http://gamingtrend.com
December 20, 2014, 10:25:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [WTF?] 4-month old baby declared obese, denied insurance coverage  (Read 1392 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« on: October 12, 2009, 01:03:08 AM »

Sadly, this is not an Onion article.

To deny insurance coverage because of the weight of a 4 month old is beyond ridiculous. She's breastfeeding for hell's sake...what do they expect her to do to slim down that baby? We've had a baby in the 97th percentile for height & weight since she was born in March, and the docs all say she is perfectly and completely healthy. In fact, most doctors say that chubby babies are generally healthier and encourage as much weight gain as possible in the first 6 months. Suppose I should probably check with my insurer now to make sure my little one is still covered.   Roll Eyes

I'm not saying the currently proposed health care reform is the correct answer, but insane s**t like this from insurance companies looking to save a buck needs to stop. Now.
Logged

Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2009, 01:47:56 AM »

He may have some health problem making him obese. But in this day and age insurance companies and those that pay for medicines dont give a rat's ass about people. They just look at the bottom line and say screw you.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15612


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2009, 02:26:25 AM »

Quote from: Daehawk on October 12, 2009, 01:47:56 AM

But just like in any day and age in this day and age insurance companies and those that pay for medicines dont give a rat's ass about people.

FTFY
Logged
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6782


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2009, 04:36:32 AM »

Ah, makes me happy to live in a nation with a socialized medical system. No wait, I was already happy about that!
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1621


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2009, 04:42:38 AM »

Health insurance companies disgust me.
Logged

Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4004



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2009, 05:01:03 AM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on October 12, 2009, 04:42:38 AM

Health insurance companies disgust me.
You and me both, man. disgust
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3229



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2009, 05:43:02 PM »

It is high time the stupid, out-of-date BMI standard is thrown out. It is a complete crock that we are still using a chart that was developed to measure people in the 1830s. It's the equivalent of the out-of-date gas mileage tests we use today that are also grossly inaccurate.
Logged
Bob
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 997


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2009, 06:16:14 PM »

This doesn't make any sense to me.  2 of my kids were heavier than this child, both are on the thin side now.  Weight at that age means nothing unless it's way out of normal.  Like a kid that eats only bacon fat or something.
Logged
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2009, 07:49:40 PM »

Uh...that baby isn't fat, it's just huge. I could understand the insurance company having a concern (I guess) if the baby was, let's say 50% for height and 99% for weight, but there's no disparity here. The baby is very tall, and therefore also weighs a lot. Can you imagine if they'd been bottle-feeding? Holy cats, then that sucker would really be massive.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2009, 07:52:42 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on October 12, 2009, 05:43:02 PM

It is high time the stupid, out-of-date BMI standard is thrown out. It is a complete crock that we are still using a chart that was developed to measure people in the 1830s. It's the equivalent of the out-of-date gas mileage tests we use today that are also grossly inaccurate.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that's the problem here. It could be, but BMI was never mentioned in the article, only that the weight and height were above 99th percentile. There's no way that that kid is proportionately that high.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10545


My cocaine


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2009, 08:03:35 PM »

i like how it's now possible to be past 100 percentile.  "this kid goes to 11!"

unless this kid has the cholesterol of a retired truck driver and a double bypass, then there shouldn't be a problem here.  this is just the sad SOP of insurance companies and their $ over coverage priority.
Logged

Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2009, 08:09:52 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on October 12, 2009, 05:43:02 PM

It is high time the stupid, out-of-date BMI standard is thrown out. It is a complete crock that we are still using a chart that was developed to measure people in the 1830s. It's the equivalent of the out-of-date gas mileage tests we use today that are also grossly inaccurate.

Except all of the studies investigating risk factors (i.e., for cancer, or diabetes, or whatever) use BMI as the measurement endpoint.  You may think it's outdated, but all of the societal health data we have is based upon BMI.
Logged
RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2009, 08:27:55 PM »

Fat babies are either higher risk or not.  This insurance company apparently thinks they are.  If they're wrong, they're losing money from another premium, and this is not good business for them.
Quote
Health insurance reform measures are trying to do away with such denials that come from a process called "underwriting."
Lolwut?  I'm no insurance expert, but this sounds like trying to "reform" automobiles by putting wings and propellers on them.

Finally, give me an effin' break with all the references on that page to this poor couples "plight".  This isn't spina bifida.  I don't find this tragic. 
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2009, 09:53:53 PM »

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 08:27:55 PM

Finally, give me an effin' break with all the references on that page to this poor couples "plight".  This isn't spina bifida.  I don't find this tragic. 

While I agree that it's not currently a "tragic" situation, the fact that this family now sits one bad hospital trip away from bankruptcy even though they have a perfectly healthy baby is pretty freaking disturbing.  Speaking as someone with a 96th percentile 6-month-old, of course.
Logged

RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM »

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2009, 11:04:50 PM »

I just think they were on a crappy insurance plan.  Both of my kids were high weight babies (my younger one was off the charts at birth...now at age 2.5, he's about 40% lol), and our insurance didn't drop them or us.

I think they forum shopped for the cheapest insurance policy, and were surprised when the cheapest insurance policy had the most draconian preexisting conditions rules.  Surprise surprise!
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM »

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.
Logged

RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2009, 01:29:12 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.
Would you care to discuss what aspect of my statement you find so stupid, or is it too emotional for you?  I mean that seriously, kids are a touchy subject.  Tits are too, for that matter.
To clarify, if a couple of pounds are keeping them in a "pretty freaking disturbing situation" and preventing adequate health coverage for their baby, is it so insipid for me to suggest that they might monitor the baby's intake for a couple of months and reapply?  Does "considering an appeal" seem the most appropriate response for concerned folks in a real parenting crisis?  I don't think so; frightened parents do what they must, in spite of the tears. 
Is it a shitty system where they have to jump through such an absurd and arbitrary hoop?  Yes.  Yes, it is.
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2009, 02:30:45 AM »

Quote from: RuperT on October 13, 2009, 01:29:12 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.
Would you care to discuss what aspect of my statement you find so stupid, or is it too emotional for you?  I mean that seriously, kids are a touchy subject.  Tits are too, for that matter.
To clarify, if a couple of pounds are keeping them in a "pretty freaking disturbing situation" and preventing adequate health coverage for their baby, is it so insipid for me to suggest that they might monitor the baby's intake for a couple of months and reapply?  Does "considering an appeal" seem the most appropriate response for concerned folks in a real parenting crisis?  I don't think so; frightened parents do what they must, in spite of the tears. 
Is it a shitty system where they have to jump through such an absurd and arbitrary hoop?  Yes.  Yes, it is.


Nearly every doctor will tell you that the best thing for babies - especially breastfeeding babies - is for them to eat as much as they can for the first 6 months.  They eat what their bodies need to grow and, frankly, chubby babies are healthier babies  Artificially limiting an infant's food intake so they actually lose weight during that period basically runs counter to what nearly every doctor will tell new parents about feeding their youngun and is a pretty ludicrous idea.  Doubly so when it's being done to jump through an insurance loophole.
Logged

Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12600


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM »

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.
Logged

RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2009, 05:28:25 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 02:30:45 AM

Quote from: RuperT on October 13, 2009, 01:29:12 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 12, 2009, 11:28:57 PM

Quote from: RuperT on October 12, 2009, 10:14:39 PM

Quote
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born.
I interpreted this to mean that Hoss is currently covered, in case he should break a heel and fall down a flight of stairs.  It seems to me that the family is in fact the party trying to save a buck.
I have a big kid, too, and I personally think it's a pretty stupid criteria for underwriting, but if Mom doesn't worry enough about it to take the tit out a little quicker, then I won't either.  The guy's a news anchor; it's an "evil mosquito" story.

While I get your point (I interpreted the article a little differently the first time, but can see how your angle makes some sense), that's one of the stupidest things I've read here in a long time.

