Toddler denied insurance for being too small

KUDOS and well said JTM!!! How stupid is this for these insurance companies?? Try being denied insurance for having breast cancer in the past! That's exactly what happened to me, and was denied by three companies, but, when one finally approved me, I still had to wait ONE ENTIRE YEAR before they would even cover my expenses!!!! Bunch of greedy morons!!!!

Heaven forbid the DOCTOR be listened to..."their own family doctor went to bat for them" - the HMO doesn't care, they want to protect their corporate salaries and bonuses (these people are not business owners, they are employees who hit the big time). Hopefully a public option will happen. This article points to yet another reason why we ought to have that option, and I will flush my HMO in a heartbeat if the premium for a public option is even close to the same price.

From an article run in our local paper some weeks back, "Stephen Hemsley, CEO of United Health Group, earns a salary of $3.2 million, plus unexercised stock options of $744.2 million (Forbes)" - that is not a typo. Their corporate earnings, on the backs of their cherry picked policyholders - 155% increase in the second quarter.

HMOs love to have Uncle Sam, ie. the taxpayer, pay for the old/sick/injured that they deny coverage to, or dump. How nice for the HMO, to have the taxpayer subsidize their bottom line! Hope they are enjoying their millions, while people like the family in the article deal with being stunned by corporate "business decisions".

I think this story is propaganda and they are not telling us all there is. This smells like the stories Obama has been telling us, and not one of those turned out to be true. If this one is factual, or even if it isn't, Obama would love a story like this.

Is it just me or does it seem like the insurance industry is trying to convince everyone that we NEED a public option by proving they only care about profits?

My sister, who calls herself a "very good Christian" stated at a Christmas dinner recently that children have absolutely no right to health care at all if there parents don't have good jobs, etc.

I guess United Health Care must be "really good Christians" also. I mean, who am I to say they aren't, given that apparently I'm not a very good Christian, according to really good Christians?

This is ridiculous!! The insurance companies are too money hungry; I pay in, pay in, pay in, and yet they can arbitrarily decide what to cover and what not to cover!

I, like these parents, have a son who most of the time in his childhood, has not even been on the "charts". He's well below height and weight and is a normal, healthy little boy. I've also been like the other parents....I've had a child who was in the 90th percentile for height and weight as an infant. Now he's lean and tall. Both of my kids are healthy. But, yup, some insurance company can come along and say it's just ok to not cover someone because of something so stupid!!

Yup, we need reform and we need it bad!

Grip - We could well afford to pay out of pocket, as our medical/dental policy is over $12k a year for a family of 4 - and that is with a $5k deductible - which we have just barely reached that once, in the years with the employer's HMO (employer pays half of the annual premium). We essentially have this insurance for a catastrophic illness.

I asked the clinic provider, where we must go, (their docs are on our plan) how much would an uninsured person would pay for an office visit - we are charged $185 a visit - the HMO pays $42 since we have not met our deductible. She said she could not tell me, as they do not accept uninsured patients. Nor Medi-cal (state insurance/medicaid in Cali for kids).

Hope everyone is enjoying paying taxes to subsidize the HMOs bottom line. What a sweet deal for those corporations - salary and bonus in the millions.

Uh did you not know the CDC is the ones who set guidelines that are followed by government agencies that use them to make laws IE>food labels so when a insurance company follows the same guide lines for the fat kid and the skinny kid they have a precedent. Seeing as how the CDC guide line is what was used to make the determination then the fault rest squarely on the CDC AKA:federal government for trying to lump all people together in there oxymoronic socialist state.1size does not fit all.These children are being harmed by the federal government.so do you really want there 1 size fits all logic controlling your health care???hope these parents sue the CDC!

I'm starting to think that insurance companies just have it out for small children....

The entire situation has gotten out of hand.

Both of my children were exactly 22lbs.at 2years of age. My pediatrician never "charted" them at their yearly exams, knowing that family background was the reason for their small size. I am 5' tall & my husband is 5' 6". Giants, we are not.

If the health insurance companies are alluding to preexisting conditions to insure a 2 year old, they need to take a step back & re-evaluate their guidelines. Like the six year old who brought a camping utensil to school, governing agencies need to treat each situation individually & not just blindly adhere to existing regulations.

By the way, my 20 year old son is now 5'5" & my 19 year old daughter is 5' 3"... both taller than their mother.

Yes, BUD-869648, the health insurance industry is looking for citizen's such as yourself that are looking for Obama to be lurking behind every dark corner. Conspiracies abound, yet millions go without health care, even with they have insurance because the can't afford the co-pays and deductibles!

It is one thing for my employer and myself to pay premiums, but it is quite another for me to have to then pay co-pays AND a yearly deductible. Health insurance is being held ransom in this nation, and it needs to stop!

Affordable health care now. A PUBLIC OPTION Now!!

They think that is small, my 6 year old son is only 25lbs. Luckily for us we have our private insurance and medicaid for him. (we live in Iowa)

notavoter

Uh did you not know the CDC is the ones who set guidelines that are followed by government agencies that use them to make laws IE>food labels so when a insurance company follows the same guide lines for the fat kid and the skinny kid they have a precedent. Seeing as how the CDC guide line is what was used to make the determination then the fault rest squarely on the CDC AKA:federal government for trying to lump all people together in there oxymoronic socialist state.1size does not fit all.These children are being harmed by the federal government.so do you really want there 1 size fits all logic controlling your health care???hope these parents sue the CDC!

You show me where the CDC says this child should not be insured, and I will personally help pay for this family to sue them!

fine these companies, force them out of business for something.

come on government! protect the people! not these companies!

Yes I am still against a public option. Let's fix the problem stated by doing two things: 1) set a regulation that prevents insurance companies from not insuring people with pre-existing conditions, with an out that if I don't stay covered they can leave me out - it is not right for an insurance company to pay for an illness if I only buy the insurance when I get sick - so maybe a 90-day grace period on "prexisting conditions" if I have not been covered or if I am switching from a super-cheap coverage with lousy benefits at the last minute (you can hopefully see the abuse I am talking about).

2) allow everyone to buy insurance from any state which will open up the market to do its job. Existing regulations are a big part of the problem.

Let's do that, and then STOP! Then we watch it for three years and analyze what effect those changes have. THEN, and ONLY THEN consider other options.

The idea that the correct way to proceed is to pass a 1500-page bill is simply something I cannot understand. I struggle to believe that ANYONE who is willing to be even a little bit intellectually honest can think that a 1500-page bill is even remotely a good idea.

This is why we need a "PUBLIC OPTION" in the health reform.

I work in the insurance industry, and am glad some of you do not run my company. I would not have a job if you did. You have to understand that these are INSURANCE COMPANIES. Not physicians refusing care. Insurance companies exist to help lower the amount you pay for your medical care by pooling you and your money with other people. In order to provide this service to you, pay their employees, and make a living themselves guess what…….. they have to make a PROFIT. They aren't charities. In order to provide their services to you and me and keep the doors open they cannot accept those that adversely affect the insured pool. They have to set underwriting guide lines somewhere and yes that means that some people don't get covered. However, they still have access to healthcare services. They simply have to pay for it themselves. If you walk into a hospital and need medical assistance it is illegal for them to deny care. They will expect you to pay. I know how unfair that seems. If you want preventive care, however, you may have to prepay, because like the insurance companies, physicians are not charities. They have to make money just like the rest of us.

 In this situation it is obvious they are giving all the details. Did you notice that she is just small for her age….except for the eating disorder she was treated for……..and the gag reflex problem she has. Its like the people I talk to who tell me they are 'healthy' except for the high blood pressure, cholesterol problems, and extra 50lbs they are carrying. This is a simple business decision on behalf of the insurance company. There are other insurance companies out there, and if she is really healthy they will find one that will cover her.

Don't get me started on the so called 'public option'.

Remember no where in our Governing Documents does it suggest that the Government is responsible to pay our health insurance premiums for us.

Lee-1024766, the insurance companies are not out to convince you that a public option is needed, but the person putting this story forward clearly is. For every example like this, you can find examples of regular families with tiny children that are being covered, like PenguinMama78 above. Where is that story praising the insurance company, and the supplemental state insurance for doing the right thing.

A public option is like fixing a bleeding paper cut with a tourniquet. We scream hate at the insurance companies as if they are monopolists. If they are, then anti-trust can fix that. Breaking a monopoly is not what proponents of a public option are looking for because there is not one. Think about it - if competing companies are coming up with the same solutions there must be something in the market that is prompting them to go there. A good place to start your search is government regulation. There may be other forces in play, but honestly, don't you think that Aetna would love to take Blue Crosses' customers? If so, why don't they set up a program that is so amazing that everyone flocks to them? That's what a free market would do. So the question is, what is stopping the normal free market forces. Please do not pretend that "it's like this because of rich people and their greed" - if they were operating in a free environment greed would drive them to undercut the competition with superior plans and service. I am confident the government will not have such an incentive EVER.

Government regulations create a situation where collusion can happen without any competitors actually talking with each other. For example, let's say tort reform actually happened - let's say we capped lawsuits at $250,000 in reaction to the exorbitant awards out there now. It would be great for a time, but then what would happen over time? Wouldn't the cases that are now settled for $100,000 start to creep up toward $250,000? It still may be the right thing to do, but you can see the challenge.

Wait a second!!! What did you expect? Insurers are private companies that stay in business by eliminating those who are A RISK for them. That is what a good businees must do to survive.

The problem is ours, because we came to think that to have health care we got to have insurance.

You are outrage that insurers are greedy? They are suppose to be that way !!

We must stop looking at insurance as a way to obtain our basic health needs. It is NEVER going to happen. It is mathematically impossible to sustain the notion that private companies are going to provide for the basic welfare of society. THAT is the function of the people and its government. You must either have a general safety net that pays for basic health need using tax dollars (sort of socialized medicine) or; you remove the middleman and let the patients pay directly for the services received. Without insirers in the way, the providers of care could directly compete with each other to set fair costs, which will likely be much less than now. Insurance would then become what they are in any else that is insurable, a safety need for castrophic events (hospitalization, surgeries, cancer, accidents). That will also reduce considerably the cost of insurance.

BTW, with public option or not, this "health reform" bill is a joke. You trying to solve an insurance caused problem by expanding insurance ???!!!! It maybe me, but that has oxymoron written all over it from the word go. In the areas where it has work privatization has done it by complementing a basic public offering, not by competing against it.

While insurance companies continue to make the best case for a public option with really stupid decisions, like this one and the denial of little Alex Lange, they are spending our premium dollars by the hundreds of millions on lobbyists and negative advertising against public option. Not only should we be concerned about the fact that insurance companies are playing God with all our lives, we need to insist that legislators limit the amounts insurance companies pay on anything other than our health care charges. I also think that companies with these kinds of denial histories should not be eligible for inclusion in any government-arranged exchange or be able to oversee any parts of any public option.

The hubris displayed by United Health Care, either the largest insurer or one of the largest in this country, is breathtaking. Did UHC not think this story wouldn't appear on the news? Did they think they were 'too big to fail'?

B Lee-

You state:

"Remember no where in our Governing Documents does it suggest that the Government is responsible to pay our health insurance premiums for us. "

You're right but The Declaration of Independence does state:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It seems to me that, if the number of lobbyists the insurance industry has running around DC and state capitals are any indication, your industry needs a heck of alot from the government and the least your industry could do is allow people who need insurance to buy it.

I have seen no indication that a public option equates with free but let's assume you are right.

It hasn't mattered how or where your funding came from before, why does it matter to you now?

Your kidding right?

We would have to go to court to answer this question and a judge would have to decide.However there is precedent where these guide lines have been used as proof in courts There are numerous rulings where insurance companies have won civil suits that were brought against them for denial and used for reason for increased rates based solely on the CDC guide lines being used for evidence in state and federal courts also the guide lines are used as evidence in criminal prosecution.These guidelines also are used by law makers to write laws.Don't forget everything in Government is a legal process whilst the court battles rage people suffer just like these 2 children.Granted the insurance company could choose to cover on there own but that then brings back civil suits of people who have been denied or had to pay a higher rates based on guidelines that now are being ignored for some but not others.AKA:cherry picking.So again do you want the government controlling your health care?

why wouldn't you just go ahead and pay?Thats the problem we have people who are multi millionaires and millions of people that are for a public option, they could easily start a non profit take donations and pay for the UN insured, yet they don't they keep there money and demand we all pay for it.So easy to be generous with others money.We all agree we need reform but the president himself has said remake health care numerous times as well as he is for the public option. Neither DNC or the RNC want reform they want control just in differing ways.the democrats want total control whilst the Republicans want control of awards through tort reform. no middle ground with these 2 cults.

I was diagnosed with sleep apnea, which means I involuntarily stop breathing while I sleep. Potentially hazardous condition.

Humana denied coverage of an $800 machine that would help me sleep overnight b/c they deemed the equipment as "unessential". I guess they figure I should quit this breathing habit of mine while I'm at it too. Mind ya, I'm a mid-30s guy w/ no drug or alcohol issues, & beyond being 2 or 3 pounds overweight for my height (5'9") am perfectly healthy. Such is the state of health in America: if you're healthy, at least you're less screwed than if you were unhealthy!

Public option is not the way either. Folks think they will have a menu of options but will be disappointed when it turns out that public option is more of a night mare. The government is not going to be the health care provider some think it will be. When you get turn down for anything and everything then come back on this board and share with the rest of us how great the public option has met your medical need. Single payer will limit what will be paid out and what will be covered.

Ralph, Penguinmama says she has her small kid on MEDICAID, she has private insurance, not the small boy - likely a health issue (I'd say they were poor, but then they could not afford private insurance). Isn't it great her HMO can push those they wish to onto the taxpayer's dime? It really helps their bottom line - read: bonuses.

I am repulsed by people stating this article is just propaganda. If it were the case united health care and Fox news would be all over it. It would be all we heard about for a week. "MSN and the liberal media lying to achieve Obamacare." And as far as the idea of all media being "liberal media" why don't you people look into who owns 80% of the media and then tell me they are liberal. How do you think the Bush administration was able to get away with everything they did for 8 years, including attacking a country for something they didn't do.

I have had insurance through my employer for 4 years now. In that time I have ben prescribed 2 medications. 1 was denied because the insurance company didn't want to pay for it. I pay more a month for health insurance then I do my house! I gave birth and while I was paid for because there was no way they could deny me, my son was not because my company didn't send them a letter saying I delivered a live baby. He was supposed to be automatically covered for 30 days until I could get my plan updated. You would think they could have told it was a live birth because of the procedure and services I was charged for (such as checking out) but hay, they saved a grand. 

And as far as the arguement that it will put people out of jobs, do you think there won't be more jobs if a new program is put in place. I suppose the people who put a microscope to patient histories so they can deny coverage will be in trouble but as they don't care about other people I'll not worry too much about it.

B Lee, a health company worker, says ..."They aren't charities. In order to provide their services to you and me and keep the doors open they cannot accept those that adversely affect the insured pool. They have to set underwriting guide lines somewhere and yes that means that some people don't get covered. However, they still have access to healthcare services. They simply have to pay for it themselves. If you walk into a hospital and need medical assistance it is illegal for them to deny care. They will expect you to pay. I know how unfair that seems."....

UNFAIR?? A health company worker just told us to scam the system, wait until your health issue is critical, and will cost who knows how much to fix - and go to the TAXPAYER FUNDED ER. Now I'm sick.

The CEOs of those insurance companies make too much money. If they took a pay cut (gasp) then they may be able to insure some more people. Profits to line their pockets.

We already have a public option its called pay for the healthcare services yourself.

how can one pay for insurance for themselves or their family when they get denied coverage?

Just wait till reform passes, then people will be denied because they are too sick, too expensive to keep alive. "Why not take a pain pill instead of getting a heart transplant?" THAT's the kind of healthcare we have to look forward to if this reform (read: takeover) passes. HOWEVER, I do agree that things need changed, but not an entire re-write of the whole system with the government at the helm. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and open up more competition. Competition drives DOWN costs, which is the beauty of capitalism.

To deny a toddler insurance because they're too small, that is ridiculous and pathetic.

First, a Colorado baby was turned down for health insurance for being too big. Now, another Colorado child has been turned down for health insurance for being too small.

If the child is healthy, why should it matter about their size?

There is no rewrite of the entire system. Private insurance is not being outlawed.

Do like they have in other countries and make the health insurance companies non-profit. It's ludicrous that people make money off of denying necessary heath care. Or, co-ops are a option worth looking into seriously. Those that are lucky enough to live where they exist now are extremely happy with their co-ops and the co-ops keep their costs way down without denying care.

If there turns out to be a public option, it won't be for those of us who can afford and get health insurance, so don't think if you're unhappy with your current plan that you'll be able to switch to the public option, because you won't.

Allow competition across statelines. My family only recently decided to purchase healthcare; we've spent more in the last three months on insurance premiums than we've spent in the past 3.5 years on healthcare services, including prescriptions. However my son is getting older and braver and beginning to play sports, so we decided it was a necessary fiduciary precaution incase he should be seriously injured.

"This is nothing more than the Toady Show grandstanding for their man Obama."

Makes more sense then the average citizen grandstanding for sleezy insurance companies.

Greg- Are you truly surprised at your sister-n-laws comments? SOME Christians can be the most hypocritical, un-empathetic, judgmental people that you will ever meet. My friend's mom is very "Christian," but against healthcare reform because she doesn't want to wait in line so that welfare recipients and "minorities" can receive healthcare, too. SOME Christians make other Christians look bad.

I'd like to have an option. My asthma medicaton runs me close to four hundred dollars a month, it's all considered tier 3..... they're making a load of money off of me, and it would be interesting to see what the public option would offer to cover me for and what my medicatons and doctor visits would end up costing me.

The smart thing to do is to do a restructure of the current system and get the insurance companies to be more competitive. Seriously people, we need to keep the government from taking this over at all costs. They are already too invasive.

Anyone else notice how pink/red Snyderman is? I wouldn't trust her with my dog. She'll swing whichever way the lefties tell her to.

I don't want health coverage anymore!!!! I want free health care. Why can these other countries, like Canada, do it and America can't?? We aren't stupid. We are just oppressed under the thumb of the insurance company. Why do we give them so much power? We need to take the power back and put it into the hands of Americans.

I pay money every month to have health insurance in case I, or my family, get sick. Then if any of us gets sick, I pay again to see a doctor. Then I pay again to get the medicine I need to get better. Doesn't this sound crazy to anyone else? I feel like a complete idiot for continuously paying to get the care I deserve as a human being.

We need to do something and we need to do it now. If anyone has any suggestions, say it, write it, repeat it. We can get it done. We deserve to get it done.

FREE HEALTH CARE, NOT COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS

This is just ridiculous.

Mn Woman

You state:

"Remember no where in our Governing Documents does it suggest that the Government is responsible to pay our health insurance premiums for us. "

You're right but The Declaration of Independence does state:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Great! I get your point. If this is really what the American people want, to alter our Government and give it new powers and responsibilities, then alter the Constitution. Let’s have Congress create and pass an Amendment that states providing health insurance is a responsibility of the Federal Government. Right now, like I said before, no where does it state that it is.

Then when the Government barely has enough money to pay the interest on its loans and all these social programs we will know that it was what we really wanted.

If you think I am exaggerating that we simply cannot afford a new program like this, see what David Walker Comptroller of the United States has to say.

Personally passing legislation like this would not improve our counrty's Safety and Happiness.

addiem

First, I said I work in insurance industry. I never said I work at a Health Insurance Company.

Second I did not suggest you scam the system. It that is what you are accustomed to doing that’s your thing.

When I had to go to the ER a few years ago I did not have health insurance. When it was all over they sent me a bill for almost $5,000. I worked out a payment plan and paid the bill. I did not scam or pass that bill on to anyone else. I guess maybe it is too much to expect, that others would be self sufficient enough to do the same. Also, that helped me understand why it’s a good idea to pay for health insurance.

987RS

Nothing is free. The French pay 45% of their income for "free" health care. The Canadians who can afford it come to the US for critical treatment, such as chemo and radiation cause they would be dead by the time it was their turn for treatment.

I for one have been grateful that we've had the healthcare that we have in this country. Our research is better, state of the art equipment is available, and we are on the verge of cures and treatments for serious illnesses every day. Next time you are in Europe, check out their medical facilities and ask around to the locals, and they all envy us and the choices we have.

I agree that insurance companies need to be tamed and put in their place as they have been allowed to get away with things for too long, but letting the government take over is not the answer. It never is.

They are only babies, people....profits are what are important.

C'mon and get your priorities straight ;-)

Profit is important, because they help sustain companies and employees. We are still a capitalistic society. However having a Public Option is not about killing the insurance industry either. They do serve an excellent role in our country. However, it is rediculous to give them ANTI-TRUST status!

Secondly, people think Public Option crowd are knocking the private insurance. That is not true. Much of the people who support Public Option have private insurance. They are simply asking to have more competition that are on the same playing field. Your choice of provider is left up to you, the individual or the employer. How much more fair can there be?

For those who thinks the government will eat up everything, then why would you switch to government policy if you don't like it? Remember, it is an option...

If you think this is bad wait until the government says who should have coverage and whether they should have a needed operation and when. Yes their should be help for individuals who don't have insurance; there are many state programs in place such as medicaid and medicare. If someone has an emergency and can't pay their not turned away. Mandating more taxes on individual citizens and private businesses to pick up the tab is another step towards government control. I for one believe in private enterprize, what this country needs is JOBS NOT MORE TAXATION!

Let me know when Congress either has to pay the 2-8% tax increase or accept the public option like all businesses have to, then eliminate the electronic access to banking information, and maybe I will begin to read a bill with the public option. Until then, it should not be FORCED ON ME to make sure that EVERYONE is insured.

If we allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines, and if we allowed individuals to form groups to become insured, and finally, if we eliminated ridiculous and frivolous law suits for malpractice to drive prices down - insurance might become affordable again.

Nancy-

Both Medicaid and especially Medicare are almost impossible to get unless you're disabled in some way...you can't get either just because you're poor. It took me five years and a lawyer to get on SSDI...unless you're over sixty-five, it ain't gonna happen.

Krissy519 & Nancy Davis: Actually you are half right.... French pays 45% and Canadian pay even more... fine, because we are using fairly rough estimates...

With a houshold income of $72,000 => $6,000 per month at 25% tax braket & family insurance of $800 2009=>38%, 2010=>40%, 2011=> 42%, 2012=>44%, 2013=>46%

With a houshold income of $60,000 => $5,000 per month at 25% tax braket & family insurance of $800 2009=>41%, 2010=>43%, 2011=> 45%, 2012=>47%, 2013=>50%

With a houshold income of $51,000 => $4,250 per month at 25% tax braket & family insurance of $800 2009=>44%, 2010=>46%, 2011=> 49%, 2012=>51%, 2013=>55%

You see, if you at mediam household of $51,000, you are already at the French level!!!! AND it will only get worse every year after. If you make a bit more at $5000 per month, then you will reach the French by 2011. If you make a little more at $6000 per month, then you probably wouldn't care until 2013. So it should be clear to you why the rich would care very little, and it would have minor effect on their livliehood..

As to denying coverage... The private insurances are already doing that, and retroactively closing out policies. With the public plan, you still have a option to stick with your favorite private plan. So I fail to see your point and your fear mongoring?

Just so people would have a clear picture. I live in LA. Someone at mediam income will have less than $800 to pay for family car, car insurance, food, clothing and saving after they pay 25% tax, rent of $1290, utility of $300 and health insurance of $800... The longer the Republicans can keep this up, the longer our middle class will be dying of starvation, and serve the rich. Eventually, the 90-95% of the US citizens will end up serving the top 5-10% who probably won't even live in USA by then....

Krissy 519

You are right ... but you are misinformed (like most). Nothing is free. That is that.

We have don't have "better" technology or research. We just have more of it. Don't get me wrong. That is to some extend good, because it helps us find better treatments faster than other countries. But it does not mean that they are stupid or uninterested in advancing science either.

Where you err is thinking that this is somehow linked to current insurance controlled system. Insurance companies do not do medical research, nor provide care of any kind. They simply are redistributors of money from you to the people that care for you while keeping a big chunk for the favor. So whatever they can do to block or delay this process, the better for them. That is why this present system is so ridiculous. It is like going to the grocery store and having to call the bank to see if they approve of the groceries you've chosen.

Your so call government "take over" would only apply to this absurd part of our health care system. It has nothing to do with technology or medical innovation. This is paid mostly by private investors (although some by the government thru NIH). This hasn't mentioned at all by anybody at any time during this"debate". Reform is about insurance, period.

And by the way, our "better" research has shown that these Canadians that come here for cancer treatment don't do any better than if they stay there. They just spend more.

And just in case, the WHO lists France as the country with best health care system in the world (we are in the mid 30's !!!). I've been to a few of their hospitals and they are as good as ours. When we consider what we pay for health insurance and instead amount that as an added tax, it comes up to about the same as what the French pay anyway. Except that we get denials for care and they don't.

I have asked on several threads who all these millions are that are being denied healthcare? No one ever answers. I think as B Lee said, a hospital has to care for someone that shows up in a bad way. They, at the very least have to stabilize them then transport to a county hospital or something. With medicare, medical, medicaid, healthy start, etc.... I will ask once again, who is not being cared for?

I would think this little girl would qualify for Disability or even Social Security payments. Surely, the family could pay out of pocket with the additional income from one of the other government programs already in existence?

Paul: The article talks about denied coverage. Majority of people on this vine is talking about coverages and payments. So what in the world are you talking about????

If you and B Lee is trying to divert the subject to Millions of people being denied medical assistance while under stress, then you're have your facts incorrectly. I know of no one figure head of Single Payer, Public Option, and Government agency that has state such. So please stop trying to throw something out there and hope it sticks... This type of naive political misdirection is getting old. If you want to keep your job, not a problem, but the rest of us want a solution to our rising cost on healthcare.

Insurance company denies insurance policy to SUPERMAN; cites reason, he flies to much. The insurance industry is doing everything to cause Federal Regulation; and they wonder why.

Are you sure? I thought Superman's policy was retroactively withdrew because it was discovered that Superman had pre-existing condition that was not disclosed while he was a teenager.

I hate to see that, I am 100% against a government takeover, but then I read a story like this one and I change my mind in an instant. Even though I have great health insurance for me and my family and know that I would probably lose it with a public option I just can not stand to see the abuse that insurance companies are allowed to do. I always put myself in that position of being denied and that hurts. My son has only 35% hearing from his left ear and I know that if I tried to get insurance he would probably get denied because EN&T is expensive and he goes twice a year. Luckily for me I have a PPO with my work through my Union. But I would favor a public option if it meant that these crooked insurance companies would go broke in a matter of months. Yeah that would raise unemployement but Obama doesn't care about that and as long as I am employeed I dont care either.

Yes, health insurance reform NOW with a choice of a public option, and reigning in of the health insurance industry is positively a life and death crisis.

I still believe the underlying and outrageous refusal to insure this child has to do most with fear of an undiagonsed and underlying disorder in this child. Also ethnic predisposition for certain genetic disorders probably are factored in to overall denials. I am not referring to genetics of ethnicity in this particular case!!!

I can just see the wheels turning in the insurance company's book of denials wondering what special needs, equipment, medical evaluations-later on, and potential diagnosis await this child and her family. Obama has nothing to do with situations such as these. No matter what political affiliation, health care reform is critically essential. This child's denial is just one more story of the reality of the tremendous power of the insurance companies and lobbyists.

To 987RS:

I don't want health coverage anymore!!!! I want free health care. Why can these other countries, like Canada, do it and America can't?? We aren't stupid. We are just oppressed under the thumb of the insurance company. Why do we give them so much power? We need to take the power back and put it into the hands of Americans.

I pay money every month to have health insurance in case I, or my family, get sick. Then if any of us gets sick, I pay again to see a doctor. Then I pay again to get the medicine I need to get better. Doesn't this sound crazy to anyone else? I feel like a complete idiot for continuously paying to get the care I deserve as a human being.

We need to do something and we need to do it now. If anyone has any suggestions, say it, write it, repeat it. We can get it done. We deserve to get it done.

FREE HEALTH CARE, NOT COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS

Seriously?? Health Care coverage is not a RIGHT!!!!! I don't like having to pay as much as i do to insure my family,  i also don't like paying taxes, or grocery shopping, or tuition for private schooling, but that is the American way of life...let me guess, Illegals should also get free care because they are human beings..hahaha....what don't you get...do you even know anything about Canadian health care because, I do, i live 20 minutes from the border and know a lot of Canadians, and ask them how long they have to wait for BASIC care, nothing is free in this world, stop looking for a handout from the government, what other country in this world allows people to prosper the way ours does, what other country gives you the choices and the freedoms you have, stop bitching and get a better job with better insurance, or make more money, or if you are really that unsatisfied get medicare/medicaid and use and abuse the system like so many others that simply "want free health care" as opposed to the people who know that it is a luxury to have to pay only 100 dollars on a 10,000 dollar medical bill! I am so sick to death of all the crying over wanting things for free...I want free housing, I want free health care, I want free food, I don't want to work for anything....like every other hardworking person in this world..YOU HAVE TO EARN IT PEOPLE!

saxon, Superman has a horrible allergy to Kryptonite (a pre-existing condition)! He would not even be covered by the Public Option!

Beg to differ, Public Option makes it his choice to go with the government plan if he chooses provided if there is a plan to cover him. A blanket coverage may be possible if there is Universal coverage within the Public Option.

**** OUR GOVERNMENT IS FINALLY IN THE PROCESS OF REMOVING HEALTH INSURANCE OFF OF THE ANTI-TRUST LIST **** now there is only Major League Baseball on that anti-trust list.... hurray!!!!

thturd,

That is not entirely true. It is not a "choice." First of all, the current bill in Congress is saying that if you do not have health insurance, you will be fined. According to HR3200, the only public "option" written to date, an employer will be taxed anywhere from 2% to 8% if they do not offer the public "option" - or undergo an expensive audit (even if the employer offers a better plan than the public "option.") This will force employers who already supply good insurance to go to the public "option." The public "option" is only a good idea if you are not one of the 80% who will need to sacrifice what they already have in order to provide it. The public "option" is not right for this country!

Right on, smartchic11! Smartchic for President!

Right now it is up to Harry Reid...

RV: you are right, the insurance company found that kryptonite exist in the galaxy, over 100 million light years away; however if superman came in contact with it , there could be a claim; best not issue the policy; can't have the company liable in the future for a medical claim. Only insure those who can't get ill.

I think insurance companies are trying to squeeze the most they can at the moment. They realize their years are numbered. They might as well just make the most buck they can while it lasts. Pure greed, but within the regulations that were made by the lawmakers we elected. Can't blame anyone else, but ourselves. :-)

Jason:  You criticize Obama in this thread because you think that's who this Public Option Insurance is all about.  Did you READ the article?  It's about people who are being denied coverage ... just because they MAYBE SOMEDAY MIGHT need the coverage.  These insurance companies don't want outgo.  They want income.  This Public Option isn't trying to tell these insurance companies they HAVE to insure those who might cost their stockholders a dividend penny or two.  They're trying to provide for an option to those denied coverage.  Take Obama out of this issue and read insurance provision:  coverage for everybody.

Wow jason, you have really been brainwashed by corporate america. Who do you think is responsible for the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, safety regulations, overtime rules and the other few benefits we have as workers? Certainly not the corporations but government and unions. Because we are the government . Wether you agree with the current government or not we usually have the government we deserve. Personally I think corporations already have too much power. In Europe they have four weeks vacation minimum, paid family leave, national health and child care, free college tuition. Yet they manage to live longer and surveys show they are happier than we are. So you go right ahead and keep sticking up for the big corporations and see how nice they are to you if government doesn't force them to behave. Corporations including insurance companies are out to make as much money at possible, period they couldn't care less about your family or health. Government at least has to face re-election vote. United insurance only has to worry about its share holders.

Amen to that!

caibarrien, you hit the nail on the head with your comment about the 4 weeks off (I don't think you meant to). The goal of our society has become to rest, relax, and retire. We live for Friday at 5pm. We dream of retirement. We go into debt for vacations we can't afford. When we get to a day that we again derive pleasure in this life from putting forth an honest day's work (and receiving an honest day's pay, granted), rather than escaping work, then we will be able to be happy and have peace in our lives.

Ralph I'm not knocking an honest days work. It's one of the things that made this nation great. But work should have it's limits. What is the good in being a rich nation and working so hard if you cannot enjoy it. My family is originally from Spain and when I have visited there I've noticed that people there work to live, here we live to work. In Spain family, friends and enjoying life comes first, not your job. Everyone is entitled to work and businesses have to share there properity with there workers. Too many Americans are just trying to keep up the pace in the "rat race", and have forgotten that before you know, your old and sick and its too late to enjoy life.

Tyler, you shouldn't make me laugh like that when I'm drinking hot coffee!

Eyes wide open. Good morning my friend.

Good morning, clarke.

I am not against a public option, but there is another way: Make these insurers accountable. They should be obliged to insure people like these kids and, if they do not want to do it, then they should leave the insurance business. The original idea behind insurance was to have everybody covered, not to fat-line the pockets of insurance companies shareholders.

I agree guys! This is getting out of hand! Here you have an adorable healthy little gum drop who is caught up in the deep pockets of these greedy morons, and she doesn't even know that she is being discriminated against!!! Sad, sad, sad!!!

OH PUHLEEZE! Our government is just too busy with housing tax credits and cash for clunker programs to deal with kids who don't have health care coverage!

And we have a CHRISTIAN government, don't forget! Why, Bush was in direct communication with God for 8 years, right?

If United says this child shouldn't have health care, then there you go! But first, let's make sure people who can't afford houses get tax credits to buy one!

I am curious as to how any insurer can be "obliged" to cover anyone they don't want to...except for the fact that I live in the State of Washington. A state that doesn't allow insurers to refuse anyone because of pre-existing conditions!

Don't want massive government health reform? Fine! But at least go to your state legislator's and demand they put safe guards in place for their citizen's. If they fold to the health care lobby, then replace them with someone who will not fold! Between the banks, Wall Street and the health insurance industry, Americans are getting squeezed to the point of bursting. It is now time to do something about it!!!

Health Reform NOW!

More than a decade ago, most of you all bought into the managed care thing hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because it was for a time artificially priced below indemnity health insurance. And no one really took note of nor cared about that word "managed" because they were happily and without abandon driven by the word "cheap". So how do you think the government is going to sucker y'all into the public option? Duh! Managed care has only been a warm-up for what we're all in for. You think the government (the master of trying to alter social behavior through taxes) will have no penalties on its health coverage to try to make you conform to their notion of good health? No penalties for smoking, being over or underweight, gambling, drinking sodas, driving too fast, eating at McDonalds, etc., etc.? If so, you're frankly stupid and I've got this great bridge for sale...

Dear B Lee....msg #1.18....

People too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, too black, too white, smoke, doesn't smoke, inherited bad genetics, lives with domestic abusers, doesn't live with domestic abusers....the list goes on! Insurance companies should not be able to draw the line where ever they can make more profit and then re-draw the line over and over to remain profitable. It's still discrimination, it's unethical, it's immoral, it's unconscionable. Health care and profitability are an oxymoron.

Really? I would then advise all medical students (esp. those bright prople working their butts off and $200-300K in debt) to quit now and go work on Wall Street or open a garage, cause you ain't supposed to make any money caring for people. Because if you're profiting off of other people's misery, you're evil. Are you kidding me?!?

allthumbs

You miss the point.

If you are profiting off ADDING to the misery of others you ARE evil. If by your profiteering you are CAUSING more misery, you ARE evil.

Hope this is helpful in your search to become a better person.

clarke,

You miss the point.

You can't pay off $200,000 or $300,000 debts with a "search to become a better person." Our doctors will still need to be paid a great deal of money because they have incurred huge debts going to school - to learn to help people. Why would anyone want to go into debt like that if they can't pay it off and...oh, I don't know...live a good life after they pay the debt off?

Thank you! You say it well in a few urgently needed words.

These folk who believe this is an Obama issue do not realize the extreme situation they personally may face one day or a member of their family. Pre-existing condition? DENIED!

When did so many lose the art of thinking and the capacity to care about others?

RV,

YOU miss the point. I do not care how much anyone spend in school to provide me a service at a reasonable price. Anyone who is trying to rip off someone else just to pay their school (or for that matter, any other) debts, is unethical. A doctor doing so is twice unethical because he took the Hippocrates Oat not to do any harm to his patients. If they want to become rich and pay their debts, let them go sell cars, jewelry or bonds. Taking advantage of sick people in search of medical attention is utterly wrong, any way you see it.

Rosie,

YOU just made my entire point. You now want our most talented physicians to "sell cars, jewelry, or bonds." I hope you enjoy being operated on by a surgeon who passed his Anatomy class with a C-. "Hey, she only dropped the scalpel into an open skull two times, she'll be a fine surgeon." Who needs talent though when you have a surgeon who is a kind soul? I'll take the person who is best suited to perform the operation.

It's because to many people have the "well it sucks to be them but i'm alright" attitude anymore.

I don't see anything really wrong with capitalism, it's just insurance companies using absurd policies within the confines of capitalism that ruins it for everyone. Remember Nataline Sarkisyan? Died because her health insurer denied her a liver transplant! All so the company could save a few hundred bucks.

Granted, the goal of capitalism is to make as much money as possible, but there's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is when insurance companies put a pricetag on human lives. It is these terrible policies which should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

Sure, in an ideal world regulation would not be needed. Unfortunately, this world is far from ideal and these companies need to be regulated.

I completely agree. American spirit of freedom, compassion, and organized movement is long dead. We've been sitting on our comfortable sofas for way too long. Remember the 50s, 60s, or even 70s when people would actually go on the streets and showed to the government that they disagree? Europeans still have that. Americans, sadly, are glued to their TVs watching Dancing with the Stars and the Biggest Loser, instead of reading or watching something more intelegent. We would rather have thousands of blogs/forums/etc. about Kate, Jon and 8 kids than about healthcare. I am a patriot and I want to do something. The least I can do is to write to my rep/governer/senator and tell them what I want them to do in the healthcare. I think I'm going to do it today and I hope others will do too.

I like capitalism too and that's one of the main reasons why I moved to the US 15 years ago. But you said it right: in the ideal word there shouldn't be any regulation. And in the ideal world the capitalism would come with the great deal of responsibility and helping people who are less fortunate. By definition, the capitalism is basically a private capital at work for its own unlimited profit with no intervention from the government. Insurance companies take it literally: "No State intervention = no regulation. Let's screw everyone else and make lots of money for ourselves!" Of course, I'm exagerating, but the capitalism system simply does not work for healthcare. And if there is a slight regulation from the State - it's not a capitalism anymore. I think we just need to get it over with, create a social (public) healthcare system here and live happily ever after. Instead, we are currently protecting doctors who earn crazy amounts of money, insurance companies, and people who like to sue doctors and hospitals for money. It just doesn't make any sense what we are doing here to ourselves.

it's just insurance companies using absurd policies within the confines of capitalism that ruins it for everyone.

So, capitalism is good as long as you get to pick and choose which companies will benefit from it?

So, capitalism is good as long as you get to pick and choose which companies will benefit from it?

I couldn't agree more! Health care should definitely be for profit! Screw those losers who go bankrupt and die in the process. While we're at it, let's have for profit firefighters, police, infrastructure. I mean, if you can't afford it, you deserve to burn, be the victim of a horrific crime, drive on bridges that collaps. As long as some greedy SOB is making a buck, it's fine by me!

Nobody is trying to take away the right to make a profit from these insurance companies. We're just trying to give a second option if I don't want to be a part of their capitalistic monopoly. The public option intends to make people accountable for obtaining their own coverage, but if they are denied coverage, they cannot be held accountable. There are a few smoke signals out there indicating regulation of these private companies would secure coverage for all, but do you really think these companies want regulation? Do you think Americans would keep silent when learning of the bonus provisions and outstanding health care afforded to an elite few at the top of the insurance food chain?

It's funny the way we Americans think........kill our kids,.....our stubborness is literally killing us.......

We'd rather...

We'll learn,....

You mean "the way some Americans think", right? Way to try and make it sound like every single citizen of this country thinks exactly the same way about everything (not to mention to think we all think the same way you do). What do you expect us all to do, just say "That poor girl deserves health insurance! I know! Let's switch to communism!" Come on. This article is not about the common American citizen "supporting capitalism" its about a sweet healthy little girl being discrimitated against by a greedy company. If you want to talk like this go to one of the health care reform threads on newsvine. Lets get back on topic.

I dont think switching to comunism was intended here at all. In fact two basic premises of capitalism are

1.Supply and Demand will control price

2. Competition will control the free market.

In the case of the insurance companies you have neither.

United healthcare is part owner of the company that underwrites insurance therfore ther is no or little competition.

The public option will create competition thus setting insurance comanies more in line with capitalism.

Alot people in this forum are confusing the difference between being profitable and greedy.

Being profitable is earning a profit through FAIR business practices that are legal, morally sound, and can withstand real competition. If you have a great idea for product or service that people see as a benefit to themselves then you can profit from it. A business can be fair, honest, treat its customers with decency, operate within widely accepted moral guidelines and still be profitable. This is what capitalism is based on.

Greed, however, seeks to make a profit at the expense of others, irregardless of the indirect cost. There is very little or nothought or consideration of others, legality or fairness in competition. There is only the thought of collective person gain no matter what or who is destroyed in the process. Greed tries to hide under the guise of capitalism but is far from it. Don't believe me? Look at Wal-mart and Microsoft for questionable business practices and Wall street for disregard for the burdens placed on others to further their agenda.

I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money...heck, that's the way of business. BUT!!! I do have a problem with them being doctors and deciding what's right for me; what I can and can't have; etc. When I had my appendix taken out in emergency surgery, the insurance company kicked me out less than 24 hours after my surgery. LESS than 24 hours!! The insurance company also decided that they won't cover my blood pressure medicine....after all there are a cheaper kinds that work. Never mind that I've tried them and they don't! So people I don't know are making my medical decisions rather than my doctor and me! That's where the problem is!

Now you have an insurance company deeming 4 month old babies as "obese" and 2 year olds as under-nourished and unhealthy even though the doctor says she's fine!!

Regulation! Majorly needed!!

There seems to be a whole lot of misinformation out there... First- insurance is HEAVILY regulated. Those regulations are exactly one of the reasons premiums are what they are. There are federal and state guidelines that go into this, including (but not limited to) not being able to insure anyone outside state lines. The competition is limited thus making the price point something that very seldom has much option. What I want to know is- did this family attempt another insurer? Is there another insurer available to them?

As for health care reform. I hate insurance. Seriously. Paying out more a year than I use in medical services betting on things going really wrong and that I will then use it. I don't think many people will say that reform isn't necessary but I think people are arguing that this proposed piece of legislation isn't the way to go- which I would agree about.

Costs are huge and frightening- why? Doctors perform bunches of tests out of fear of lawsuits causing billions of dollars a year to be spent for what ultimately is unnecessary testing. Insurers have also said this. So- why is THAT not in the legislation?

Lower copays/deductibles- this doesn't drive premiums; we pick those plans based upon their cost. This little tidbit in the legislation will drive up the premiums since each plan's out of pocket expense will be limited to very little. If I want a $10k deductible- why not? It's my responsibility and one I take seriously.

Forced to buy insurance- Why is it reasonable for the govt to dictate what plan I can purchase and that I have to purchase something or pay a fine? (HSA plans are said to be getting axed through this legislation)

As for reform- is anyone here aware that this "emergency legislation" won't take effect until 2013? Perhaps people would do well to be skeptical of the govt wanting to push legislation through so quickly and then have it not take effect until the next president is in office as well as, hopefully, another congress.

As for the person that contends that capitalists would rather see their kids die... really? Because one is concerned about profit (and when you employ people in varying numbers- you should be) does not automatically make them heartless. Just as you saying you'll pay for other people's insurance (provided yours is getting subsidized as well) doesn't make you a compassionate person. Let's define terms and stop operating on assumptions that are reminiscent of terms like "proletariat" and "bourgeois" .

A friend of mine had his appendix burst three weeks after he started a new job. The health insurance company denied his claim. Do you think anyone could walk around with a burst appendix for 3 weeks? Not likely.Could he have shopped around and free marketed it up while he had a burst appendix. Absurd.

Greed and nonsensical cure-all free market idealogy has no place in healthcare. But let's settle for public option.

Another point to make is that a for-profit corporation focuses on making money for its shareholders. But that doesn't mean non-profit organizations don't make money. The employees get paid just as well in a non-profit, the executives get to make tons of money just the same as a for-profit.

