Fat baby can’t get health insurance
Here’s another caring, pro-consumer decision from the health insurance industry, which refuses to cover a healthy baby. Alex is a big baby, to be sure, but not an unhealthy one.
But insurers routinely reject healthy babies over the 95 percentile in weight if the family is purchasing insurance outside a large group:
Bernie and Kelli Lange tried to get insurance for their growing family with Rocky Mountain Health Plans when their current insurer raised their rates 40 percent after Alex was born. They filled out the paperwork and awaited approval, figuring their family is young and healthy. But the broker who was helping them find new insurance called Thursday with news that shocked them.
” ‘Your baby is too fat,’ she told me,” Bernie said.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
Shawny
October 12th, 2009
3:24 pm
Routinely? Really? For it to be ‘routine’, it has to happen far more often than insurers accepting those within the range. Do we have enough examples to be statistically valid in the claim of routinely?
Citizen of the World
October 12th, 2009
3:28 pm
When I went to Hank Johnson’s town hall in August, I noticed that a lot of the anti health care reform people were quite overweight, and I wondered if they realized that if they lose their job or current coverage, they better lose weight, too, or they’ll be SOL trying to buy an individual insurance policy. If they’re lucky enough to get a policy, they’ll be even luckier if they can afford it.
Of course, there were overweight people for health care reform, too (we’re just a fat country), but they weren’t there advocating against their own self interest.
Turd Ferguson
October 12th, 2009
3:48 pm
Cmon…Are we getting th entire story here. Not that Im on the side of the Insurers. Early and often people tend to lie, kinda like the Cobb County ACLU racial profiling debacle. The majority, like Al Goron and the climate change whiners, believe the end justifies the means and will do whatever is necessary to bring their beliefs home.
Cynthia, although you are a cutie, Im afraid we could never marry as our political differences would tear the marriage asunder. *sniff sniff*
ctucker
October 12th, 2009
3:51 pm
Shawny,
“If you are buying outside a large group policy. . .” is the rest of the sentence, so this isn’t something that is likely to happen to those getting insurance from their employers. As for routinely, that’s what the head of the Rocky Mountain Insurance group suggested when he defended the decision as routine underwriting.
John
October 12th, 2009
4:08 pm
Currently, heath insurance hasn’t been defined by any court as a “right.” American health insurers are in a business, and underwriting unhealthy folks is not good business. Whenever we require by law insurers to cover any or all applicants in a group (such as drivers) the high risk policies fall into a group of their own, and they pay higher premiums. The question doesn’t devolve into one of “fairness,” only the underwriting risk. We can choose by political agreement to create publically funded “insurance,” but let’s not kid ourselves: it won’t be cheap.
maybe
October 12th, 2009
5:09 pm
I clicked on the link for the baby…..big is not the word for it that baby who is supposedly 4 months old looks bigger than 9 months…at that baby’s rate health insurance is only the beginning of his problems, thanks to his parents. I think maybe the whole story isn’t being told here or the article it links to.
F. Sinkwich
October 12th, 2009
6:49 pm
Let’s say I get a speeding ticket about every other month, been convicted of a DUI, and manage to be the victim of “fender benders” every six months or so.
Think my car insurance premium might be more than yours?
Duh.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 12th, 2009
7:01 pm
He has it now. They’re still paying a huge premium though for having that 2nd baby in the family (they have one 2 year old). This was the insurance company’s software trolling for any possible glitch as an excuse to deny and in this case it would cost them money for no added risk.
TnGelding
October 12th, 2009
8:28 pm
That’s why we need one big pool. Everyone else pays a little more so those at risk can pay a lot less.
I was in my gastroenteroligist’s office this afternoon and the other 4 people in the waiting room weighed at least twice as much as I do. Granted, I do only weigh 125, but still. Why have we become so gluttonous? Or is it just eating and drinking the wrong foods?
Shananeeeeeeee Fananeeeeeee
October 12th, 2009
9:23 pm
Did you know in some countries being overweight is a sign of great wealth and privledge. Unfortunately for the fatties in this country we are not one of those countries. Not only are these overweight people not nice to look at they open themselves up to a lot more health problems than the average healthy person. One more point, there is no such thing as a BBW. No man really wants an overweight woman unless they are desperate, drunk, or it is their wife who has balloned up since the kids were born.
maybe
October 12th, 2009
9:42 pm
From what I’ve read of the health care reform we will all be paying a lot more not a little bit more.
Joan
October 12th, 2009
10:21 pm
Fat babies are generally the result of type two diabetic mothers, who tend to be that way because they are obese. Their babies tend to grow quite large, delivering at about 13 pounds on average, and in spite of their size their lungs, hearts and other organs are developmentally stunted. So yes, this baby is quite likely a much larger health care risk than a normal baby.
TnGelding
October 12th, 2009
10:56 pm
maybe
October 12th, 2009
9:42 pm
That’s why they need start over.
Logical Dude
October 13th, 2009
1:06 am
I have a nephew and he is huge. He is healthy as any other baby, but alas, he is half Samoan. Why should he be denied (along with the entire family) because of weight? I don’t understand denying a patient purely on weight, if there is no other health issue.
Otherwise, I don’t understand being denied outright. Why not just charge a tiered rate which would include other “risks”?
Bill
October 13th, 2009
3:28 am
The sole motivation for health insurance providers is getting a large cut of your money. The medical establishment is after the same thing. We understand that. But about the large baby. Is it just big for its age or is it just obese? We also understand that obesity in America is a huge problem and that obesity is related to a number of debilitating and life-threatening illnesses. Obesity is largely avoidable, but sedentary inactivity and bad diet, we understand, can almost guarantee one will be overweight. We would all do ourselves a heap of good if we took control of ourselves and taught our kids to do likewise. That won’t change the insurance providers or the medical establishment from wanting your money. But you won’t need them as much either. The bottom line is you have to take charge of your own life. You have to take good care of it. You have to teach kids to do the same. Who else can do that better than you?
Now, it the baby is simply big, but not overweight, well, that’s the insurance business. If insurers think a large baby is too much of a liability, just remember what motivates them in the first place.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
4:33 am
Bill
October 13th, 2009
3:28 am
But should the government be there to provide coverage if none is available? I would say yes. I certainly agree about taking control of your own health care, especially in this day and age with so much information available. Diet, exercise, rest. So many of our ailments are self-inflicted.
If you think they’re after your money, wait until you retire. We receive solicitations almost daily to attend “free” investment seminar dinners. I can only imagine the contacts you would receive if you attended one.
Bob
October 13th, 2009
6:55 am
TNGelding, you say that all the others were obese yet you want pooled with them ? Thats fine if you want it, leave me out of it.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
7:31 am
Bob
October 13th, 2009
6:55 am
But we need you to make a bigger pool. I think agrabusiness has finally admitted that it’s poisoning us, so maybe our nutrition selection will continue to improve.
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
7:47 am
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
4:33 am
“But should the government be there to provide coverage if none is available? I would say yes.”
Please answer me this: How come?
I personally think it is wrong for the parents not to be able to get health care because their baby is large. However, they do belong in a higher risk pool and as a result should have to pay more for it. This is much more than an issue of just an overweight baby, because America is obese and the problem of affordable health care for overweight people is getting bigger (pun intended). I think there should be some regulation by the government (just like there is with food safety) that requires companies to offer health care but the person getting the care is going to have to pay higher premiums than those who are in a lower risk pool. It’s only logical and fair. Besides, perhaps the higher health care costs will be the incentive needed for overweight people to lose some of the weight and lower their risk. This makes much more sense than the government providing them with health care, which is no incentive to lose weight. Let’s not make the same mistake with welfare that we do with health care.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
7:59 am
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
7:47 am
But when the premiums are higher than most could afford to pay, then the govenment could subsidize it. I agree it shouldn’t be free. I also agree that if the premiums were affordable it might be an incentive to lose weight, but many of them have fought a losing battle their entire lives.
Turd Ferguson
October 13th, 2009
8:06 am
I guess the “heavy weights” will just have to adapt like us smokers had to adapt. Ya!
We must be fair to all…lol.
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
8:13 am
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
7:59 am
The premiums being higher than what most could afford to pay is the issue I’m saying there should be some regulation around. Why should the government subsidize? What makes it their obligation? Perhaps I am being a bit closed minded about this but I suspect that a large majority of obese people have a pretty large food bill that could go towards their premiums. I weight 155# and when I am in the grocery store, it’s amazing the differences between what is in my cart and what is in an obese person’s cart (tons of food, pre-packaged stuff, sodas, frozen pizzas, etc.). If an obese person would have higher premiums, they could cut down on the food bill (many of them eat out as well), put it towards the premiums, and lose weight at the same time. This would fix the problem much faster than a government subsidy. The government doesn’t subsidize an alcoholic; they shouldn’t subsidize an obese person. It’s this liberal mindset that causes the problem in the first place. If people’s loved ones told them they were fat rather than being politically correct at the risk of hurting someone’s feelings, maybe we wouldn’t be here. (Note: I am speaking about people who are obese, not just overweight.)
