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
© 2010 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.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
3:17 pm
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
11:55 am
It’s really hard to fathom. I have overweight twin brothers that I attribute mostly to still drinking milk. A nephew had the same problem. Looks like they could at least exercise by pushing themselves away from the table. Just think of the excessive use the septic tanks and sewers get. Many women gain weight after each child and never lose it. They have a name for it. Some kind of syndrome. We definitely need to stress the necessity to adopt healthy lifestyles in this debate. Just think of what we spend on STDs alone. Not to mention unwanted pregnancies, smoking and excessive drinking.
Of all things, I’m off to see the doctor. My wife called and they said they’d try to work me in. I just discovered some supplements yesterday that seem to have promise, so I’m going to go on over and discuss them with him, even tho I kbow he’ll continue to recommend an operation or prescription drugs.
pd
October 13th, 2009
3:27 pm
” 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?”
You have been fed a lie and you now repeat it. The last time that the World Health Organization ranked by country the best Health Care Sytems to the least, they ranked the United States, number 37.
You have never lived in another country. You have never used another system. You just say that their systems don’t work based on some anecdotal evidence that may or may not even be true.
You can fly to England, spend a week’s vacation, have a hernia surgery, and fly back for 1/5 of the price of just the surgery here.
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
3:46 pm
PD:
You are sticking your head in the sand. I am glad you know enough about me to say I have never lived in another country. With that being said, I have friends in other countries (Canada, Sweden, England) and I have heard how those systems work. Very anecdotal evidence can be seen by looking at their teeth. Either they have bad dental plans or they choose not to use them. I have traveled to many places and seen it first hand.
I don’t know much about the WHO’s ranking but as far as I am concerned their “ranking” is just as anecdotal as anything else you will hear.
Your “conclusion” in the last paragraph is completely without justification and is just as anecdotal as you say the evidence is from which I am basing my opinion. What are you referring to regarding the price of the surgery? Is it what the person pays, what the government pays, the total cost of the surgery?
Did you not understand my analogy regarding the house? You picked one thing in my entire post about which to comment. The cost of our health care is attributed to the high use of the system (obesity is one of many reasons), along with frivolous lawsuits and the costs incurred by doctors for medical malpractice. An intelligent approach is not one that rips out an entire system that most (yes, most) people are satisfied with just to satisfy the minority. You ever hear of tort reform? That makes more sense than having the government run anything. Do you really think the government can do a better job? You obviously know nobody in government who can tell you the waste of money they cause. Do you have any clue about how much a congressman makes? Over 6 figures. That would include people like Nancy Pelosi. If you are with the majority of Americans, you don’t make anywhere near 6 figures. These clowns in Washington are in the top percentile of wage earners while the rest of us peasants are down here actually working for a living, and you want the same machine to run our health care? That is truly ignorant.
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
3:52 pm
PD:
And one more thing. Don’t you think it’s odd that the health care plan wouldn’t “kick in” until 2013? Conveniently that would be after the 2012 elections. You think there is a slight chance that it’s being orchestrated that way so that in the event it’s a failure it won’t affect the outcome of the 2012 elections (hint hint – A failure before 2012 would be a sure loss to Obama in 2012)? If you don’t, then you truly are burying your head in the sand (or somewhere else but I won’t say where that is).
DannyX
October 13th, 2009
4:09 pm
Its columns like this that make me seethe. I’m sick of it!
I’m a proud Republican that lives by the words of a true Republican. My mother worked for the same company for 32 years but was laid off last year when the Great Recession was starting. Still jobless after 6 months, I screamed at her, urging her to get off of the unemployment “welfare” checks she was addicted to.!
Then she goes and has a heart attack. Sure she was showing symptoms weeks earlier. I told her forget it I was not taking her to the doctor. She had no insurance. She spent all of her money baking cakes for her Baptist church bake sales. Of course she was overweight! DUH! If she was going to have a heart attack she deserved it.
1- She was not working. 2. She had no insurance. 3. She could not afford medical care. 4. She was overweight. 5. She ate way too much cake.
My mother was an example of whats wrong with this country. Waiting for a liberal government handout. Us Republicans understand. Sorry, there is nothing the government should do. Oh, and that baby needs to lay off the cake.