People seem to think "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" means everyone does their job as volunteers, or for minimum wage. Absolutely not, some people make a very comfortable living working at non-profits. There are just no shareholders to pressure the company to increase profits every year.

Clotho - you're right. And as a matter of fact, the best working environment, pay, and benefits I've recieved in my career was with a nonprofit. One that kept it's operating expenses at less than 1% of it's total assets, to-boot. A non-profit can still be sustainable business and healthcare executives will still make a great salary, because they have to pay to keep the talent . . . if you can call denying care talent, LOL!

"and kill our kids", Get real! If this little girl is healthy as her parents and pediatrician say she is, another insurance company will pick her up. Mom & Dad just need to keep on shopping instead of going back to the familiar company that used to insure them. I would say, the child's condition has changed since then as well. I was turned down for a job once because the company had some sort of pool for their healthcare and one bad apple basically spoiled the bunch, as they say. I had a son with medical problems so I was not the right candidate for the job. What did I do? Go look for another job!

Your child was discriminated against whether or not you know it. Is that really all right?

You write a compelling need for critically needed health care reform with a public option written in with for those believing this is the right choice for them.

I wonder how many people actually realize there are some conditions an insurance company will never insure on an individual basis. The families only hope is to be employed with a huge pool of others who can not be denied. The best example may be federal employment insurance.

If a job is lost along with the insurance, do people realize how much COBRA costs and the huge exclusions? Most people can not afford COBRA, and those who do pay a huge premium?

Peace be to you, I was discriminated against, not my son. I just believe in personal responsibility and it is my responsibility to make a living suitable to take care of my own. Somehow, I think continuing on my job search, instead of stopping to scream 'discrimination', was probably best for everyone!

The happiest country in the world is Denmark. My foreign exchange student told me they LAUGH at our outrage at a universal health plan. She said the reason they are so happy is that a) their focus in life is on family, not things; b) if they become ill, they have FREE medical treatment, and c) if they want to go to school, they can for nothing. The country is concentrating its efforts on betterment of health and education, not stuff. Capitalism is an excellent method of rewarding those who work hard or have ingenious ideas.

In Germany, they have the government-provided insurance. It covers the necessities, but the wait times can be a bit longer, and the covered services are less liberal. If you want the extras, you have the OPTION of buying a private plan. Those private plans sell like hotcakes over there. My aunt needed medical attention. When the ambulance came to pick her up in Rottenburg, they FIRST asked her if she had private insurance before giving her morphine for her pain. Had she not had that plan, she would have had to wait until she got to the hospital. Then she would have gotten it. The wait would have been longer, but the treatment would have been there.

I want to be voted the happiest country someday. Think we can ever get past our political differences and be contenders?

A friend of mine visited a relative in Sweden recently as he was older and in declining health. I came back astounded at the level of care provided in home for this man. They actually provide services at a level far above ours. Of course they are socialist. I recently heard a talk by the Nobel prize wining economist who said all system fail at the individual level, ccommunist, capitalist or socialist because in the end it is all way a person making the decision. If an insurance company can exclude people from it plan this is what you will get. The system is irrelevant. We have a not for profit hospital in my community, they have decided not to take medicaid on some people choosing to sue the patient for more money. Its illegal but they still do it.

Everyone will burn out on the millions of outrageous stories. A woman having her insurance revoked for life because she donated a kidney. Babies with hip dysplasia deemed uninsurable. Instead of chasing down these morons trying to hand them our money lets vote in a public option.

I'm not sure but in the story it sounded like there was an employment change or job loss and they are on Cobra now. Maybe they were shopping around for less expensive insurance.

I'm only speculating.

Regardless it doesn't make sense to deny a 2 year old that, according to doctors, is perfectly healthy regardless of her size.

So really who cares about why they are looking for insurance for her now.

The article says she was insured under the fater's previous employer. When the father changed jobs, the insurer for his new job refused coverage. The child was previously insured.

Mandated insurance with a public option will cure that ill.

Robbie

What are you yammering about? Go back and actually read the story. Then, after thinking for at least ten seconds, read your comment. After doing that can you be kind enough to inform us what your comment has to do with this situation.

re-read the article - she's being covered by her father's COBRA - his previous job - limited to 18 months - and if it's like our insurance - those premiums are over 600 a month for the COBRA

Did anyone here read the article?

The same insurane company had insured the toddler when she was an infant. She was insured when the father worked for his previous company.

He then quit his job because he decided to become self-employed.

He then went to get insurance under this insurance company again, and they denied coverage for Aislin.

Please actually read the article before you post.

Re-read the article, and don't make comments until you know what you are talking about...it says they had healthcare from his job when she was born, then the company he worked for switched carriers, then when he became self employed he wanted to return to the original healthcare and THEN they denied the child's coverage...

Please re-read the post, before replying to it. The poster explicitly stated, that his question was not related to this specific case, but just an overall question that I would also like to be answered.

How should we prevent people from only obtaining health insurance when they know an expensive problem is coming? The way the proposed plan has been set up, it would make sense for individuals with few health problems to pay the fee to opt out of health insurance and then get health insurance (with no pre-existing conditions clauses) right before a major surgery. If this is allowed, insurance premiums will sky-rocket because only the sick (i.e. expense to insure) will be paying for insurance.

This question does not apply to this case as the current laws prevent an insurance policy from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions since they have been continuously covered. However, the current laws do not require health insurance companies to issue a policy.

Read the article. He still has COBRA for the next 18 months. When you leave a company with which you have insurance coverage Cobra covers you for a period of time in which you may find private insurance.

Cobra pays the premiums during the transition period. Hopefully you will then find an Insurance cartel (oops) company that will accept you.

For pete's sake Google it.

schokiegirl wrote "How should we prevent people from only obtaining health insurance when they know an expensive problem is coming?"

Past abuse has led to insurance companies writing clauses about pre-existing conditions.

If we had a national public plan and everyone was covered at all times we wouldn't have to have the conversation regarding what do you do to stop abuse like that.

What do you mean COBRA pays the premiums during the transition? They certainly don't in Maryland. When I became disabled and left my company I had to pay through the nose to get COBRA until I received Medicare. Thankfully, I don't depend on Medicare as I am insured through my husband. I can't imagine the nightmare if that were my only coverage. I worry constantly that I will be dropped by my husband's insurance because of my health problems. It's not fun.

soarl, The taxpayers can't afford to have EVERYONE covered! Heck, I pay $418 per month for mine and it's going up another $90 per month in January. This is following a pay cut this July1. We, the working poor, are spent!

Well look at it this way...if there is a public plan you could actually be saving money over the 500 your about to be spending come January. You don't have to pay for two insurances.

The money is being paid already. It's just to whom it's being payed and by who it's being paid that could be changing.

And you must be on disability, welfare, social security or something. What the hell makes you think I can afford to pay more? Already working two jobs. It's people who think like you that have destroyed the United States of America. Something for nothing has gone too far for too long!

You are missing what I'm saying. You are already paying health insurance of 418 a month right?

It's about to go up in January right?

If there is a government subsidized public plan you could actually end up saving money instead of your rates going up.

As far as the money part...I'm not talking about you paying more. I was referring to the fact that billions a year are paid to over priced health insurance plans and companies that will drop you as soon as you file any major claim if they can. A lot of these billions of dollars are paid by your employer and some part by employee's. I currently pay 20% of my Insurance and my employer covers the rest. If a public plan were in play or even better, a form of universal health care or single payer system, it would just be changing around the where and who the money is coming from.

If you really look at it from a business owners perspective part of your salary to them...or your over all cost to the company is your benefits package. In a way you are already paying for your own health insurance by busting your hump 40+ hours a week for that company. Regardless your paying whether it be in taxes or a smaller paycheck so your boss can afford the bill or even out of your own pocket. A public plan would cost less and be more efficient than what you are paying for now and that is what scares the crap out of the big insurance conglomerates. They might actually have to compete for business.

Thank you. Fair enough.

This has nothing to do with government run health care. This is privately owned healthcare denying a perfectly healthy small child coverage.

The government plans to do away with denial for pre-existing conditions.

This is just the beginning of Gov't Run health care denying health insurance coverage to overweight (or underweight, elderly, too sick...etc.) individuals of any age.

Sounds like someone believes all that GOP hate mongering BS.

If you don't believe in a public option then you don't believe in Medicare.

If you do not support a public option then you do not understand the issues.

If you do not like the idea of a public option then do not be a part of it.

If you do not support a public option then I question your compassion for others.

JH. Did you read the article? What in the world are you talking about? You remind me of most of the farmers in Nebraska. Do you know how they vote? They do not follow any election campaigns and don't know who is who and what they stand for. They simply come to a voting booth and vote for everyone who is Republican. When their kids ask them whom they voted for, they tell them not to ask stupid questions, of course for a republican! Have you ever seen the surveys GOP sends to its members? They basically treat you as a retarded person and the questions are asked in such way that you can only answer they way they want you to answer. Do yourself a favor: go to a book store that carries foreign newspaper from a well-established country (UK, Canada, Australia, etc.) and read it. And then compare the same stories with the US media. You will see how retarded our media is, thanks to our conservative views like yours.

Calling someone retarded is hardly an intelligent reponse.

Calling someone retarded is not NECESSARILY an intelligent response. It is necessarily rude however.

Armen didn't call anyone retarded. He simply stated the survey's sent by the GOP treat it's members as though they were retarded.

I guess he did call our media retarded. But that isn't really a false statement.

JH in KY? Are you insane or just plain stupid. The government is not the one denying care here, it's the INSURANCE company! What is wrong with you paranoid anti-government freaks? For Godsakes, if you want to live in a land with NO government, NO laws, and NO regulations, move to Somalia. We are SICK of you paranoid creeps.

Its interesting that the same people who say you can't trust government with anything, such as healthcare, trust the gov't with our security and will gladly let our gov't decide to go to war wherever the hell they feel like it.

Oh, by the way. Speaking of war. How ARE our two wars going, by the way? Let's see. 6 1/2 years in Iraq and 8 in Afghanistan. Any end in sight, peeps?

Soarl:
You miss the obvious pitfall in the "new" legislation.
CORRECT, in that an insurance company will not be able to deny based on "preexisting" condition...BUT - there is NO limit that the insurance company can CHARGE for it. THey CANT deny coverage, but CAN charge 10k per month.
Second, IF the child is, as the doctor says, "normal", then there is no "preexisting" condition -thus, the insurance company can drop them and not violate the new law...just as they can drop anyone, anytime, so long as it's not in violation of sex, gender, religion, etc.
What you dont understand, is that this whole health reform movement in Washington is going to be blunted and not do anything in terms of real reform, because the insurance companies are STILL paying for YOUR legislators to go on "free" "conferences" to Rio, Hawaii, Fiji, etc.

JH

Obviously you didn't read the article. At the very least you could try to have a coherent opinion based on your own thinking instead of the mush in your post.

I know, I know, it hurts to think.

Hey Armen I live in Nebraska. While I do agree with you, I just want it to be known that most people in Nebraska are not farmers (well, maybe out west, but not around Omaha or any of those surrounding areas). Many of us are intelligent, and we actually do get to hear about the issues and are able to make an educated vote based off that. Though you do get the farmers who move to the big city who just still, well, don't quite 'get it'.

