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.”
#28: That kind of argument is called a straw man. That situation is unlikely to exist, except in the case of an organ donor (typically someone who is certified brain dead).
Yes, I’m signed up as an organ donor (most states can sign you up at their Motor Vehicle Division), and all of you should too.
Republican plan: starve the kid.
Democrat plan: retro-active abortion.
#35, Typical liberal. Lie about the problem and then try to turn it around on someone else. Do YOU even believe the crap you spew?
Wouldn’t that be up to the fictional wife? Or is she just property, to be allocated by her owner/husband?
The strawman strikes back.
#38–LIEBERTY Loser==calling other people a liar. Har. Being a liar would be a step or more up the food chain for LIEBERTARIANS such as yourself. Killing 10 strangers to save your wife. Yes. How many? 100? 1000? More????
So, tell us LIEBERTY Loser==how many people would you kill to save your wife?? And don’t include the effects of your LIEBERTARIAN philosophy to achieve that end when saving everyone is also an option. No–stick with your own hypothetical. How many innocent people would you kill to keep what you have?
From Serenity
Teacher: So with so many social
and medical advancements we can bring to the Independents, why would they fight so hard against us?
Young River: We meddle.
Teacher: River?
Young River: People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.
#35 LibertyLover said “Typical liberal….”
Let’s see if Alfred1 accuses you of an ad hominem attack. 😉
I’ve never met a person who thought giving water when thirsty, food when hungry, or cure when ill was being meddlesome. That can come later, but before, its called helping your fellow man and ALWAYS appreciated. Well, ok, some nutbag LIEBERTARIANS might kill themselves over such a violation of economic freedom, but do we still count them as part of humanity??? (sic as to reference to Serenity==choose your life form.)
#40 bobbo
Unfortunately I think Liberty Lover has just lost it. It’s the voices probably. Until he can get some kind of medical help, it does not look promising.
It looked earlier like he may have made a break through wrt to his ‘wife’. But now, not so much. Shame.
Once he can come to appreciate
1) that people other than the ones in his head exists
2) their happiness bares some relationship to his own
He/she will be stuck in a cycle of pointless arguments about his ‘wife’ and killing of people to save his ‘wife’.
Good luck Liberty Lover. We’re here for you man.
#44–freddy==I was actually giving LIEBERTY Loser a bit more credit at the beginning of his one man puppet show. Afterall the whole “Kill 10/Save my Wife” hypothesis is at the core of several existential world views. I answered LIEBERTY on one thread but as I mock him so completely, he is blind to me. Fair enough.
I wonder what the hypothetical fairly engaged really teaches us. I can answer it both ways depending on the existential framework applied. But I came to it thru philosophy, not economic theory.
Given the passage of time, and what I remember from some of LIEBERTY Loser’s commentary, I don’t trust LIEBERTY has much insight at all beside stroking his own dick in public. Something he thinks we want to see.
SO===LOSER===every time you post that hypo, I will answer back “How many people would YOU kill to save your wife.” and I encourage all others to join me.
Inquiring non syphilitic minds want to know.
#45 Bobbo
I agree.
Originally it seemed like Liberty Lover may have something interesting to say. It seemed to to have some kind of logic to it at least. So I may or may not agree with him/her, but at least something was learned by the process.
Now he/she is just stuck like a broken record unable to actually make any point.
Hypothetical questions can be useful – because they can cut through complexity to reveal some underlying insight. Which is why I indulged him/her, hoping some kind of insight was present. I would also point out that my personal views should have no bearing on the revealing of said insight – after all the world does not revolve around me.
So either Liberty Lover has no insight, is unwilling or incapable of doing so. All are a fail unfortunately.
I’m thinking no one even read the article?
It’s a four month old baby exclusively breast fed. What is the fault of the mother? Her milk is too rich?
18 pedro,
If the topic has “health care” in it you believe they are related. Unfortunately, “related” is a complicated term. Far too much for your inbred mind. I guess that’s where you understand “related” from?
RISA laws protect insurance companies from law suits.
#46 chris
You make an excellent argument and point.
Including your final point unfortunately.
If they did do this right there would still be health insurance, but much less, and much less powerful.
I couldn’t find the size of the Uk health insurance industry online – but it exists and is or reasonable size. That’s why I don’t understand the ‘choice’ argument. If you want to pay extra to presumably to get even better health care you can do. You have the _choice_. And if that fails – you still have health care. Amazing I know.
#47–freddy==I say again: “I wonder what the hypothetical fairly engaged really teaches us?”
Sartrean (sp?) existentialism teaches that any answer merely defines the universe we create for ourselves. No right or wrong answer==just consequences. Seems to leave the question unanswered in my view.
The I think Descartes said “It is never correct to take another’s life.” and that at least has clarity but the emotions pull on it.
So take large numbers==your wife or 10,000 people. Who would still choose their wife?==but the question is the same when it is only one other person on balance.
