Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear Rocky Mountain Health Plans...FUCK you, the media SHAMED you into helping "the fat baby."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:12 PM
Original message
Dear Rocky Mountain Health Plans...FUCK you, the media SHAMED you into helping "the fat baby."
"A flaw" my ass. FUCK you, FUCK your flaw. You got CAUGHT. The kid gets to live.

:grr:

Fat baby can get coverage after all, insurer says
Colo. company had turned tot down saying he had ‘a pre-existing condition’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33283839/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/



DENVER - A Colorado insurance company is changing its attitude about fat babies.

Rocky Mountain Health Plans said Monday it will no longer consider obesity a "pre-existing condition" barring coverage for hefty infants. The change comes after the insurer turned down a Grand Junction 4-month-old who weighs about 17 pounds. The insurer deemed Alex Lange obese and said the infant didn't qualify for coverage.

The child's father works at NBC affiliate KKCO-TV in Grand Junction, and news accounts about the boy's rejection made national headlines.

The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat. The company attributed the boy's rejection for health coverage to "a flaw in our underwriting system."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. the "flaw" was they finally denied a family that went to the media
And called the insurance company on their BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Change for babies that are fat?
How about people who are fat because they have a health issue? Or, have the insurance, and become fat because of a health issue... jeez... I'm even compelled to play the word games here... how sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Exactly right. If that baby's father was not a newsperson, this baby would not be covered
Edited on Mon Oct-12-09 07:21 PM by Beaverhausen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It's proof that no matter how corrupt and entrenched the "system" might be,,,,
...it is STILL terrified by the light of day.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall during that moment in time when that baby is an adult, and can understand what happened today.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Not necessarily true.
Does your local news have an "on your side" or some such segment? They are always looking for the latest outrage to blather on about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. fucking fuckwad fuckers.
Get insurance companies out of healthcare NOW!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. All you unhealthy babies are still S.O.L.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes, unless their parents can make the same noise THIS kid's dad did.
What angers me is that THIS kid will be helped because the insurance company wants the story out of the headlines.

What happens the next time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. "The biggest loser" show for babies. Now that's an idea.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. So they admit that they only cover healthy people. So what
are they doing in the 'health-care' business?

Remove the middlemen. As Kucinich says 'we do not need them'. All they do is cost money. They have a pre-existing condition, it's called Greed and the only known cure is to cut off their access to other people's money.

A government-run program would cost one tenth the overhead that private insurers cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hurry Congress - get rid of pre existing conditions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. yep.
most likely they would have dumped the kid had his dad not worked for a news station.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindandSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. The point is: There should be NO EXCLUSIONS AT ALL!
It is not when one is healthy that he needs insurance the most. . .it is when there is a danger or when there is a pre-existing condition. . .

So . . .there should NOT be any "cutting point" for insurance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. This story was included Canadian newcasts tonight and I'm sure its going
to be mentioned elsewhere in the world because its just too damn unbelievable that such a healthy cutie-pie would be denied coverage. That baby should be a poster child for the fight against all that is lousy and corrupt about US health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Sweet! International Outrage?
World, you know what to do. Light this one up and make it viral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Yeah Assholes... And Were Gonna KEEP Coming After You When We Find This Shit...
:mad:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-12-09 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. NBC News had this story tonight
Some industry jackass named "Speedie" was interviewed, and he and other industry mouthpieces agreed that it wasn't the insurance companies' fault that young Alex was denied. It was the system's fault!

Pardon the hell out of me, but what system? The system set up by and for the benefit of insurance companies? That system?

Motherfuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. Clearly that baby needs to exert some personal responsibility
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
17. Good grief
It can't be that uncommon for a 4 month old baby to weigh 17 pounds. I think my second son weighed about that much at that time. By time he was 4 he was in "slim" jeans.

"a flaw in our underwriting system." Uh, huh. And these twits are worried about the government coming between the patients and the doctors. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
18. This is precisely WHY employers should NOT be in charge of health care
National healthcare with EVERYONE IN, means that "fat babies" are balanced out (costwise) by the lean babies, and that Dad (or Mom) gets a paycheck for the WORK they do, and then boss is NOT "intimately" involved in their personal lives or the lives of their children.

Look at the Europeans plans.. they drink lots of wine, eat lots of pasta, sauces with butter, and they smoke too ... and yet they live longer, and live healthier lives.. Could it possibly be that the relatively stress-free lives they lead (compared to us) might have something to do with it?

Tying health care to the job was the WORST thing we could have done...it put downward pressure on wages, made what few unions are left negotiate away pay raises and pensions in favor of "benefits"..and it made bosses even snoopier than they ever were.. It also made workers indentured servants, anxiously scooping up crumbs and fighting each other over those crumbs, as the bosses shovel whole pies into their faces....and wads of cash into their bank accounts..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. At the time, it made sense
Employers couldn't afford to pay people, so we exempted insurance from anti-trust and used it to lure workers.

How I wish FDR could have tagged healthcare to his other plans.

The monster just consumed us with its greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. Ha! Forget the attorneys. ALWAYS try the media first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-13-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. it was his Parents, not the whore media
the whore media only picked up the story because of all the "fat baby" stuff.

but this happens to many others but they don't report it unless it has some "attention getting" words involved.

yeah, i understand it took the whore media to get it out there but i still don't give them much credit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC