Jump to content

Child Denied Health Insurance.


Recommended Posts

I guess the insurance company said the 22-pound 2 year old "doesn't meet height and weight standards", even though she is described by her doctor as a perfectly healthy two year old.

Embattled health insurance companies are taking a page from Goldlilocks. Last week, a 4-month-old child was denied insurance for being too heavy (the company has since changed its mind). Now the Web is buzzing about a toddler who was denied coverage for being too small.

On Wednesday morning, "The Today Show" covered the story of 2-year-old Aislin Bates. Though she weighs just 22 pounds (in the third percentile range for kids her age), her doctor has described her as being perfectly healthy, never having been sick with anything more than a cold. Still, United HealthCare didn't buy it, saying that the child didn't meet height and weight standards. So, no insurance for Aislin.

The story has inspired a slew of searches. After the segment aired on NBC, queries on young Aislin surged from zilch into triple digits. United HealthCare is wisely responding to what could be a PR crisis. In an article from Denver's ABC affiliate, a company spokesperson for United HealthCare said the company's height and weight requirements "are based on several medical sources, including the Centers for Disease Control, and are well within industry standards."

Still, Aislin's case, as well as the previous incident of the obese 4-month-old, have highlighted the difficulties some parents face when trying to get coverage for their children. Aislin's father Rob was quoted as saying that even though he doesn't support universal health care, this battle over insuring his daughter has made him want insurance companies to have more "legitimate reasons for denying coverage."

NBC medical expert Dr. Nancy Snyderman, who appeared with the Aislins, was more pointed in her criticism: “This is just so bogus. A pre-existing condition for a child this age is birth, let’s be real..... This is why things have to change."

Below, you can watch Aislin and her family on "The Today Show"(after a 15-second ad)...

Yahoo News

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they need to take their business elsewhere. If the regulations which preserve insurance monopolies decide to let them, that is.

I don't really buy into that though. I honestly don't buy into the idea of really any government "sustained" monopolies.

Even with everything completely opened up, I think there would still be significant collusion between healthcare companies and people would still be getting denied and unexpectedly dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really buy into that though. I honestly don't buy into the idea of really any government "sustained" monopolies.

Even with everything completely opened up, I think there would still be significant collusion between healthcare companies and people would still be getting denied and unexpectedly dropped.

That's why there should be a public option for when companies do that.

There is ZERO reason why a a child should not have health coverage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an HVAC contractor that I've hired (through my home warranty company), and they haven't performed the work that I've paid them to do on one of my AC units. So what did I do? I've hired another company and told my previous company that if they dont refund my money then I'm taking them to small claims court.

This really isnt that difficult of a concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an HVAC contractor that I've hired (through my home warranty company), and they haven't performed the work that I've paid them to do on one of my AC units. So what did I do? I've hired another company and told my previous company that if they dont refund my money then I'm taking them to small claims court.

This really isnt that difficult of a concept.

It is if you have three kids and work two jobs and don't have the time to take someone to small claims court because they're holding your last $500 hostage.

Cue the 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' story about how everyone can make it work if they just try really hard and believe in unicorns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is if you have three kids and work two jobs and don't have the time to take someone to small claims court because they're holding your last $500 hostage.

Cue the 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' story about how everyone can make it work if they just try really hard and believe in unicorns.

The only thing I'm going to cue is "why the **** did you spit out three kids if you can't support them?"

The other thing that I'm going to cue is the same old "protectionist regulation only keeps health care so expensive" stuff as well. You want to make health care cheap? Then treat it like the auto repair industry. Allow companies to properly compete, and allow people to properly shop for the level of service that they fidn the most cost effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I'm going to cue is "why the **** did you spit out three kids if you can't support them?"

The other thing that I'm going to cue is the same old "protectionist regulation only keeps health care so expensive" stuff as well. You want to make health care cheap? Then treat it like the auto repair industry. Allow companies to properly compete, and allow people to properly shop for the level of service that they fidn the most cost effective.

Circumstances change. Just because you can support someone when they are born does not mean that situations arise where you cannot. What's more, why is that even relevant? The children are alive now, and do not have health care. Lecture the parents all you want, it changes nothing.

Your second paragraph sounds dandy. I bet that would work in fantasy land where companies who freely compete won't screw people's health over for a buck every chance they get. Unfortunately we live in reality, where stupid people have too many kids and some companies value money as their only obligation when not regulated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances change. Just because you can support someone when they are born does not mean that situations arise where you cannot. What's more, why is that even relevant? The children are alive now, and do not have health care. Lecture the parents all you want, it changes nothing.

Your second paragraph sounds dandy. I bet that would work in fantasy land where companies who freely compete won't screw people's health over for a buck every chance they get. Unfortunately we live in reality, where stupid people have too many kids and some companies value money as their only obligation when not regulated.

And here we get to the fundamental difference between collectivism and liberty. Collectivism sees people as a nuisance that must be accommodated, while liberty sees people as independent and capable of caring for themselves if they are interested in meeting the challenge. Its my belief that collectivism will cause more poverty for the reason that people believe that there's a nanny just around the corner to take car of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What incentive do companies have to pick up unhealthy people?

If you have a car with a bad radiator, if one guy doesn't want to fix it for a fair price, someone else will.

However, if some dude gets cancer and is going to need hundreds of thousands of dollars of care, there's no free market incentive for companies to pick him up. Especially when, as I mentioned, collusion exists and companies realize that if they all don't pick him up, none of them have anything to worry about. I guess you could have a company that would say "We'll take anyone!", but then all they would get would be sick people and their rates would be so much higher than companies that operate like they currently do and they'd go belly up pretty fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we get to the fundamental difference between collectivism and liberty. Collectivism sees people as a nuisance that must be accommodated, while liberty sees people as independent and capable of caring for themselves if they are interested in meeting the challenge. Its my belief that collectivism will cause more poverty for the reason that people believe that there's a nanny just around the corner to take car of them.

I agree, that IS the crux of the issue.

I think that providing people a helping hand in their hour of need, or at the very least protection from the wolves of greed, facilitates their ability to care for themselves. I think it's a pretty poor view of man to assume that everyone in need is going to end up dependent on a nanny state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we get to the fundamental difference between collectivism and liberty. Collectivism sees people as a nuisance that must be accommodated, while liberty sees people as independent and capable of caring for themselves if they are interested in meeting the challenge. Its my belief that collectivism will cause more poverty for the reason that people believe that there's a nanny just around the corner to take car of them.

Yeah, this works really well for those of us that have diabetes. Sure, I never get sick, and my doctors wish their genetically correct patients were as in good a health as me, but I still can't get private insurance. So I guess just cause I got screwed on a random roll of the genetic dice, I don't deserve my health?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why there should be a public option for when companies do that.

There is ZERO reason why a a child should not have health coverage.

As long as that "public option" is directly funded by that family/person and not the taxpayers. Problem is that the government doesn't know how to run anything efficiently nor leave out tax money in the equation either...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this works really well for those of us that have diabetes. Sure, I never get sick, and my doctors wish their genetically correct patients were as in good a health as me, but I still can't get private insurance. So I guess just cause I got screwed on a random roll of the genetic dice, I don't deserve my health?

I have diabetes, my insurance through my job covers me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. It's amazing how people want the government to rule over their lives instead of making a free consumer choice.

are you really THAT dense??

Guy was not asking for government hand out, or anything free, or even to have the government involved....... he wanted to PAY FOR INSURANCE.... yet his healthy baby is getting denied coverage.....and truth be told would probably be denied by several other place

Do you really not see the flaw in that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...