I “hope” I would take the “I will not choose” position as I understand that “I” am not really making any decision at all and I refuse to play the puppet at the executioner’s whim. In any and all scenario’s, the victims are those who’s consequence is determined by someone else==either has the nominal chooser, or the nominal victim(s). All was decided/arranged by greater powers.
And were our positions reversed, I would advise my wife to make the same choice for the same reason.
What have we learned? Exactly.
This article made some interesting points – about why its not in insurance companies interest to have preventive care. Because most people have insurance though their company, and they change company every 5 years, so by paying for preventative care they help their competition pay less.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/142811/americans_pay_more_to_die_earlier_–_why_is_our_health_care_system_so_screwed_up/?page=1
Or how bout
‘In 2007, the United States spent an average of $7,290 per person on health care — 16 percent of gross domestic product. By contrast, our Canadian neighbors spent an average of $3,895 per person, or 10 percent of GDP. The British spent $2,992 per person, or 8.4 percent of GDP. And the Japanese, who have some of the longest life expectancies in the world, spend $2,581 per person, or 8 percent of GDP.’
# 51 bobbo
Fair enough. And we did learn something about you, to your credit. Not least that you can think outside of hypothetical box 🙂
I don’t think the original ‘how many people can die to save your wife’ is a good hypothetical question. Its so vague to be almost meaningless.
There’s no context. That and just because you say it doesn’t mean you’ll do it especially in a given context.
Anyways how any answer justifies not having universal health care, or Liberty Lover not being selfish. Who knows.
That said if Liberty Lovers ‘wife’ is Liberty Lover. Then the choice is to kill everybody or Liberty Lover. If Liberty Lover chooses him/herself, then that is surely the very definition of selfishness.
By extension even if Liberty Lovers ‘wife’ really is an actual person, the conclusion surely must be very similar.
#51 bobbo
Actually thinking about your philosophical point personally I would err towards your explanation of ‘sartrean existentialism’. It seems to be lacking heart for sure. But it has a certain clarity that fits with reality. For example most people would say eating other people is ‘not right’. But for cultures that have such traditions it’s often just part of survival.
I guess my point is saying there is a ‘right and wrong’ implies there is an universal absolute right and wrong. Humans don’t seem to have much success agreeing on a system of absolute rights and wrongs. In fact imposing such systems seems to produce a lot of dead humans. I don’t see whats ‘right’ in that.
So perhaps even if there is some underlying correct system of ‘absolute rights and wrongs’, unlikely as it is – unless its obvious and therefore embraced by all once revealed, pragmatism dictates imposing it as arguably ‘wrong’.
I appreciate ‘wrong’ in this context has to be defined outside of said system – otherwise such system could define ‘imposing’ as being ‘right’. I’m just calling that out of hand.
personal e-mails for Rocky Mountain Health Plans – – – – – Flood them!!!!
steve.erkenbrack@rmhp.org – CEO & PRESIDENT –skegj@aol.com -his personal e-mail account
jhopkins@rmhp.org
recruiter@rmhp.org
david.herr@rmhp.org
colleen.moss@rmhp.org
medicare@rmhp.org
SOLO_Sales_Team@rmhp.org
pmohler@rmhp.org
jferguson@rmhp.org
customer_service@rmhp.org
bmartin@rmhp.org
adina.crigger@rmhp.org
cmcdaniel@rmhp.org
winhealthcustomer_service@rmhp.org
jean.juskie@rmhp.org
snolan@rmhp.org
tiffany.dawe@rmhp.org
svanhale@rmhp.org
dhall@rmhp.org
lcaselli@rmhp.org
svanhale@rmhp.org
jtroyer@RMHP.ORG
Randall@RMHP.org
lori_stephenson@rmhp.org
dherr@rmhp.org
roger.walt@rmhp.org
twright@rmhp.org
nyenter@rmhp.org
lromero@rmhp.org
erica.spencer@rmhp.org
jan.rohr@rmhp.org
bev.martin@rmhp.org
ed.frederick@rmhp.org
jcampbell@rmhp.org
jferguso@rmhp.org
carrie.hessel@rmhp.org
pclark@rmhp.org
Kayla.arnesen@rmhp.org
tswanson@rmhp.org
jbrown@rmhp.org
bmartin@rmhp.org
janice.ferguson@rmhp.org
jtroyer@RMHP.ORG
jamesjswayze@rmhp.org
david.herr@rmhp.org
carlene.goldthwaite@rmhp.rg
kayla.arnesen@rmhp.org
edicoordinator@rmhp.org
acrigger@rmhp.org
jean.johnson@rmhp.org
sandy.randall@rmhp.org
katie.himes@rmhp.org
abeagley@rmhp.org
lfentonfre@rmhp.org
lromero@rmhp.org
judi.everett@rmhp.org
kmcquiston@rmhp.org
erica.spencer@rmhp.org
matthew.cook@rmhp.org
julie.pickering@rmhp.org
jeremy.campbell@rmhp.org
rowena.viloria@rmhp.org
kari.bel@rmhp.org
jan.rohr@rmhp.org
Sheila.worth@rmhp.org
Let me pull back from this specific case of childhood preventative care to the more general structure of the system.