Would you care to discuss what aspect of my statement you find so stupid, or is it too emotional for you?  I mean that seriously, kids are a touchy subject.  Tits are too, for that matter.
To clarify, if a couple of pounds are keeping them in a "pretty freaking disturbing situation" and preventing adequate health coverage for their baby, is it so insipid for me to suggest that they might monitor the baby's intake for a couple of months and reapply?  Does "considering an appeal" seem the most appropriate response for concerned folks in a real parenting crisis?  I don't think so; frightened parents do what they must, in spite of the tears. 
Is it a shitty system where they have to jump through such an absurd and arbitrary hoop?  Yes.  Yes, it is.


Nearly every doctor will tell you that the best thing for babies - especially breastfeeding babies - is for them to eat as much as they can for the first 6 months.  They eat what their bodies need to grow and, frankly, chubby babies are healthier babies  Artificially limiting an infant's food intake so they actually lose weight during that period basically runs counter to what nearly every doctor will tell new parents about feeding their youngun and is a pretty ludicrous idea.  Doubly so when it's being done to jump through an insurance loophole.

I also think that's the best thing for babies, and that's what we did.  Some people might think it better to decrease the rate of weight gain if it would secure insured health care for their baby.  I, too, think that would be stupid.  However, it's their choice instead of mine, and that's what I actually meant by the remark in question - not that I thought that was the way to go. 
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5110



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2009, 05:33:34 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 02:30:45 AM

Artificially limiting an infant's food intake so they actually lose weight during that period basically runs counter to what nearly every doctor will tell new parents about feeding their youngun and is a pretty ludicrous idea.  Doubly so when it's being done to jump through an insurance loophole.

I think Bruno pretty well demonstrated how ludicrous parents can be with their children.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15612


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2009, 12:19:52 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on October 13, 2009, 05:33:34 AM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 02:30:45 AM

Artificially limiting an infant's food intake so they actually lose weight during that period basically runs counter to what nearly every doctor will tell new parents about feeding their youngun and is a pretty ludicrous idea.  Doubly so when it's being done to jump through an insurance loophole.

I think Bruno pretty well demonstrated how ludicrous parents can be with their children.

Lol. Wow. That was something.
Logged
Toe
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1494


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2009, 12:20:25 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.

Me thinks it had little to do with common sense and more to do with the political climate. No kudos for them.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3685


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2009, 04:27:38 PM »

Quote from: Toe on October 13, 2009, 12:20:25 PM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.

Me thinks it had little to do with common sense and more to do with the political climate. No kudos for them.

RuperT's makes a noteworthy point about the parents' culpability, though.  If they didn't want to risk having an overweight baby, maybe the mother should have wasted less money of prenatal vitamins and spent it instead on whiskey and Virginia Slims.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
RuperT
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 208


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2009, 07:13:44 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on October 13, 2009, 04:27:38 PM

Quote from: Toe on October 13, 2009, 12:20:25 PM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.

Me thinks it had little to do with common sense and more to do with the political climate. No kudos for them.

RuperT's makes a noteworthy point about the parents' culpability, though.  If they didn't want to risk having an overweight baby, maybe the mother should have wasted less money of prenatal vitamins and spent it instead on whiskey and Virginia Slims.

-Autistic Angel
You've come a long way, baby.   icon_neutral
Logged

Live: MooseFoe
PSN: Rupyrt
Geezer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 532


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2009, 08:13:53 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on October 13, 2009, 04:27:38 PM

Quote from: Toe on October 13, 2009, 12:20:25 PM

Quote from: Gratch on October 13, 2009, 03:34:35 AM

The insurance company changed their mind.  Kudos to them for applying some common sense to the situation.

Me thinks it had little to do with common sense and more to do with the political climate. No kudos for them.

RuperT's makes a noteworthy point about the parents' culpability, though.  If they didn't want to risk having an overweight baby, maybe the mother should have wasted less money of prenatal vitamins and spent it instead on whiskey and Virginia Slims.

-Autistic Angel

And crack!  Please don't forget about crack!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 77 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.029s, 2q)