This new legislation will NOT be perfect on the first write. It will need amendments and augmentations, deletions and clarifications. BUT IT'S A START!!!! Maybe in 150 years, our great-great-great grandchildren will get it right.

Shoot! We're still working on perfecting the lightbulb. Should we have existed by firelight until now?

The ability of conservatives to twist anything and everything to suit their agenda is nothing short of amazing.

Case in point - This comment by JH in KY

"This is just the beginning of Gov't Run health care denying health insurance coverage to overweight (or underweight, elderly, too sick...etc.) individuals of any age."

JH-

Don't comment if you don't know your facts. I work in a physician's office and deal with Medicare EVERY DAY. Guess what? They don't deny claims because you are over-weight, under-weight, high blood pressure, history of illness, pre-existing, etc. It's the commercial carriers that DENY, DENY, DENY.

Thats exactly what they do. There's no money in insuring people who need insurance, only in insuring the healthy.

Well said... Bottom line = $$$$$$$$$$ & bonus's

And yet these are the same people that some would trust to make life altering decisions for them.

Yes because a company that provides healthcare insurance would not want someone who is going to raise their group rate. Therefore, you have age discrimination in hiring. Or say you have a child born premature and the bills are mounting up so you let that person go. We need to get this monkey off our back. Write your representatives support the public option. Put in a word for universal healthcare. Japan has it Germany has it.France has it.Uraguay has it.

I believe we did not get the whole story here... this story was propaganda and POORLY done. Why didn't they ask/include a comment from a United Healthcare Rep? They are onesided and want to dumb down the public. So many people on here are falling for it.

The idea of he/said she said journalism is a joke. If it is false then I agree with you, but providing balance in journalism does not equate to free PR or attempts to spin.

You really think UHC wants to make a statement and dig themselves in deeper?? That's funny.

AARP lost a lot of it's members over their support of the part B plan because of the clause that the government could not negotiate for cheaper drug prices.

That was a wake up call for AARP. They at least want to give the appearance that they support reform.

That could be my family. All of my kids were smaller than the charts, all healthy and my oldest son is now 6 feet tall, but my daughter was just like that little sweetie (without the reflux). She ate normally but just stayed tiny and at 18 months was just over 20 lbs. She grew to be a normal 5'6". Doctors in this country were worried she wasn't "thriving, but we moved to Ireland and they just said, "don't worry, everything is fine", and it was. And one of the best things about living in Ireland and England was their national healthcare. The "scared" Americans are holding us all back from something that will improve our lives.

The elderly are worried that they won't be getting their huge share of expensive end-of-life treatments. How can they buy all of those pills if they haven't been paying expensive insurance premiums their entire lives? I'm looking at multi-hundred dollar bills (covered by insurance) from doctors for 15 minutes of their time to weigh, inspect and administer a couple of shots. We have circumcision and Cesarian sections, both medically unnecessary infant procedures, that are popular convenience options. No wonder my insurance premiums are so darn high.

J-

Another article I read stated the child suffered from "gag-reflex", so no, I don't think we got the "WHOLE" story. However, that being said, my son was born with jaundice, 1 undescended testicle, and two hernias and he had to have several surgeries. I would have been really devastated, emotionally and financially, had the Insurance denied his coverage.

I'm sure the denial wasn't just based on weight. I am sure it was based on the medical history of the child. But even then, I don't think the insurance companies are acting ethically.

We already have a public option its called pay for the healthcare services yourself.

Clearly you have lived under a rock the last twenty years and have absolutely NO IDEA just how much even a simple doctor visit costs without insurance. That kind of thing would bankrupt even a moderately middle-class family in a matter of months.

As for the whole idea of making it illegal to deny people based on pre-existing conditions...there's a law against that where I live (WA state), and the companies get around it way too easily. How? They'll give you insurance, but turn around and charge such exorbitantly high premiums you can't pay it. I know, I had it happen to me before I (finally, after five years of fighting it) got SSDI. That is not the answer. A public option is. It's impossible for anyone who hasn't gone through that hell to understand that it's just that--hell.

We have circumcision and Cesarian sections, both medically unnecessary infant procedures, that are popular convenience options.

Obviously, you have no idea why Cesarian sections are sometimes the best option for baby and mom!

Paul-

No kidding. Most women don't get them unless there's a medical reason for it, and it's kind of disturbing how many people don't know that.

A lot of cesarean sections, like mine, are done on an emergency basis. I didn't have a choice, my daughter was in fetal distress. That certainly was not what I wanted, but her and I would have both died without it.

Ian are you a doctor? How do you know that Cesarians are unnecessary procedures? I think you are generalizing too much.

No matter what your opinion in this particular debate, as long as people stay involved at the level they are right now things will change for the better. We are all much more informed now than in the past, and we are looking at EVERYTHING with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Stay involved.

Nope...can't see it being better. It will cost more for everyone and that's a slap in the face to many who have been fiscally responsible in the past. Sometimes natural consequences are a good thing.....

Ranger S...spoken like some one who's never been REALLY sick...

"Natural consequences"???? What the??? This is a two year old kid we are talking about here. What do you suppose her "natural consequences" should be?

And as far as this being "a slap in the fact to many who have been fiscally responsible"... Let's talk after you're hit by a drunk driver or come down with any type of cancer...

genafan...sorry....we are not communicating.

Not talking about natural consequences for this child. Talking about natural consequences of letting the corrupt institutions fail...meaning things will get worse before they get better.

sorry about not being clear. Hopefully you will rethink your comments to me.

With that theory in mind, I assume you feel we are due for a complete collapse of our existing government in the near future? After all, never has there been such a collection of miscreants, criminals, sleezes and thieves in such a revered institution as that of our Congress!

Apathy. Lose it.

sorry about not being clear. Hopefully you will rethink your comments to me.

OK Roger, I accept your explaination on the natural consequece thing, but what about the "financial responsiblity" part. I've worked for the past 21 years at the same company. I have health insurance. I've also had (cleared up, thankfully) breast cancer. I worked through my mastecomy, radiation, and chemo so I could KEEP this job, and the health insurance. If it comes back, or heaven forbid, I want to take the early retirement I've worked and saved for, I'm screwed. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE, at any cost, at that point - pre-existing condition you know. So, I'm now here until I turn 62 or what ever age it is you can go on (what????) that government run Medicare.

No, the system we have now is severly flawed, and needs to be reformed NOW...I for one am all for a public option...even if it is a little more costly than my current premiums, deductables, and co-pays, not to mention what isn't covered (or what the insurance company deems unnecessary).

genafan201....sorry you have had to endure all of that. There just has to be a better answer than a government or corporate run health program...i just don't think anyone knows what it is.

At some point, I'm sure there will be cooler heads to prevail with at least some semblance of integrity. Until that time, i will remain fully skeptical and staunchly opposed to business as usual.

Uncommon...I have no preconceived notions that a collapse will occur....although that would be preferably to the slow grind of continued corruption that is more likely to occur. As far as apathy....it's the friend of complacency and neither are my kind of "fellows"."

My son is little - tall, but very slender and just this fourth year reached the 40th percentile. I belive he was in the 5th percentile at his one and two-year check ups. All kids grow at their own pace.

However, I'm so thankful that the doctor did not see a problem with his growth and did not make any notes about it in his file. And unfortunately, until this insurance thing is cleared up, I won't be asking any questions that may preclude us from future healthcare, like being concernce about his weight. Horrible that it's come to that, but when you're dealing with creeps like insurance companies and you're a contract employee, I don't want to take the risk that a simple question could be used against us for denial of coverage.

The majority of people can afford insurance. And the ones who can't should be provided affordable health care. There should be no cracks for anyone to fall through. Yes, Insurance Co's do need major reform...people should not be denied coverage for previous conditions....etc...there are many changes that need to be made.

...but we DON"T NEED the GOV'T controlling more of our lives.

JH

Majority of what people? If govt shouldn't mandate change in health care and insurance, then who should it be?

Have you even bothered thinking through what you are saying?

JH in KY, have you actually read the bill at all or do you just listen to what the talk shows tell you?

Public option does NOT equal government controlling our lives.

They aren't forcing it on us like you GOPs want to make it seem.

Jeez, go pick up a book or something.

Insurance company reform?? That's a good one. Why should they have the least bit of interest in reforming? They get to pick healthy policyholders, and dump the rest - to let the taxpayer pay for the old/sick/injured. The insurance companies are getting their bottom line subsidized by the taxpayer - us - they are, and will continue to, pay millions to lobby against any reform.

Oh, Amen! Two thumbs up, just another sheep!

I work for the Health Department. That would be a government run health department. The waste is atrocious! It is bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy! I sometimes think the higher-ups spend all their time trying to come up with how to spend more money. How to start new bizarre programs that cost millions and serve very few. Hire more too, for sure. You have to have at least three people in government to do one mans job. How anyone could think this will not be a financial disaster is beyond me.

And yet the waste and overhead found in corporate health insurance companies is several times that of the government run medicare/medicade systems.

Actually, the politics of hate was begun by the right wing conservatives during the Clinton presidency, and is now being revived and brought to new heights, egged on by beck, coulter, limbaugh, et. al.

Your fears of government takeover are needless and unfounded. There ARE countries that use both public and private insurers. What has happened in these countries is that the private insurers are forced to compete on quality and service, because they can't on price.

Imagine that. Quality and Service. From an Insurance Company. And they are profitable and stable.

Staggers the imagination eh?

I hear more HATE from Democrats than anyone...

If you believe that then you must be new to not just participatory journalism but journalism in general. Beck, Limbaugh, FoxNoise, Hannity, Sen. Wilson, Sen. Kyl, etc, etc, etc.

What specific issues are you referring to?

Cost control, discrimination, benefit denial, coverage cancellation, pre-existing conditions, out-of-pocket expenses, etc, etc, etc.....

Like I said, we will have no choice, but to be a part of it.

Incorrect. You obviously believe the GOP spin doctors.

Lastly, you don't know me well enough to judge how compassionate I am.

I don't have to know you. Your comments and lack of alternatives speak volumes.

We are the only industrialized country that does not have a public health care option. Are you proud of this? How do you justify a lack of compassion for those in need?

Oh yah, gov't running the little guy out of business...

Just like the United States Postal Service ran FEDEX and UPS out of business right? I mean who ever heard of those guys? If they're even still around they must be struggling right?

....right?

Good point, danniboi. And libraries of course forced book stores out of business. lmao.

JH

Can you give us some examples of "little guy" insurance companies?

On the other hand it's good to know you approve of the socialist medicare program. Why is possible govt health insurance unacceptable but govt medicare OK with you?

Again, have you even bothered to think things through?

J.W Welch~

"Littler" than the US Gov't.

As an "optional" program, Medicare is fine...(needs some reform also) but that is not what Obama is working toward. He is in favor of a single payer system...

So am I. It does not take too much study to discover that a single payer is the most efficient way to handle the payment side of healthcare. In terms of billing alone the savings over a multi-tiered payment syatem is staggering.

As long as Docs are making the medical decisions with their patients, single payer is far, far superior.

Bartman~

Clinton did pretty despicable, and illegal things...are we supposed to smile and says it's all OK? Actually...Clinton was an ANGEL compared to Obama. (I just never listened to a word Clinton said, since it was all Lies).

