17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat

[Emma]

And let me clarify: We agree that it is already rationed.

Right now, those deciding who gets resources are health care professionals, as it should be and should remain.

It is not a given that those making such decisions on resources will be health care professionals under a new system.

Actually, right now, those deciding who gets resources are claims reps at insurance companies with no medical training; no medical knowledge and nothing but corporate guidelines telling them to deny all claims they can.

and that is not the truth
they deny things the policy you PURCHASED doesn't cover

What she said is spot on.

 

[Emma]

As suck as that is, I will take the lesser of two evils. That's my taste.

I can fight a corporation's decision more easily than I can the federal government's.

I am not defending the current system; I have no confidence that a new one will be an improvement. In fact, I am concerned that it will be worse. And I am suspicious of their ability to come up with something workable.

You'd prefer those decisions rest with people whose sole purpose is to take in the most profit while providing the least benefit?

Really?

they provide the coverage you PAID FOR

Not necessarily.

 

[paperview]

Actually, right now, those deciding who gets resources are claims reps at insurance companies with no medical training; no medical knowledge and nothing but corporate guidelines telling them to deny all claims they can.

and that is not the truth
they deny things the policy you PURCHASED doesn't cover

What she said is spot on.

Yup.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, right now, those deciding who gets resources are claims reps at insurance companies with no medical training; no medical knowledge and nothing but corporate guidelines telling them to deny all claims they can.

and that is not the truth
they deny things the policy you PURCHASED doesn't cover

What she said is spot on.

Will the national insurance have health care professionals making resource allocation decisions?

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, right now, those deciding who gets resources are claims reps at insurance companies with no medical training; no medical knowledge and nothing but corporate guidelines telling them to deny all claims they can.

and that is not the truth
they deny things the policy you PURCHASED doesn't cover

What she said is spot on.

do you know what medical coverage denies the MOST procedures?

 

[Emma]

and that is not the truth
they deny things the policy you PURCHASED doesn't cover

What she said is spot on.

do you know what medical coverage denies the MOST procedures?

Procedures?

I suspect I know what you're about to source, but I'll wait for you to do so.

 

[Phoenix]

17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat - Children's Health - FOXNews.com

But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage

And it doesn't end there:

Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.

After filling out the necessary paperwork, the broker who was helping the family find new insurance called last Thursday with the shocking news that Alex, who weighed 8 1/4-pounds at birth, was being denied coverage.

So who's still against Health Care Reform in general? Just wanted an update. Bueller? Bueller?

Ridiculous.

I know babies who were 19 or 20 lbs. by 4 mos. Oddly enough, they're very healthy, fit, "normal" kids. What next?

 

[JimH52]

17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby Denied Health Insurance for Being Too Fat - Children's Health - FOXNews.com

But the sight of 4-month-old Alex Lange, who measures 25-inches long and weighs 17 pounds, is bringing a frown to the hypothetical face of insurance company Rocky Mountain Health Plans, The Denver Post reported on its Web site Monday.

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage

And it doesn't end there:

Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.

After filling out the necessary paperwork, the broker who was helping the family find new insurance called last Thursday with the shocking news that Alex, who weighed 8 1/4-pounds at birth, was being denied coverage.

So who's still against Health Care Reform in general? Just wanted an update. Bueller? Bueller?

Ridiculous.

I know babies who were 19 or 20 lbs. by 4 mos. Oddly enough, they're very healthy, fit, "normal" kids. What next?

'

Insurance Companies are here to make money, not help people. It will always be like that.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Still bashing the not-for-profit insurance company for deciding not to cover a high risk patient.

Priceless

 

[veritas]

1. I'm aware that it is currently rationed, Emma. That is not the point - the point being a new system is supposed to be better and The point is that the Administration has claimed that it will not be rationed. Don't justify by saying 'it's rationed now', tell me how they are going to deliver on their promised of UNRATIONED care.

2. No, these 'death panels' will exist. Just as they do now. The problem is the phrase 'death panels'.... In Dr Emanuels research and conclusions he lists various recommendations. One of which is a panel to decide who gets TREATMENT, and who gets CARE. Emanuel refers to 2 year old children as "not fully participatory human beings" and therefore less important for TREATMENT, along with older people, the disabled and a variety of others. Denying treatment is a death sentence.... It's not about switching off a life support machine, its about the decisions of who will and who will not get TREATMENT.

3. The ONLY way to ensure that abortions are not covered is by including the Hyde Amendment. Show me where the Hyde Amendment is in any of the current bills. It isn't. They are going to cover abortion. Fact.

4. It is not Constitutional. Live with it. If you support healthcare, then you are happy to throw away the founding principles of our nation. I am not prepared to do that.

Dr. Emmanuel's work to which you refer deals with transplant decisions. Taken out of context they seem extreme, but taken in context they are the way we manage rare resources such as available organs. Try reading things in their entirety rather than regurgitating Faux propaganda.

The Hyde amendment is in effect whether it is inserted into a bill or not. It's law. It is not customary to reiterate established code whenever a new bill is written. Again, you are short on background as well as facts.

I did read his research, you dork, that's why I comment on it. Not just one paper but lots of papers. The work I refer to does not deal with transplants - some of it does use transplants as examples however.

The reason why I said people should read his research is exactly for the reason you state. If you read all of it, then you get the context.