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
8:15 am
What I meant by saying “If people’s loved ones told them they were fat rather than being politically correct at the risk of hurting someone’s feelings, maybe we wouldn’t be here.”, the “here” means “in this predicament”.
Pennsylvanian
October 13th, 2009
8:23 am
Family with a young child adds a newborn, then is shocked their premium goes up? So they go insurance shopping for a better deal and get turned down. They have coverage. The whole premise of this article is bogus.
Interpreter
October 13th, 2009
8:46 am
I think what Cynthia meant was the baby was “Phat” not fat.
That’s a good reason right there for the denial.
El Jefe
October 13th, 2009
9:19 am
Leftie Tucker, Here you are pointing out that we need real reform and not the bloated, smelly, slimy package the administration is pushing down our throats.
It makes me so proud of the progressive lefties, that know so much more about everything than I do. After all I have only been providing my family with health insurance, with the aid of my employer, for 40 years.
Donovan
October 13th, 2009
9:42 am
Once again, our AJC commie-in-editor is at it again with the anti-big insurance rant. First off, we are not getting the whole story here. You must ask yourself two questions…why is this couple having an insurance broker find them new insurance? Were they kicked out of their last insurance company for failure to pay or for hiding information from the previous insurance company? Secondly, do you have credibility in a liberal journalist who supports the idea that “health reform” will forbid insurance companies from disallowing pre-existing ailments? Comrade Tucker’s group of misfits have long supported the idea of a healthier population and the proactive means in which to stay healthy. No smoking, no tobacco advertising, warning labels on food products, suing MacDonalds for Big Macs and fries are but a few of their watchdog practices. How about her luny friends in Congress who want to tax soft drinks for their destructive sugar ramifications? No, Comrade Tucker…you can’t have it both ways. Your socialist/communist ideology is getting in the way of your logic. Fat babies may be a product of their fat parents; social misfits who suck off the system.
Joey
October 13th, 2009
9:42 am
Wouldn’t the pool be bigger, therefore better, if we did not have a barrier to insurance companies at the border of each state. Can we try that and Tort reform or other creative ideas instead of building a new health care structure.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
9:46 am
Joey
October 13th, 2009
9:42 am
I agree. What’s being considered is DOA in my opinion. 80% of us are satisfied and not overburdened by costs because we ration our own care.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
9:48 am
Turd Ferguson
October 13th, 2009
8:06 am
Congratulations if you are saying you were able to stop smoking. The tax on cigarettes is not only confiscatory but predatory.
Bro Dawg
October 13th, 2009
11:01 am
I just read the headline, Cynthia you can’t get health insurance? You should ask the AJC to allow you to have coverage.
El Jefe
October 13th, 2009
11:07 am
I find it obscene that instead of helping those truly in need, the leftie progressives want to destroy the insurance companies so everyone will have terrible coverage.
BTW, guess which insurance company has the highest percentage of denied treatment -
Medicare.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:32 am
El Jefe
October 13th, 2009
11:07 am
Medicare has very strict rules that could be liberalized. Too much elective surgery is being done on people in their death beds. At some point we have to just lie down and die. Why delay the inevitable for a few painful or unconscious days? I’ve never had any trouble getting Medicare authorization. Granted, payment is a little slow.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:36 am
El Jefe
October 13th, 2009
9:19 am
And the bills being considered, like Hillary’s in 1993, are trying to see that more people are covered as you are.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:37 am
Pennsylvanian
October 13th, 2009
8:23 am
A review is in order.
Jacks Mum
October 13th, 2009
11:39 am
The linked story is offensive. Anyone who thinks it is funny to joke about putting an infant on Slim Fast needs to be psychologically evaluated.
