Too thin? Too fat? Sorry, Charlie, we can't afford you.

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,666
Location
The Golden State
Underweight Girl Denied Insurance Coverage

Aislin Bates weighed 6 pounds, 6 ounces at birth. She now tips the scale at 22 pounds.

"She's perfectly healthy, yet she has become a statistic," said Aislin's mother, Rachel Bates. "There's no reason for her to be a statistic as a non-insured person."

When Aislin's father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.

Now that Rob is working on his own, he's had to get new insurance. The company, United Healthcard's Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says, in part, "We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards."

Don't dare change jobs or start a business unless you're sure that you and your family are of normal weight. Better be sure there isn't some other reason to deny health care while you're at it.
 
Werbung:
Underweight Girl Denied Insurance Coverage



Don't dare change jobs or start a business unless you're sure that you and your family are of normal weight. Better be sure there isn't some other reason to deny health care while you're at it.

You are correct that only a fool would start his own business without first knowing what it would entail.

For years actuarial tables have been used to predict who will get sick and who will not. Without actuarial tables insurance would never have existed. And yes those tables do indicate without a doubt that people who are very thin or very fat are high risks. The insurance companies could stop using actuarial tables but then they would all go out of business or they could make exceptions but then they would be discriminating against anyone who did not get an exception.

Someone fell through the cracks. It is going to happen no matter what kind of system there is. In the UK they have a gov run system and new borns who are 22 weeks* old get medical treatment but those that are one day less than 22 weeks get denied care regularly to actually die. did you hear that? They don't just get denied insurance they get denied care and they die!

At least here he can find another insurance company or go get a job with a company that has more than 100 employees. He has options.

*I am quoting that number from memory. If it is wrong and the real number is 21 or 23 it does not change the way the system works.
 
Someone fell through the cracks. It is going to happen no matter what kind of system there is. In the UK they have a gov run system and new borns who are 22 weeks* old get medical treatment but those that are one day less than 22 weeks get denied care regularly to actually die. did you hear that? They don't just get denied insurance they get denied care and they die!

*I am quoting that number from memory. If it is wrong and the real number is 21 or 23 it does not change the way the system works.

I, and others I am sure, would like to see links for this.
 
I think its clear , that the child should just be put to death right away, due to not fitting the wants of the health insurance companies....

also all sick people....insurance only for the healthy...untill such time as they request something spendy to be paid for...then done with them as well...

Unless you get a lawyer


then we will wait you out with 20 lawyers

then you will give up or die


all we know is, we did not pay you...but you paid us, so we win.
 
I, and others I am sure, would like to see links for this.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.
Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council,

Dr. Who: (Can you say "Death Panel")​

is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

Dr. Who: (Can you say Miller experiment)​

A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'

She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Dr. Who: (you can see the photos at the link)​

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

Dr. Who: (so they even denied treatment before he was born. Treatment that could have prevented the problem in the first place)
Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

Dr. Who: (When is a birth not a birth? When bureaucrats make definitions. Does anyone wonder how the advocates of socialized medicine claim that the US has bad infant survival rates? Other countries fudge the definitions)

She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'

Dr.who: (Maybe she should have chosen a private hospital and paid for it with her own insurance. oh wait, she couldn't those are not allowed by the gov. That some choice.)

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'

Dr. Who: (can you say VA death book?)​

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

Dr. Who: (How is medicine going to improve if doctors don't try?)​

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'
 
I think its clear , that the child should just be put to death right away, due to not fitting the wants of the health insurance companies....

also all sick people....insurance only for the healthy...untill such time as they request something spendy to be paid for...then done with them as well...

Unless you get a lawyer


then we will wait you out with 20 lawyers

then you will give up or die


all we know is, we did not pay you...but you paid us, so we win.

If you agreed to a contract with the insurance company (the most regulated industry in the US) and they abused you then you should complain to the government. It is their job to protect you from people who would abuse you. When the gov abuses you it is the governments job to protect you from the gov. No conflict of interest there. When the gov gets into the business of providing insurance they will compete with the companies that they regulate. No conflict of interest there either.
 
If you agreed to a contract with the insurance company (the most regulated industry in the US) and they abused you then you should complain to the government. It is their job to protect you from people who would abuse you. When the gov abuses you it is the governments job to protect you from the gov. No conflict of interest there. When the gov gets into the business of providing insurance they will compete with the companies that they regulate. No conflict of interest there either.

yea so we should leave it in the hands of a company who profits by denying claims but taking your money anyway...because thetas not a conflict of interest. And the Government is not the one that fixes any issues there, that for the courts...if not, then why don't we just cut out the profits and advertising, and cut the middle man out...the Profit sucking vampires , the Insurance companies.
 
Does this statement from Dr. Who's link sound odd to anyone but me?

She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

Do statements like that cast any doubt on the story being told in your opinion?

