied because of acid-reflux would likely be eligible later as it gets older and the condition goes away.

I don't understand you post. Should the insurance company just off to pay for a postpartum abortion? This would help everyone save money. Denying coverage over acid-reflux is stupid. Acid-reflux can be easily controlled w/ a few ml of Ranitidine. Having an uninsured baby is going to result in having the parents pay for all the baby-wellness checkups and immunizations, many of which occur in the first year.

Thank goodness Highmark is a not-for-profit company.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
The private health insurance system just makes no sense for the wellbeing of a country's citizenry

What we have today is definitely NOT "free market" health care.

Everyone wants to talk about how to "fix" the health care problem, but none of those talking have any idea why it is broken in the first place.

Exactly.

To those crying that insurance companies now are too profit-driven and deny people coverage, etc:

What do you think the government would do in the same situation?

The government does not have unlimited resources, any more then the insurance companies do. THe government health care system will deny your coverage, or put you on a waiting list, just the same. The difference is in a free-market system, you can change providers, pay for health care with cash (maybe with bank loan), or even sue in court for redress. When the government runs health care, there is no alternative or recourse. You are screwed.

 

[ElFenix]

i very much wonder why it would be so much better to have a gov't bureaucrat say 'no' rather than an insurance company bureaucrat.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: babylon5
"USA has the best health care in the world, #1 USA, USA, USA chanting" starts in 3, 2, 1....

It does, some people would rather pay for video games and BMWs than top notch health care though.

And along with this type of attitude....a new business sector is born!

I give you Your Medical Travel & Health Expo.

Apparently, we are so high on the list of health care for the consumer conscious instead of health care to turn a profit at any cost (including human life), that we have to turn to other countries to be able to afford it.

 

[Fern]

My comment, as usual, health insurance reform is needed before implementing Universal Health Insurance (erroneously called UHC by politicians here).

Fern

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
The private health insurance system just makes no sense for the wellbeing of a country's citizenry

Makes more sense then letting a corrupt government take care of it. A government who has managed to screw up everything they have touched in the last 20 years. A government who has already screwed up its chance at health care in medicare and medicaid. A government who is going to bankrupt social security. A government who let the infrastructor of this country go to hell.

Things need to change but US government run health care is not the answer but a nightmare.

So what IS the answer then? Anybody can complain, but considering that health care has been an increasingly major problem for years, I don't think "things need to change" is going to cut it any more.

While the government might not be a the perfect solution, the advantage is that the voters can exercise more direct control over government funded health care than we can over incredibly huge health insurance companies that don't give a damn if you live or die.

Now maybe you disagree with that, if so, propose something better...our current system is not working all that hot.

Is that why Congress has a 9% approval rating? Direct control?

 

[winnar111]

Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...te_mass_budget_debate/

When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.

A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion, but the Bush administration has been cutting back federal payments to the states.

So if Massachusetts is requiring $1.5 billion from the feds for this healthcare pork spending, where are the feds supposed to get the money?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...te_mass_budget_debate/

When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.

A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion, but the Bush administration has been cutting back federal payments to the states.

So if Massachusetts is requiring $1.5 billion from the feds for this healthcare pork spending, where are the feds supposed to get the money?

Same place they get the money they give to the Iraqi's.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111
Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...te_mass_budget_debate/

When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.

A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion, but the Bush administration has been cutting back federal payments to the states.

So if Massachusetts is requiring $1.5 billion from the feds for this healthcare pork spending, where are the feds supposed to get the money?

Same place they get the money they give to the Iraqi's.

The Iraq war is going to end in 16 months. Would government healthcare also end in 16 months?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: winnar111
Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...te_mass_budget_debate/

When Massachusetts launched its landmark universal health insurance initiative nearly two years ago, the state put off addressing rising costs so it could expand coverage immediately. Now those costs are dominating the discussion as the state faces a recession and pivotal funding decisions that could make or break health reform.

A larger issue will also come to a head by July 1: the need to secure a new three-year commitment from the federal government to pay for half the soaring cost of insurance subsidies. Massachusetts is seeking up to $1.5 billion, but the Bush administration has been cutting back federal payments to the states.

So if Massachusetts is requiring $1.5 billion from the feds for this healthcare pork spending, where are the feds supposed to get the money?

Same place they get the money they give to the Iraqi's.

The Iraq war is going to end in 16 months. Would government healthcare also end in 16 months?

Good point. BTW I'm not a proponent of UHC but I'm also think that the HMO's suck. Anyway it's not the very poor who doesn't have health coverage, it's the lower middle class who can't afford it. What is your solution for that?

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Anyway it's not the very poor who doesn't have health coverage, it's the lower middle class who can't afford it. What is your solution for that?

And around we go... aren't the middle class the ones we're talking about, who choose to buy the video games and BMW's instead of health insurance?

I actually have a solution. How about sending back, to where they came, all the illegal aliens which are bankrupting many hospitals, especially in southern states?

Then how about raising government mandated income based discount healthcare programs to include more of the lower middle class? Unlike illegals aliens, the lower middle class, if they again choose not to buy health insurance, will have some ability to pay for some of their out-of-pocket costs when they suddenly find themselves in dire need of a doctor or hospital ER.

Ah, but then we get to the real problem - our government is too impotent to consider such real actions. Actions that would actually benefit the interests of the American citizens who they presumably represent.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Anyway it's not the very poor who doesn't have health coverage, it's the lower middle class who can't afford it. What is your solution for that?

And around we go... aren't the middle class the ones we're talking about, who choose to buy the video games and BMW's instead of health insurance?

Lower Middle Class, otherwise known as the Working Class, buying BMW's when they can't even afford to pay for heating fuel let alone Health Ins?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: fallout man
That little sweet child deserved it!

This is America. I didn't watch my buddies die face-down in the rocky-road sundaes so that some happy-go-lucky cry-baby with the hiccups would drive up my insurance premium! Typical big-hearted liberal, with no teeth. Always wanting something for nothing--trying to suck everything they can from the teet of those better-off!

Here's a wake-up call, baby--GET A WELL PAYING JOB so you can afford your own insurance!

Gentle libtards.

9 months sucking food from mommy tends to breed this behavior. God damn lazy libtard babies.. /joking

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Anyway it's not the very poor who doesn't have health coverage, it's the lower middle class who can't afford it. What is your solution for that?

And around we go... aren't the middle class the ones we're talking about, who choose to buy the video games and BMW's instead of health insurance?

Lower Middle Class, otherwise known as the Working Class, buying BMW's when they can't even afford to pay for heating fuel let alone Health Ins?

LoL - Come on you have to laugh at that overly generalized statement.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Here's a counter anecdote:

I went to the doctor, got put in the hospital overnight, had multiple IVs, and got a camera run down my throat. The whole thing was $20 thanks to my health insurance.

I had the same thing done but the camera went up my ars got charged 40 bucks so now I feel doubly violated.