My son was in the 99th percentile as an infant, and I did not have any issues adding him to my health insurance. The premium did go up significantly, but that is the reality with adding a new child.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:44 am
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
8:13 am
Well, I understand the legislation being considered requires coverage for preexisting conditions and sets lmits on premium adjustments. Of course everyone else’s premiums will go up to cover the difference. Many of the truly obese have deep-rooted psychological problems and lonliness. What you write is logical. I guess you have to suffer with the malady to truly understand.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:52 am
Jacks Mum
October 13th, 2009
11:39 am
I haven’t had a family plan for a while, but I thought it covered all the children for the same premium up to a reasonable number.
Degneration X (HHH and HBK)
October 13th, 2009
11:53 am
Fat Baby needs some physical activity! Maybe joggin’ instead of laying down eating all the time!
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
11:55 am
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:44 am
“Many of the truly obese have deep-rooted psychological problems and lonliness.”
I think this is true in some cases, but I think some of the problems and lonliness may be brought on by the obesity. We were all teenagers once, we all had acne, we all had the awkward stage, we all have felt lonliness, we all have felt like we had no friends. Some of us deal with it better than others. But I don’t feel that a majority of obesity is caused by this. I see what people around me eat every day. Unless they are secretly lonely or psychologically challenged, they just eat too much. I have obese friends. I also don’t think it’s all in the genes. I am 155# and my sister is over 200#. I happen to know she is not depressed, and she just eats a lot. So I don’t have a vendetta against overweight or obese people. While I think they should have coverage, they should be required to foot more of the bill based on the risk.
demwit
October 13th, 2009
12:04 pm
Government mandates on good health care are clearly the answer to fat babies..
Jacks Mum
October 13th, 2009
12:12 pm
The fat baby has been insured.
Jacks Mum
October 13th, 2009
12:12 pm
Enter your comments here
Jacks Mum
October 13th, 2009
12:14 pm
TnGelding – I only have one, but would assume each child incurs additional premiums, especially on private insurance.
Jack
October 13th, 2009
12:41 pm
It seems as though those who don’t own and operate insurance companies know more about running insurance companies than those that do.
booger
October 13th, 2009
1:26 pm
I’m a conservative. I do not want national health care. I do not have a problem with the government finding a program to cover instances like the fat baby. I do have a problem with reforming an entire industry to achieve this. I’m one of the 60%, depending on the poll, who are happy with their health care arrangements, and I would like for the government to keep it’s nose out of my arrangement when fixing the problems. We need to fix some things, not reform an entire industry.
joe matarotz
October 13th, 2009
1:42 pm
There’s no need to fear; Jimmy Carter Jr. has the answer. Fed controlled public option! Under public option, the baby would be cvered for $100,00 per vehicle, $300,000 per occurence, $50,000 property damage and $50,000 uninsured motorist. Wait, you say? That sounds like car insurance!? It our government at work, what did you expect?
This has been a public service message from Jimmy “The permanent campaigner” Carter Jr.
lmno
October 13th, 2009
1:50 pm
Its time for everyone to accept that the position of those opposed to reform are of the position, “I have mine, I don’t care about everyone else”.
There is no changing their minds. Thats how they feel about it.
There really is no need for further discussion with them about it. Put it to a vote in the house and senate and lets get on with it. Either it passes or it doesn’t. If it does, then prices go down, availability goes up, and possibly taxes are higher in the future. If it doesn’t pass, then prices go up, availability continues its decline, and taxes still are possibly higher in the future.
Let the congress vote on it and lets move on.
Turd Ferguson
October 13th, 2009
2:21 pm
I now understand that Junior Whopper, how he is being affectionately referred too, has not been able to obain insurance. Problem solved!!
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
2:39 pm
lmno
October 13th, 2009
1:50 pm
“Its time for everyone to accept that the position of those opposed to reform are of the position, “I have mine, I don’t care about everyone else”. ”
This is not what the majority of people are saying. We are saying that the health care system needs improvements. I think even the people who are happy with their health care would agree that improvements are needed. However, it doesn’t need to be ripped out and replaced with something completely new. Doing that would be similar to leveling a house and rebuilding because the roof has leaks in it rather than just fixing the leak.
So is it wrong for 60% (but my understanding is that more than 60% of people are happy but polls vary) to disagree with pulling out the whole system and come up with a system that has proven not to work in other countries just to try to meet the needs of the rest of the people? Hardly. You cannot manage things by the exception. It simply doesn’t work. You do not risk destroying what works for so many people just to satisfy the minority. Instead, you identify the areas in the current process that don’t work and tweak them.