Think about it: Can even a full term newborn put out his hands and legs and push himself over?
 
yea so we should leave it in the hands of a company who profits by denying claims but taking your money anyway...because thetas not a conflict of interest. And the Government is not the one that fixes any issues there, that for the courts...if not, then why don't we just cut out the profits and advertising, and cut the middle man out...the Profit sucking vampires , the Insurance companies.


Last year in the entire state of Ill only 400 claims were denied and brought to court. That does not sound like a lot to me. Characterizing a whole industry as being in the business of denying claims rather than being in the business of meeting their contractual obligations is hollow and clearly untrue or the courts would be siding with the consumers so often that these companies would already be out of business. The gov is responsible for making sure that companies meet their contractual obligations. If they are not doing this then they have no right to get involved further.

Providing a good product and being paid for providing that product is not a conflict of interest. It is the way every single company and every single employee in this country operates, including you if you are employed.

Insurance companies only make about 4% profit which is less than the national average for all industries. It is not unreasonable for a company to want to make a profit so it can continue to provide its product.

Meanwhile the federal government runs on a 9% loss. For every dollar that goes to Washington only 91 cents comes back to the states. We are better off being free and paying a 4% profit to insurance companies than we would be giving up our freedoms and paying 9% to fat cats in Washington.
 
Does this statement from Dr. Who's link sound odd to anyone but me?



Do statements like that cast any doubt on the story being told in your opinion?

Think about it: Can even a full term newborn put out his hands and legs and push himself over?

At worst it means that the testimony of the mother is suspect. Since the facts in the story were clearly true based on the quotes from other professionals it does not matter.

At best the mother meant that while she was cradling him in her arms he pushed himself over. He probably was being held in such a way that it only took a little nudge rather than being placed on a floor and pushing himself from front to back completely unassisted.

I remember my 2nd newborn could grasp my finger in her fist and almost pull her body up. She could also push herself away from me when she was done eating. She could never have pushed herself over from front to back. The mother probably never meant from front to back.
 
I think its clear , that the child should just be put to death right away, due to not fitting the wants of the health insurance companies....

also all sick people....insurance only for the healthy...untill such time as they request something spendy to be paid for...then done with them as well...

Unless you get a lawyer


then we will wait you out with 20 lawyers

then you will give up or die


all we know is, we did not pay you...but you paid us, so we win.

Not even logical. Just because she isn't qualified for insurance, doesn't mean she should be put to death. She likely isn't qualified for financing of a Roll Royce either. Should we put everyone to death because they can't afford a luxury car?
 
Does this statement from Dr. Who's link sound odd to anyone but me?



Do statements like that cast any doubt on the story being told in your opinion?

Think about it: Can even a full term newborn put out his hands and legs and push himself over?

Given the story was backed by the hospital, the midwife, and the mother... I'm going to say it's fairly credible. Further, the terms of NHS are well documented. It is a fact.

Look, this is how it works. Government doesn't have infinite money to provide infinite services. It never does. So there has to be trade offs and cuts. This is one way in which government has cut costs, by dooming to a slow death, babies that are under their defined limit.

Unlike the baby in the UK story, the girl in your story can still get medical treatment, by the parents simply paying for it. You go to the hospital, you pay them money, and you get treated. Insurance is not a right.

Now which do you think is worse... as system in which the doctors can simply ignore you, under government control.... or a system in which you can get any service you wish by simply paying for it?
 
Last year in the entire state of Ill only 400 claims were denied and brought to court. That does not sound like a lot to me. Characterizing a whole industry as being in the business of denying claims rather than being in the business of meeting their contractual obligations is hollow and clearly untrue or the courts would be siding with the consumers so often that these companies would already be out of business. The gov is responsible for making sure that companies meet their contractual obligations. If they are not doing this then they have no right to get involved further.

Providing a good product and being paid for providing that product is not a conflict of interest. It is the way every single company and every single employee in this country operates, including you if you are employed.

Insurance companies only make about 4% profit which is less than the national average for all industries. It is not unreasonable for a company to want to make a profit so it can continue to provide its product.

Meanwhile the federal government runs on a 9% loss. For every dollar that goes to Washington only 91 cents comes back to the states. We are better off being free and paying a 4% profit to insurance companies than we would be giving up our freedoms and paying 9% to fat cats in Washington.

Key word Brought to court....Most people can never even get to that point with the way there lawyers work it...or they dont have the money and time to get it to that point.
 
Werbung:
Key word Brought to court....Most people can never even get to that point with the way there lawyers work it...or they dont have the money and time to get it to that point.

Feel free to demonstrate that having coverage and then losing that coverage because the insurance company kicked you off the rolls is rampant. So far all we have is anecdotal stories. ( I would add that in Illinois of the 400 people who went to court the court sided with the insurance company every time which either shows that the termination was right or that the gov cannot be trusted)

I looked myself and so far the only data I have found is in this article expounding on how tens of thousands in one state lost their coverage - but they were all enrolled in their states universal health care plan!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/08/23/errors_leave_some_without_insurance/
 
Back
Top