One of us is out of their depth, it ain't me. I've read pretty much everything that Emanuel - along with Sustein, et al have written. Unlike some, I go to the horses mouth for information, not the horses ass.

Maybe you think you've read it, but if your posts are any indication, I'd say you are not being truthful. You sound like Betsy McCaughey lite. She seems like such a nice lady it is hard to believe she is lying or that utterly incompetent......but she must be. I call bullshit for both Emanuel's and Sunstein's work and you saying you have read any of it other than carefully gleaned snippets like McCaughey presented.

 

[DiveCon]

What she said is spot on.

do you know what medical coverage denies the MOST procedures?

Procedures?

I suspect I know what you're about to source, but I'll wait for you to do so.

if you know, then state it

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People really should read up on this company. It be nice to know that the insurance company that you are actually bashing is not one of the ones that MAKES MONEY ON PROVIDING INSURANCE. All their profits go towards covering other individuals who need lower cost health insurance.

I would think most liberals would actually like this charitable insurance company. I expect most liberal thinkers to attack those that make money of providing insurance/denying insurance and denying care, but to attack a non-profit is just poor form.


About RMHP - Colorado Medical Insurance - Rocky Mountain Health Plan

http://www.rmhp.org/about_rmhp/community_involvement.aspx

 

[Emma]

Still bashing the not-for-profit insurance company for deciding not to cover a high risk patient.

Priceless

Did you read my response above ?

 

[Emma]

do you know what medical coverage denies the MOST procedures?

Procedures?

I suspect I know what you're about to source, but I'll wait for you to do so.

if you know, then state it

I said I suspect I know what you're referring to, but I'm not a mind-reader so source your claim and we'll go from there.

 

[Emma]

People really should read up on this company. It be nice to know that the insurance company that you are actually bashing is not one of the ones that MAKES MONEY ON PROVIDING INSURANCE. All their profits go towards covering other individuals who need lower cost health insurance.

I would think most liberals would actually like this charitable insurance company. I expect most liberal thinkers to attack those that make money of providing insurance/denying insurance and denying care, but to attack a non-profit is just poor form.


About RMHP - Colorado Medical Insurance - Rocky Mountain Health Plan

http://www.rmhp.org/about_rmhp/community_involvement.aspx

Hun, I really like you but you are mistaken. Not for profit does NOT mean they don't make profits or are a "charitable" business. Nor does it mean they channel 100% of their profits to cover lower income people.

From the link you provided:

We reinvest at least 8 to 10 percent of our annual revenues into other organizations, programs, and services that are dedicated to improving the health and well being of people of all ages and all backgrounds.

Please read my post above on this.

 

[DiveCon]

Procedures?

I suspect I know what you're about to source, but I'll wait for you to do so.

if you know, then state it

I said I suspect I know what you're referring to, but I'm not a mind-reader so source your claim and we'll go from there.

i havent MADE a claim, emma
i ASKED a QUESTION

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You guys realize that this insurance company is a Not-For-Profit insurer correct?

Unlike Blue Cross Blue Shield who is in it for profit.


Way to be misleading to try and push forward an administrations agenda guys, really i expected more out of some of you

About RMHP - Colorado Medical Insurance - Rocky Mountain Health Plan

http://www.rmhp.org/about_rmhp/community_involvement.aspx

Not-for-profit doesn't mean they aren't in it for the money. For-profit companies may distribute their profits to their owners or shareholders, and they can also reinvest that profit into the business. Non-profits must invest all profits into the business. And that can include obscene salaries for their upper management and CEOs. Our "nonprofit" hospital CEO pulls down nearly $2.5 million a year.

And as far as Blue Cross goes:

Blue Cross: 501(m)

In the early 1980s, many commercial insurers began to challenge the fully tax-exempt status of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. They brought their challenge to the IRS and to Congress. The national BCBS Association, a nonprofit organization that holds the BCBS trademark, went to great lengths to distinguish BCBS plans from commercial insurers by stressing their dedication to charitable, community-based health care services. As of January 1, 1987, the federal government removed the full tax-exempt status of BCBS plans and instead created a special tax class for BCBS organizations, Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C.") 5833. The new I.R.C. category subjected BCBS plans to federal taxation but recognized the unique role BCBS plans play. Under I.R.C. 5833 the BCBS plans, unlike commercial for-profit insurers, are entitled to special tax benefits.


http://www.consumersunion.org/conv/...idavit of the author of A History of BCBS.pdf

Blue Cross: 501(m)

I'm sorry Emma i was drive by posting earlier and totally missed this.

I will look into it further now but at first glance the information you provided may have changed my tune in regards to this company.

I have a few more threads to check out then im off to read up some more.

 

[Emma]

if you know, then state it

I said I suspect I know what you're referring to, but I'm not a mind-reader so source your claim and we'll go from there.

i havent MADE a claim, emma
i ASKED a QUESTION

Then I suppose we wait for an answer

 

[paperview]

I said I suspect I know what you're referring to, but I'm not a mind-reader so source your claim and we'll go from there.

i havent MADE a claim, emma
i ASKED a QUESTION

Then I suppose we wait for an answer

I wonder....will he tell us.


hmmm.

 

[DiveCon]

I said I suspect I know what you're referring to, but I'm not a mind-reader so source your claim and we'll go from there.

i havent MADE a claim, emma
i ASKED a QUESTION

Then I suppose we wait for an answer

then i guess you dont dare to actually answer with what you thought it was