BUT for 8 LONG YEARS (minus the first day of his Presidency) all we heard was HATE for President Bush to the point where NO ONE wanted to listen to the news anymore. THEN, all we heard was HATE for SARAH PALIN and the EXCESSIVE HARRASSMENT of the Liberal Media. Nothing a FEW conservative radio hosts could do or say to TOP the HATE of NBC, ABC, CNN, and the Democrat party (not to mention SNL, Letterman, etc).

AND with OBAMA, well, regular democrats aren't event in the same league with him. Are we supposed to just BE QUIET and let OBAMA turn the United States into a socialist, marxist, country and LOSE all of our HARD-FOUGHT freedoms? We don't hate...we are just TERRIFIED and ANGRY about having our rights and the basis of our security taken away....the CONSTITUTION. It has protected the people and our rights for 200 years and now ONE MAN and his administation is going to take that away?? What will be our defense then? Whatever a man or judge says?

Jh

Name a constitutionally guaranteed freedom you have lost, or are in danger of losing.

JH

What you are saying then is that any company smaller than the US govt is 'too little to fail'? I thought it was the other way around. Oh well.

As an "optional" but socialist program you have no problem with medicare. It is socialist isn't it? Isn't medicare in competition with the "little guys" you mentioned?

After all, if there was no medicare people would be paying for additional coverage to those same little guys you spoke of.

Clarke~

Will have to answer later.

JH

Hopefully, and in my opinion, you won't have to.

JH in KY,

If you are going to make assinine comments at least use proper grammer.

You said, "Littler" than the US Gov't. Littler is not even a word, it would be smaller.

As for the "Liberal Media", you are joking right? I thought that might actually believe that the media is ran by liberals, that was such a good joke. Glad to see that you're watching the brainwashing programs on Fox. You probably also believe that our black President is a Nazi. Am I the only one out there that realizes that someone other than a Caucasian cannot be a Nazi?

Folks folks please don't argue with JH.

There is an old saying --- "Never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and beat you with his years of experience."

Another truth -- The only difference between genius and stupidity --- Genius has limits.

Someone might want to explain it to JH. Probably waste of time.

Laura~

I used parenthesis on purpose to show that I knew that wasn't a word....guess you missed that.

Nancy~

Using criticism instead of reason/debate? Isn't that Obamas new tactic?

JH-

Again, I deal with Medicare directly day in and day out. They do not deny claims like the commercial carriers. And, no, the commercial carriers aren't "getting ready" for the government option by denying coverage- I've been doing insurance for 15 years and they haven't changed a thing. The only reason your hearing about the denials now is because some people are ready to listen. For the last 15 years, no one has cared whether someone else's coverage was denied.

JH, I think you're missing the point. EVERY OTHER "first-world" nation has universal healthcare. ALL OF THEM. They're wondering what on Earth is so backward about us, that we've gone this long without it. None of them have collapsed or gone over to 'socialism', which seems to be the pet word of all the conservatives frothing at the mouth about the whole thing. They don't have socialism, they just have common sense, and actually give a sh** about their people.

As for 'little guy' insurance companies...are you kidding? Even the so-called 'little guys' are actually owned by the big guns...they just exist under another name to make you THINK they're 'little'. It's all one big scam.

Clarke~

Q~Name a constitutionally guaranteed freedom you have lost, or are in danger of losing.

1. Freedom of Religion~The one that most concerns me, is the "UN Rights of the Child Treaty" which threatens to take away our rights to raise our children in our faith.

Read about it here~

http://parentalrights.org/

2. Right to Bear Arms~100 miles from my home is a terrorist training camp. The Gov't would like to take away my right to bear arms. I, personally, have never owned a gun, am afraid to have or touch one, but if things ever got bad, I would like to have the right to buy one for protection.

Obama has a FBI potential terrorist list of one million, who he has prohibited from buying guns. (I may be on the list, since I speak out as a conservative...guess I will find out if I ever get the nerve to try to buy one).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=253&issue=010\

http://blog.taragana.com/n/over-past-5-years-more-than-800-gun-buyers-matched-names-on-terrorist-watch-list-89071/

There are many more rights and freedoms that are at risk of being lost...just can't be on this computer any longer today.

JH

I'll bet you could debunk both those claims if you took the time to get some alternative viewpoints or information.

What you are giving me is (if you're honest about it) pure conjecture and speculation.

Could it be true? I suppose it's possible.

Is it likely? I seriously doubt it.

You may FEEL as if you are in danger of losing these rights, but I'll wager you can't provide indisputable factual proof to back up the claims.

That being said, you couln't find ONE example of a right you have lost could you?

Clarke~

Did you look at the links?

There are many more concerns that I have and I would really enjoy talking to you more, Clarke, but I really can't be on here any more right now. I have to help my daughter with her homework and get the kids fed and to bed. Maybe a little later.

JH, there are many of us right there with you. The majority, for all that is worth anymore. These people refuse to see what's happening and will fail to admit it has happened after it has. We've seen it all before.

Actually, I must retract that part, "we've seen it all before". I'm afraid with our current Administration, we ain's seen nothing yet!

I'm so glad I was born when I was.

I weighed right over 12 pounds at birth. I would have been denied for sure.

Oh, and I'm as healthy as can be now. Not over or underweight, and never had a serious illness in my life (thankfully).

I am 5'8. At age 19, I weighed 102 and had to sign an insurance waiver for a 1-year exclusion in seeking treatment for anorexia or related issues. Ten years later, I ballooned to 103 and changed jobs. Again, I had to sign a waiver. Five years and four kids later, I hit the good old benchmark of 105 and was REQUIRED to be evaluated for my "eating disorder" prior to being accepted by my new health plan. I had a two-day in-house evaluation, after which the nutritionist was blown away that I weighed so little, with all I ate. She signed off on it, but I STILL was withheld full coverage insurance for a year. This was all due to an over-eager metabolism, which self-corrected in my early 40s.

This little darling has bright eyes and a normal crop of hair (no excess facial fuzz or bald spots).

Uncommon, I feel your pain. I'm 5'2" but I didn't break a hundred pounds until I was nineteen years old, and even in school I was constantly badgered by counselors about my 'eating disorder'. Thankfully I never had insurance problems over it (it would never have even occurred to me that that was POSSIBLE), but apparently in our society you can't win for losing. If you don't fit some golden mean you're either too fat or there's something wrong with you. Had I been born now, my mom would have run into the same problems insuring me as this poor family--hell, when I was in fifth grade I weighed sixty pounds, and was only about 4'3". Some people are just small, but apparently the insurance companies don't believe that.

I know what you mean. I was extremely small until in my 30's. When I started kindegarten I still wore size 3T. This whole thing is ridiculous. As is easily evidenced on here, there are many small children. Insurance companies are just pulling at straws.

Kelly, ...No, the insurance company is not ridiculous. It is an American company, with American staff, in a Democratic Country, operating based on capitalist form of business. What they are doing is exactly what is expected....protecting their profit and interest. In so doing, they are protecting American jobs. If in their eyes, some Americans are disposable, then it is totally up to them, unfortunately. Who knows, probably next time, they would base their decision on color of hair, skin, etc. One thing is certain, this is the new wave of American way of doing business.

Daniel

Aren't you in effect supporting the idea of death panels?

If an insurance company can deem a child disposable in the interest of profit does that mean you approve of the same determination if it applies to you or a family member?

Finally, the dems are growing a backbone - this is needs and executive order to stop the monopolies if the congress can't free itself from the lobbyists' money.

WASHINGTON – Democrats launched a drive at both ends of the Capitol on Wednesday to strip the insurance industry of its decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws, part of an increasingly bare-knuckled struggle over landmark health care legislation sought byPresident Barack Obama.

If enacted, the change would put an end to "price-fixing, bid-rigging and market allocation in the health and medical malpractice" insurance areas, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy said he would seek a vote on the plan when the Senate debates health care legislation in the next few weeks.

It's a gag reflex disorder. I wouldn't exactly call it a 'pre-existing condition'.

hampster...it is not only the health insurance companies that care about their income. Remember that protecting their income is protecting American jobs! Logically, all companies in America, big or small business, are designed to generate and protect their income. That income is where taxes are generated from. Think about it. We should all think logical instead of using our emotions because of a few exceptions out of over 300 million people in this country.

Those claims processors will flip over to the public sector and process claims for Uncle Sam. They will probably have better benefits too.

Now true, there are some millionaire corporate employees that will have a tough time finding that high paying work, but hopefully they are socking away their millions and can ride it out.

Funny, Daniel, you are worried about insurance company jobs, but I'll bet you are one of those people who don't care about everyone else who has lost jobs (union jobs spring to mind). What is it about "conservatives" who care more about corporate greed than us lowly workers? How many times have I heard from the right that "we" just need to go out and find a new job, tough for you if you are older and spent thousands on your education and on the job which is now outsourced.

People should read history. Profit is nice, but remember America is a capitlistic nation. Without strong laws, regulations, and oversight we could return to the so called 'Golden Age". A time when boys as young as six worked for coal companies and girls that young worked in silk mills. A time when workers were treated more like indentured servants than employees. Without strong laws and regulations greed overrides humanity within corporate America.

"Without strong laws and regulations greed overrides humanity within corporate America." great quote, hampster

Would you rather be in the dark in regards to these unholy practices of the insurers?

Seriously, this is the major debate of our time and you don't want to know what goes on?

If these stories are a threat to your world view, maybe you should examine your world view.

Of course it is propoganda. That doesn't negate the fact of it. Just like a Michael Moore film. Pulls at your heartstrings by showing you the truth.

Lots of people can't get past the scmaltz, to their own detriment.

ITA that is why I don't watch that station or any other suck ups who worship the Ogodma administration.

Michael Moore is a complete farce. The scene where he was off the coast of Cuba was a completely staged event. Nope = You Obamaphyte, liberal, do everything for me, large government, milktoast Americans will soon have a wake up call. We are not going to be a party to your whining. It will be at least 30 years before there will be a Democratic majority at least. WClarke, we know what is going on, the Gov't. smells MO money. AND that is what they are after. They could care less about you or me.

That pretty much leaves you with Fox then, doesn't it?

Might be a little more wise to get a variety of sources. Then you can make decisions based on the WEIGHT of evidence.

But hey, if twelve guys say it's a duck, you are perfectly within your rights to insist that it's a chicken.

That's right. Bush was a better president. He would have imprisoned the little girl and her family for being anti-capitalism. After all, life really is NOT sacred, unless it's the life of a CEO.

Robert

Of course it was staged. That was the whole point (lost on you evidently) But the fact that these people got more humane treatment from Cuba than their insurers (or lack thereof) is a valid point.

Point 2: You are the only one's whining.

Okay insurance needs reform we all agree on that. My family has been through it all from being uninsured, could not afford it, to being insured through employers. We have been covered by the VA, Cigna, Atena, Blue Cross and yes even Cobra. I have 2 pre-existing illnesses. Right now we are covered by United Health Care. I have had no problem in them covering me or my family. We have not been denied anything. Our premiums are going up a little over $7.00 pre month for next year but all the coverages have no changes in them. I do not know why they would deny this little doll coverage, it just seems odd that stories like are now coming out. Has this happened before these two healthy children? I would like to see some figures. Each state is supposed to have an Insurance Commissioner, or so I think they do, why not pull an audit and see what is happening? The government needs to fix the programs they have now before taking on something new. Fix Medicaid and Medicare and than come back and fill the holes. I have seen numbers of uninsured from 3% to 15%, which is it and who are they counting. It is my belief that if 85% of the people have insurance why not just provide insurance for the 3% to 15% and leave the rest alone. We do need to do something but I do not agree with whole sale reform. I for do not want the government in private medical history or telling what treatment or meds I can have and sure as hell do not want them to have access to my bank account. Oh one last thing if you believe that this reform isn't going to cost us, well just wait and see, after all we are going to paying for it for a few years before we use it and just where will that money go? As always just my opinion.