Take responsibility people, I did.
booger
October 13th, 2009
4:20 pm
pd,
I lived in England for three years. My company offered private health insurance so I did not have to deal with the National health system. I knew plenty of people who did however, and it really didn’t work too well. They were fair at urgent care situations, but anything that could wait, waited. Had a neighbor who tore a ligament in her knee while sking. Nine moths to get an MRI and eight more before surgery.
Chris Broe
October 13th, 2009
4:27 pm
Fat Baby? Is this fat baby the same fat baby that CNN reported was born with a lit cigar in it’s mouth? Well then, for smoking, the fat baby SHOULD have to pay higher premiums. However, for it’s shape and size, the baby weighs about what it should, give or take, so no penalty for being “overweight” should be assessed. (The baby-fat tax is not a campaign winner.)
Professionally speaking, of course.
radiowxman
October 13th, 2009
5:23 pm
Perhaps if there were, say, more choices in where to get healthcare coverage from, they would be able to find a different company with more lenient policies. There are over 1000 health insurance companies right now in the U.S. Why not open the states to all of them, not just a select few?
Of course, that would make sense. And take away the power of government.
pd
October 13th, 2009
7:06 pm
“Doing that would be similar to leveling a house and rebuilding because the roof has leaks in it rather than just fixing the leak.”
Sorry I didn’t address your analogy.
I actually think what they are doing is just addressing a leak. The Public Plan that the strongest bill suggested would likely only register about 8 million new premium paying members. Personally, I would like to see a strong public option with national halth cards and a new digital system so that health records would be readily available. I would like private insurers to only operate as gap coverage like with medicare.
AND I don’t care if taxes go back to where they were during Eisenhower to pay for it.
TheOne
October 13th, 2009
9:01 pm
pd
October 13th, 2009
7:06 pm
“I actually think what they are doing is just addressing a leak.”
They aren’t just addressing the leak. They want to unravel the current system and replace it with a single payer system. The government says that they are not eliminating private health care but I believe that is just a ruse. If you look at the economics of it, they would slowly suffocate the private insurers by increasing taxes, creating penalties, and making it impossible for those firms to compete.
You also didn’t address the issues with what those clowns in DC get paid. Unless you make a tremendous amount of money, they make more than you, me, and a majority of the people in the US. Why would you want them to be responsible for running health care? they are like a bunch of drunken sailors and you want to entrust them with even more money. If you believe that, could you please loan me $100 bucks? I promise I will pay you back. (yea right) And you are okay with increased taxes? Are you kidding me? Increasing taxes has proven over and over to be a failure. I must say that I have never met a person who actually thinks giving the government even more money is a good idea.
It cracks me up that you are okay with a national ID card. The ACLU would have a ball with that one and all of the “privacy violations”. It is amusing to me that if you are the typical liberal, you are fine with the national ID but at the same time are against the Patriot Act because we might actually bug a phone of a suspected terrorist (yes; the person you want to protect would think nothing of walking up to you with a bomb and blowing you and him into a million pieces).
There’s obviously no hope in changing your mind about giving the government more power and allowing them to make more decisions in our lives. Maybe England, Canada, or China might be more to your liking.
pd
October 13th, 2009
9:39 pm
I am not a liberal per say. I actually am a business person. I would like to see benchmarking. Meaning, find what country does each one thing best and emulate them. South Korea has the best education system in the world. Tear ours down and build one built on their model. (Its much different, no proms, football, and school all the time). France has the best Healthcare system. Emulate it. We have the best military, so no one to emulate there.
As far as how much Congress makes. If I were declared King, I would enact a law that any member of the legislative, judicial, or executive branch of government were barred from making any income what-so-ever from any source other than salary. No private stocks, no rental properties, nothing. Truly be a civil servant. But I am not.
One step at a time. For now, I am hoping that the government does take steps towards a real universal system.
Spartann
October 13th, 2009
10:46 pm
REP. ROBERT WEXLER IS RESIGNING TOMORROW A.M…..There really is a God above………One lying SObee down… just a couple hundred more to go….November 2, 2010 can’t get here fast enough….
