Alex Lange is a chubby, dimpled, healthy and happy 4-month-old.
But in the cold, calculating numbered charts of insurance companies, he is fat. That’s why he is being turned down for health insurance. And that’s why he is a weighty symbol of a problem in the health care reform debate.
Insurance companies can turn down people with pre-existing conditions who aren’t covered in a group health care plan.
Alex’s pre-existing condition — “obesity” — makes him a financial risk. Health insurance reform measures are trying to do away with such denials that come from a process called “underwriting.”
“If health care reform occurs, underwriting will go away. We do it because everybody else in the industry does it,” said Dr. Doug Speedie, medical director at Rocky Mountain Health Plans, the company that turned down Alex.
By the numbers, Alex is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don’t take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.
“I could understand if we could control what he’s eating. But he’s 4 months old. He’s breast-feeding. We can’t put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill,” joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. “There is just something absurd about denying an infant.”
Update: Insurer Rocky Mountain Health Plans has relented and will now offer insurance to cover Alex Lange.
“A recent situation in which we denied coverage to a heavy, yet healthy, infant brought to our attention a flaw in our underwriting system for approving infants,” says Steve ErkenBrack, president and CEO, Rocky Mountain Health Plans. “Because we are a small company dedicated to the people of Colorado, we are pleased to be in a position to act quickly. We have changed our policy, corrected our underwriting guidelines and are working to notify the parents of the infant who we earlier denied.”
#99, Freddy, (and Bobbo),
Thank both of you for an enlightening discussion.
I know that’s not politically correct. And that is really an emotional, not a rational answer.
If the answer is emotional than it isn’t THE answer. And if it is all rational, it can’t be THE answer.
Because I don’t know your wife and am totally blind to your bonds, any answer on my part concerning your wife would be all rational. But your decision couldn’t be rational simply because the marriage bond makes your whole relationship all emotion. The same thing applies to Bobbo, myself, and everyone else.
And that is the trap Loser sets up. You can’t answer the question properly.
HOWEVER, … I do believe that if my wife was terminal and in a coma then I would consent to pulling the plug so that her organs might save 10, or even 100 others.
Thank you again for the intelligent discussion.
‘Seems this hypothetical is opening up moral questions for you that you don’t have an answer for? From one to ten? You also seem to flip/flop alot.’
Err really? I might be clarifying the thought process. Perhaps that looks like flip flopping. But okay.
‘So, is a hypothetical that measures the value in other humans live to you of your wife cannot be specifically answered, how can that not be “insightful?”’
Well okay. It’s great you find that insightful. If someone presented to me I’d find it empty – as it is given just as a statement. It’s like saying ‘I like yellow’. Unless you mean it’s insightful to me, which I ‘spose it is.
And on the rest of your post I sorta agree.
Except as I said I don’t think all hypos are equal – not least based on what they reveal. But that’s a pedantic point.
# 102 Mr Fusion
Cheers – and you make a great points wrt to point view. Which actually makes some sense of the madness.
‘HOWEVER, … I do believe that if my wife was terminal and in a coma then I would consent to pulling the plug so that her organs might save 10, or even 100 others.’
I assume by that you mean a terminal coma 😉 If so agreed.
Can’t wait to see what Liberty Lover will come up with next…
#104, Freddy,
Just to clairify,
I assume by that you mean a terminal coma 😉 If so agreed.
One may be terminal yet cognizant and one may be in a coma yet not terminal.
When there is no reasonable expectation that my wife would live a better life than an onion then I would be willing to have her help others live a better life.
#102, I do believe that if my wife was terminal and in a coma
Who said anything about a coma?
You must have ADD because you cannot seem to stay on task. I’ve given two different scenarios, neither of which mentions comas.
Why would you choose your wife over the 10 strangers or the group of the kids?
#106, Loser,
Why would you chose to skip your Gr. 10 math class just so you can blog?
You are an idiot and an asshole. You pose a hypothetical question which can only have a hypothetical answer. Which means, you are just a phony.
#107, Your answer proves my point. When shown a mirror, liberals get defensive and start attacking the person holding it.
Thank you.
Oklahoma has state-subsidized health care called Insure Oklahoma.
I’m not a big fan of it because it essentially is tax dollars to already greedy insurance companies.
What is needed is to expand medicare to workers rather than hand out tax money to private industry.