Denial of coverage has been going for a long time. I think we are hearing more about coverage denial because we are focused on health care now.

Excellent post, Angelica.
I would add that the insurance lobby has convinced America that "health care reform" MUST start with "tort" reform..as if that will make a difference.
The doctors are making less than they did 10 years ago.The patients are paying more for premiums, the Medical Malpractice limits have not been raised in 30 years....WHO'S making the money ? INSURANCE companies...THE most profitable industry in the country - much more than oil companies.but they have the ppl believe that they are "in good hands".
Make a law prohibiting LOBBYING.

I agree with Jeff. The first thing Obama should have done was prohibit lobbying (from any organization) for at least 10 years. Then Congress could actually vote with their conscious instead of dollar signs. This country would make so much progress it would make our heads spin.

As far as health care reform and the public option, the Dems have done a cruddy job at explaining what this entails in a language that everybody can understand!!!! They have to know by now that the GOP and their right-wing allies will lie to get their point across and the left should have been ready for the onslaught and fought back accordingly!!! They have to stop acting like a bunch of sissies!!!! The Dems have to tell the truth and take apart the lies piece by piece (and not be afraid to call some folks out)!!!

Reform is necessary and will come some day, just not sure when.

There's another Newsvine post that states around 57% of Americans support a public option if that's any consolation to supporters of that system.

Charles - I think that is a fabulous idea. Putting a complete halt to the lobbyists would be such a big help. It's like, whoever has the most money wins, and that isn't how it's supposed be.

Your president will.

Sure, Clark....we're still waiting.
JUST like our president spoke for us re credit card reform.
WOW..so a cc company cant raise their rates during the first 90 days ...(of course, NO limit on raising AFTER the 90 days).
CC companies cant raise your rate without 90 days notice - but, after that ? even if you've never missed a payment ? sky's the limit.
Yup....my president really speaks for me...IF my name was Chase, B of A...etc.

Jeff

So you'd prefer unregulated card companies? It's better than it was, and this is just the beginning. Can't upset the whole applecart immediately.

Think smart politics. The more I see Obama navigate these troubled waters the more impressed I am. He's actually getting things DONE.

The can't issue a card to anyone under 18 anymore either.

Clarke-

Wait, they ever could? Seriously? That's ridiculous. I don't know of a teenager on Earth who could handle one of those responsibly. (Hell, even most of the people I knew in their early 20's couldn't.)

Sorry, Clark...but I disagree.
What you have, is a president who has bamboozled the population into thinking that this credit card legislation has helped them, and that the problem is "fixed", when, in fact, they put enough of a band-aid to show that the government did SOMETHING...so Obama can just move on to the next issue.
My thoughts are that, if the government is going to DO something about a problem, they should actually FIX it...not just do something that makes it "appear" fixed".
WHY leave it half done ?
BEFORE the new cc law took effect, ppl were complaining of cc companies' unfair practices - guess what ? the new law STILL allows them to ...1) raise rates as high as they want (but wow ! NOW they have to give more notice - what a great help THAT is !...2) lower your credit limit for NO reason, which hurts your credit score....3) wow..they gave the cc companies WARNING that the new laws will take effect in a few months, but allow them to do as they wish BEFORE then.....the list goes on and on...now, tell me - does THAT sound like "reform"?
ALL Obama has done, is make an illusion that the problem is "fixed" so he can accept accolades of "fixing" the problem, so that he can just move on to the NEXT problem, put a band-aid on THAT...and, again, move on.
This is NOT reform - it is lip service.
NO, Clark..I do NOT advocate leaving the cc companies unregulated- I advocate TRUE regulation.

Whats the lie here?

"Look at Octobreeder ! "

Yes, let's look at her. Typical right-to life nutcase who refused to terminate any of her 2000 fetuses. so now YOU are paying for her, and I'm cracking up.

There's no lie here. Just a few weeks ago, an insurance company tried to deny a four month old infant for being too chubby. Are you kidding me? First, he was being breast fed, and second, they can't move around at that point. As soon as they start crawling, they slim down naturally. The insurance companies try to deny as much as possible regardless of how ridiculous the ground for denial are. And they have idiots like yourself backing them up.

You don't want any healthcare regulations? Again, move to Somalia. I'm sure you won't have government regulations to be concerned about once you relocate. Bye now...

For people like Miffed_Ameican, any bit of information that does not come from Rush-Hannity-Beck is just propaganda lies and misinformation and any goverment not headed by GOP is simply working to destroy America.

There is nothing anybody can say or do to chang their mindset.

Correct, RRD...so that we can move even FASTER to a socialist republic. And when food gets too expensive....the gov. will just take them over and feed us...then, another industry, and another - and then we can rely on the reliable U.S. government for ALL our daily needs - PERFECT resolution, Comrade...it worked SO well for the U.S.S.R.

Right Jeff. And the sky is falling also. Better go hide.

Jeff

So you like the current system of unaffordable health care, insurance premiums and medications, insurance company run death panels, medical bill bankruptcies as a result of illness, 45,000 deaths a year for the uninsured, mega bucks bonuses for insurance CEOs and the huge transfer of wealth to the pharma, insurance and health care industry?

Personally I don't much care to be considered little more than a commodity.

I would rather be a solvent socialist than a dead and bankrupt capitalist.

It's disgusting that NBC gets away with this propaganda. For every political agenda item, I am sure it can find an emotional tear-jerker. I live in Calgary, Canada, where of course the public option is the only option. This from yesterday's, October 20, Calgary Herald: "Family Wants Answers After Pregnant Woman Dies, Mom-to-Be sent home from hospital". The family of a 44-year old pregnant woman who passed out while on the phone with HealthLink and died shortly afterwards is raising questions about her medical care.

Due to space and time, I can't reproduce the entire article. The lady had been in the hospital because of shortness of breath, migraines and severe pain in her shoulder and one arm, but was sent home after an EKG and blood pressure check were normal. She died days later from an aortic aneurysm, the same condition that claimed her mother's life. The test that would have found this, an echocardiogram, was not ordered by doctors, even though there was a fatal family history. The unborn baby, 7 months into term, also died.

Her sister said, quote "Our health-care system is so pathetic now, we're moving people in and out of hospitals so quickly and not doing a thorough enough analysis...It's not acceptable. We have all this state-of-the-art technology in Calgary. Why are people still dying?"

So for all you people who say that we must have a public option, there you go. You can find real-life stories everyday that will play on your emotions. For every one like this little girl's, someone else has died in a short-changed system exactly like you want to be foisted on Americans. The media is simply using you.

Guess they weren't practicing defensive medicine that the republicans are holding up as the bogeyman.

Imagine such a run of the mill medical story making headlines! Under our current system these things happen all the time. Success rate of medical malpratice suits? 8%

She might not have had any medical care at all under our system.

Jeff-

Yes, because, you know, ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES who have national health turned 'socialist'...conservatives need a new damn word already. There are plenty of precedents for the success of national health, i.e. Canada, Australia, and all of Europe. We're the only backward, greedy idiots left.

oldnewgrad,RN, I gave you a real example that just occurred here in a nationalized health care country, exactly what NBC did. Imagine such a story being on NBC! All you did was use pejoratives in your comment. I declare myself the winner.

Eurotex-

It's an unfortunate tragedy that that happened, but it doesn't make U.S. healthcare any less terrible. The same thing happens here far more often than is ever reported in the media, even to people with insurance. Hell, a woman died of a heart attack in the Orange County hospital in California because they left her lying on the floor of the waiting room vomiting blood, having declared there was 'nothing wrong with her'. There was even video footage of janitors mopping up the blood around her while she was lying on the floor, completely ignoring her.

Also, I'm not sure what 'pejoratives' oldnewguard used. Disapproval of the Republican party is hardly pejorative; in many parts of America it's becoming the norm, with good reason. While your system might be far from perfect (obviously, if stuff like that's happening), at least you have a system, which is much more than we can say here.

No, J.W...I DONT like the system as it is now...but, so far, I see a LOT of rhetoric, and NO hard facts in Obama's plan that will take care of the problem....do you ?
For instance...under the new plan, Obama touts that insurance companies cannot exclude based on preexisting condition...woo-hoo..SUCH a HUGE improvement....BUT - NOWHERE in the plan is there a limit on what they can charge for my premium...so, here comes Jeff, with, say....Hodgken's disease....the insurance company says" well, Jeff, we really CANT deny you coverage, so, you're covered - that will be 10,000.00 a month, thank you".
Now, as to that "public option"; Tell ME, something - have you EVER heard of the Federal Government actually IMPROVING an industry once it gets involved in it ?
Remember "Social Security"? for 30 years, our contributions went into a separate fund....THEN, the Democrats (Al Gore breaking the tie) voted to put it into the General Fund....NOW the system is almost bankrupt - yup..
"Better dead - than red".
You like socialism so much ? Go find a country that practices it.....you'd last 5 minutes there. HELL, even Russia is more capitalist than we are now....and YOUR answer is to socialize yet MORE of our industry.

Yes.."BeAfraid"....be VERY afraid..because those of you who WANT to be wards of the state, may just get your wish.

AND...STEVIE - as for you....I am NOT denigrating any other countries' health care system...because I dont KNOW them...BUT...I DO know what is in Obama's package....well, more like NO ONE knows what's in his package...ALL I can do is judge the fed. gov. on its past performance, and THIS president on HIS performance thus far.
A credit card bill of rights that is no such thing.
Ramming bailouts through congress over the MAJORITY of the population's wishes and THEN not setting executive compensation.
A cash for clunkers program that bolstered the auto industry for what...3 weeks ? at MY expense ?
YES, Stevie....by all means...BE a sheep..it's easier than actually taking responsibility for yourself and your family...
But remember....a sheep can be eaten...it can also be used as an elephant's tampon.

Okay, Jeff, first off, that was immature and quite disgusting of you--I suggest you grow up before you start punching keys at random.

Second, I think it's safe to say I've done rather more CONCRETE reading on the subject of foreign health care plans than you have, and how much they compare to the one currently on the table. Do I think it's perfect? No. Is it better than the complete bullsh*t we have now? Yes, because at this point almost ANYTHING is. Sorry, I don't sit there and repeat every 'fact' I hear on FoxNoise--and it's people like the idiots who listen to that garbage who have tried their hardest to trip up Obama at every turn. THEY are the reason he's having such problems.

Also...learn how...to...properly use...ellipses...so you don't...read...like William...Shatner. But then, that would require actually using your brain for something other than talking about elephant tampons, wouldn't it? As for who is the 'sheep'...Pot, this is Kettle: I think we need to talk about your hue value.

I think some of you need to go back to school and take a political science class. Socialism, Communism, and Marxism are NOT the same thing. I'm pretty sure you'd be shot in communist Russia for calling them socialists. Just keep spouting that fear mongering rhetoric though.... seems to be paying off.