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:09 pm
DannyX
October 13th, 2009
4:09 pm
I hope your mother recovered to the point she gave you a good spanking. Jobs are still being lost in the economy, so it’s understandable she couldn’t find one. Your harping on her probably contributed to the heart attack. 22 of those 32 years she worked probably went to supporting you in fine fashion. She should be eligible for retirement benfits after 32 years and have considerable equity in a house if not outright ownership. With income averaging she should get a decent retirement check at age 55 and a little more when she applies for SS. But I guess you would consider that welfare also.
Unemployment compensation is not welfare. Her employer paid into the trust fund for 32 years in case she ever did lose her job. Yes, some abuse it, but it is just intended to help pay the bills until you find another comparable job.
Did you end up paying her medical bills or is she being dunned for payment?
Please disregard if this was just a spoof or troll.
TnGelding
October 13th, 2009
11:13 pm
pd
October 13th, 2009
7:06 pm
That would be too simple and logical. The increase in taxes should be more than offset by the savings from insurance premiums, advertising and administative costs.
Disgusted
October 14th, 2009
9:02 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.
There is no barrier, genius. Any legal reserve insurance company can operate in any state. All that’s necessary is to meet the requirements of the state insurance commissioner with regard to solvency, training of agents, and policy provisions and rates. Check your Yellow Pages. You’ll find listed just about every major and a lot of minor insurance companies in existence. This entire “barrier” argument is as phony as a three-dollar bill. There are no barriers. As for the tort reform argument, it too is phony. States that have enacted tort reform–e.g., Texas–have found no reductions in insurance rates as a result. However, a lot of negligently injured patients have been shafted big-time.
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
9:07 am
pd
October 13th, 2009
7:06 pm
Correction: The increase in taxes should be more than offset by the savings from insurance premiums. (I was counting the same savings more than once.) Also, over a period of years transfer the employer’s share of FICA to the employees so corporate America could be more competitive in the world marketplace. Then a pay increase of 1% wouldn’t actually cost 1.0765%. It would decrease pay slightly, but should help make sure you had a job. It would be a gradual reduction and could come at the time of annual raises, so it would hardly be missed.
someguy
October 14th, 2009
9:09 am
The fat baby got insurance and Cynthia does not know what she is writing about.
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
9:39 am
someguy
October 14th, 2009
9:09 am
But at what cost?
Reality
October 14th, 2009
9:59 am
Cynthia, you could write a column about how 2+2=4, and they will continue attack you blindly. Sad sad.
Turd Ferguson
October 14th, 2009
10:06 am
“I have mine, I don’t care about everyone else”. ”
This is not what the majority of people are saying.”
Its exactly what Im saying. Why should the individuals who get out of the bed, go to work for a living have to support a group of slackers, baby-mama’s and welfare recipients who refuse to do anything positive to improve their lot?
The more ya give em the more they expect. Let them eat cake.
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
11:37 am
Turd Ferguson
October 14th, 2009
10:06 am
Would that e yellowcake?
pd
October 14th, 2009
11:42 am
“Let them eat cake”
Great point. If you let people starve, they will kill you.
sam
October 14th, 2009
2:12 pm
does everything in this country have to be about money…
Cosby Smith
October 14th, 2009
2:33 pm
Cynthia,
I guess this is your stab at “Hate the Big Insurance Companies”. Do not know the full story but answer this. How will a 1,000 – 1,500 page bill out of idiots in DC be the antibiotic for the health industry. So much time and money has been wasted on this big opower grab that even half as much could have studied, analyzed the problems of the health industry, put corrective measures in place and monitored them. would not even come to the cost of $890 billion+. And by they way, the $81 billion savings is “off budget” meaning it comes from a broke social security account! But then you like big Government back to the plantation mentality!
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
2:48 pm
Cosby Smith
October 14th, 2009
2:33 pm
Social Security is far from broke. But then, $2.4187 trillion isn’t what it used to be.
OASI DI HI SMI
Assets (end of 2007) $2,023.6 $214.9 $326.0 $42.9
Income during 2008 695.5 109.8 230.8 250.0
Outgo during 2008 516.2 109.0 235.6 232.6
Net increase in assets 179.3 0.9 -4.7 17.4
Assets (end of2008) 2,202.9 215.8 321.3 60.3
(Expressed in billions)
You make a good point, tho. This beast has to be slain.
