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

[Si modo]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

Screw off gas bag. If I want your input I'll quote one of your posts. Who died and bequeathed you the nanny apron? I was responding directly to CG's post. Why don't you wait until somebody cares about what you have to post......if you live that long......

 

[Emma]

Focus not on the shiny object, but on the point.

The argument that a new healthcare system will not be rationed is without foundation.

The "argument" is a strawman.

How so?

Because I've heard no one state that there will never be any rationing of limited healthcare resources.

 

[veritas]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

That's a very helpful contribution. Thanks.

But, the issue is not about the Catholic Church per se, it about abortions. I use the Catholic Church as an example because they are clearly pro health care and also anti abortion. The Church was asked, by the Administration, to come out in support of HR3200. They analysed the bill and decided against it... because it does not have the Hyde Amendment. Now, the Catholic Church has some of the best legal minds in the world at its disposal, and if they say no Hyde, no support, then they have a good reason for saying.

However, feel free to let your hatred of a religion overcome your ability to see a point.

The Catholic Church is not a religion. It's a financial institution and money making scheme. They are based in a foreign country. I don't care what they have to say. Their minions are free to vote if they are US citizens and otherwise eligible beyond that. Otherwise they should just shut up.

 

[Si modo]

The "argument" is a strawman.

How so?

Because I've heard no one state that there will never be any rationing of limited healthcare resources.

I further clarified in a subsequent post.

 

[Emma]

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

No. (hint: check the OP )

 

[Si modo]

Screw the Catholic Church. Last I heard they were a foreign entity located in their own sovereign municipality and are celibate........allegedly.

That's a very helpful contribution. Thanks.

But, the issue is not about the Catholic Church per se, it about abortions. I use the Catholic Church as an example because they are clearly pro health care and also anti abortion. The Church was asked, by the Administration, to come out in support of HR3200. They analysed the bill and decided against it... because it does not have the Hyde Amendment. Now, the Catholic Church has some of the best legal minds in the world at its disposal, and if they say no Hyde, no support, then they have a good reason for saying.

However, feel free to let your hatred of a religion overcome your ability to see a point.

The Catholic Church is not a religion. It's a financial institution and money making scheme. They are based in a foreign country. I don't care what they have to say. Their minions are free to vote if they are US citizens and otherwise eligible beyond that. Otherwise they should just shut up.

Health care. Focus.

 

[Si modo]

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

No. (hint: check the OP )

I have.

What I haven't seen is any transparency on what the proposal actually is. Congress doesn't even know what it is proposing, so I have zero confidence that this will actually be the case.

 

[Emma]

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

No. (hint: check the OP )

I have.

What I haven't seen is any transparency on what the proposal actually is. Congress doesn't even know what it is proposing, so I have zero confidence that this is actually the case.

Congress is screwing this up. What began as a reasonably good plan (I'd prefer single payer, however) has turned into a boon for the insurance industry.

I hope their not-so-thinly veiled threat to Congress backfires like hell.

 

[veritas]

No. (hint: check the OP )

I have.

What I haven't seen is any transparency on what the proposal actually is. Congress doesn't even know what it is proposing, so I have zero confidence that this is actually the case.

Congress is screwing this up. What began as a reasonably good plan (I'd prefer single payer, however) has turned into a boon for the insurance industry.

I hope their not-so-thinly veiled threat to Congress backfires like hell.

Amen to that. They were hoping that they'd get that mandate and compensate for all the people who are out of work, 14k people a week losing their health insurance.......so they've lost millions since the losses were calculated which was last September/October.

 

[Si modo]

No. (hint: check the OP )

I have.

What I haven't seen is any transparency on what the proposal actually is. Congress doesn't even know what it is proposing, so I have zero confidence that this is actually the case.

Congress is screwing this up. What began as a reasonably good plan (I'd prefer single payer, however) has turned into a boon for the insurance industry.

I hope their not-so-thinly veiled threat to Congress backfires like hell.

Agreed. they are seriously screwing up. And, as they end up screwing us all in the end, this whole thing is just a giant clusterfuck. They need to get their shit together and we should all demand that they do.




On September 12th, I actually did let them know of my demands.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

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?

I've already CLEARLY stated my preference, but I'll repeat it: I prefer having the decision of resource allocation being in the hands of health care professionals.

They are not now.

I don't know, nor do you know, nor does anyone know, including Congress, if they will be with a new system.

 

[DiveCon]

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

 

[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.

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

 

[Ravi]

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?

The sad thing about this, even though I read the subsequent post that the company reinstated the kid, is that things like this will lead people to underfeed their kids out of fear. A 4 month old at 17 pounds isn't fat...in fact it is probably a healthy chubby baby...infants need to be chubby for optimal brain development.

 

[California Girl]

1. It's already rationed. It will ALWAYS be rationed. No matter what system we have. Healthcare is not an infinite resource. So don't even try those failed scare tactics and attempt to pin the blame on the current (or ANY) administration.

2. Death panels are a figment of the right's fevered mind.

3. Abortion will not be covered. No one is brave enough to risk that one.

4. It is not unconstitutional. HHS is a Constitutionally created department of the Executive, and healthcare falls directly within their purview as expressed in their mission. Therefore, according to what is explicitly stated in Article I, sections 8 and 9, Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass these laws and regulations.

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.

 

[Si modo]

The sad thing about this, even though I read the subsequent post that the company reinstated the kid, is that things like this will lead people to underfeed their kids out of fear. ....

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

 

[editec]

The current system we have now is failing too many of us.

I think most of us can agree to that, right?

As to the current Obaman plan (as much as any of us know about it...which isn't much)?

I don't really think that creating a government run HC insurance plan competing with private HC insurers is really the solution.

Either fully socialize HC or just let it continue to fail more and more Americans as the cost of HC contiues to climb into the stratosphere.

When it's really catastrophically obvious to most Americans that the private HC isurance systems no longer make sense for them personally, they'll be ready for a government imposed solution.

A solution which will include, I might add, wage and price controls and HC rationing, too.

There is NO PERFECT solution to the HC crises, folks.

The demand fo\r HC is practically infinite while the supply will always be finite.