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
3:25 pm
Sorry those columns didn’t line up. That’s not the way I submited it. Do a search on “social security trustees report.”
DebbieDoRight.
October 14th, 2009
3:34 pm
That’s one BIIIIGGG Baby!! Imagine pushing that baby out!! Whew!! The mother probably needed a drink after that!!
OK to the point: Insurance companies are a business. Period. Businesses don’t have hearts they have cash registers. Insurance companies have been known to screw over their OWN people/employees for profit!! So they’d really screw over everyone else!
Chris Broe
October 14th, 2009
3:45 pm
Wrong, debbiedoright, (of the mounties, I hope), the baby was the one who needed a drink after the delivery. You’d need a drink too if’n your born-on date was the same as the fat baby’s. Imagine being born with two strikes against you: drunk and fat. (that’s no way to go through life, deb, so don’t even think it).
say what?
October 14th, 2009
4:05 pm
Only reason the insurance company made a change was because the father was a news reporter. Had it not been for his career, this story would have been filed under the subject “so what”.
My son was 20 pounds by age 4 months; now at the age of 12 he is at h is BMI, exercises daily, and eats more veggies than meat and starches. Had the insurance company looked at his 4 month weight we would have lost coverage.
samuel
October 14th, 2009
5:03 pm
For those on this blog, like Turd Ferguson and DannyX, who complain about welfare mothers, or even, in DannyX’s case, his own mother getting benefits you are, for some reason, very angry and resentful people. I wonder, did someone do something to you to make you this way? Relatively few unemployed and uninsured people are in that position because they are simply bad people who want to be a drain on society their entire lives. There are people who’ve lost their jobs and insurance through no fault of their own. There are physically and mentally disabled people, including retarded people, for whom keeping a job is difficult, if not impossible. There are children, whose vocation is, and always shoul be, student. Then there are people who work hard every day, but simply don’t have the skills or the intellect to make much money or have decent benefits. As someone has said many times over the years, most poor people work every day. It is not always one’s own fault that they are poor or lack benefits. Some people are simply more fortunate than others. And those less fortunate should be helped as much as possible. And that includes providing health insurance.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 14th, 2009
5:50 pm
If your child is not between ages 2-4 at this minute, he or she will be turned away from any Fulton County health clinic. Fulton County is the largest county in Georgia with over one million people. No care givers are being vaccinated. The largest newspaper, AJC is incorrectly stating “no one will be turned away.” That’s incorrect and the two reporters keep making that mistake.
There seems to be no competent editorial control at AJC today.
Contrary to website listings by DCH, physicians’ offices do not have any form of vaccine at this moment.
A 10 year old child, Summer Rockerfeller died on Saturday 10/10/09 due to complications from H1N1. The AJC did not mention whether the child, who lived in Augusta which is the home of MCG’s clinics and major teaching hospital received Tamiflu or Relenza as timely treatment. This child would not be able to receive vaccination right now in Fulton County if the child were alive. Then there would be an 8-10 year perior for antibodies to form and immunization to take place.
That’d be Cynthia Tucker’s AJC.
TnGelding
October 14th, 2009
6:11 pm
say what?
October 14th, 2009
4:05 pm
Congratulations on your parenting skills.
Public Option Doing Swell
October 14th, 2009
6:55 pm
This 4 month old’s insurance application was caught in a software glitch. What’s more urgent is that the parents were required to pay a huge increase in their premium because this 4 month old is their second well child.
On a day when Republicans are foolishly touting a “trigger” and democrats without spines are crowning Olympia Snowe an empress and trying to grant her power to write legislation that Presidents since Roosevelt have not had as to healthcare, the threat to raise premiums higher and faster that comes from the insurance companies is the largest concern.
Randall W. Capps
October 20th, 2009
5:48 pm
More than 50% of this story came from an outside source, Chyth! Are you too busy to write your own material? Was this on Yahoo! the day you decided to run it?
This really doesn’t say anything but just repeats a story that has been in the news. This is what wins P.Prizes? Did you graduate from a Georgia high school?