Take a similar field to medicine: firefighting. They ride around in big trucks with sirens and flashing lights; they save lives.
Fire houses are called “companies” which is a relic of when firefighting was a private enterprise. People would sign subscriptions with their local firehouse and put a plaque denoting this on their door. If your house didn’t have the plaque… well, it would burn.
This system created grotesque moral and practical dilemmas. How fair is it for a group of professional firefighters to just stand about if the wrong house goes up? What if protecting that house would ultimately prevent multiple subscribers from facing fire loss? What if a house is allowed to burn and it catches the whole neighborhood?
Communicable disease operates in a similar method to fire. It can create feedback loops. People with no insurance are allowed to be sick. They tend to be around others without insurance. As a disease spreads widely it mutates into something worse. Now everyone faces greater danger.
Health care is not a product. A market approach cannot work. There are plenty of examples of working NHSs. Assuming the regulatory ability of the federal government(limp to nil), show me a private for-profit system that has good health outcomes, includes everyone and has low costs.
Babies are *supposed* to be fat.
I had like, fifty chins when I was 4 months old. My parents thought I was going to be a fat kid. Then I started walking, and ever since I’ve been “skinny.”
Ironically, it’s usually the liberals who are violently anti-fat.
#54–freddy==I think I understood your post, enough, until”pragmatism dictates imposing it as arguably ‘wrong’” as I’m thinking you should have added a “not?” But I can’t tell enough to think there is a typo or I lost track of your point.
Do we get to “universal truths” when asked “What would YOU do?” I don’t think so. The only universal truth is: “It doesn’t matter, because there is no meaning.” Sartre takes that truth and adds: “Because the universe has no meaning, man is able to impose his meaning, for himself, onto it.” That also does not make for universal anything.
Now, knowning that words have meaning only in their context, and I love identifying shifting contexts, I sense you are wrong in trying to morph the purely personal into the universal, an emotional choice into a truth, when all is an illusion.
But, I can’t tell.
#59 bobbo
My argument is there is no universal right or wrong. And the pursuit and all too often imposing of a supposed ‘universal right or wrong’, makes it undesirable even if it did by some small chance exist.
Pedantically you could say I did describe a universal system – ie that there isn’t ‘universal right or wrong system’. Presumably such ‘universal right wrong systems’ are complete (and it would have to be otherwise how can it be universal). Therefore all situations when presented to the system must give a right or wrong answer. Ie the system to be the ‘perfect universal right/wrong system’ – it must always produce perfect ‘right/wrong’ answers. That in of itself shows the flaw in the whole idea, as it is self evident (at least pragmatically) that not all situations have right/wrong answers.
Anyways – producing ‘right/wrong’ answers is not a property of my ‘universal system’ because it produces no right or wrong answers. Therefore my system is not a ‘universal right/wrong system’. Therefore I did not try to shift contexts to my own personal ‘right wrong system’, at worst I shifted outside of ‘universal right wrong systems’.
Words are so messy.
Just because it seems like it’s all illusion doesn’t mean it is (or it is not). If you look down deep enough there may (or may not) be understanding.
Perhaps it’s an illusion that all is illusion 😉
Nice little slice — and the operative term is “slice.” What is the whole story here?! I work with, not for, RMHP and between them and other carriers, there are easy ways to get this baby covered. For instance, if the father has health insurance through the station he works at, the coverage is guaranteed. If he is seeking less expensive individual coverage, he can get coverage several places. And there is always CoverColorado — also a guaranteed issue plan. This baby wasn’t refused because of its weight — there is more here than the reporter cares to report.
Fred the Liar,
All that masturbating to bobbo’s posts won’t help. You must, yourself, come to terms with your lying ways.
Why would lie about saving your wife?
#35, Freddie,
Loser doesn’t have a wife. He is a high school kid that read some Lyndon LaRouche bullshit and now thinks he knows what it is all about.
#65–shittybc==Why don’t YOU deal with % of GDP and how it is rising? How healthcare cost is making American Products non-competitive world wide? How the same studies that show we excell in Cancer Care also show we SUCK at everything else?
Because any sane look at the issue shows that YOU are not.
Facts hurt don’t they? Get your facts in any kind of order, and we will look at your labeling issues next. Equally corrupt–who would have guessed?
Idiot.
#56, Chris,
Fire houses are called “companies” which is a relic of when firefighting was a private enterprise.
Sorry Chris, fire fighting has almost always been a community organization. A “company” is a group of men organized under a leader, as in a militia company. It grew to be organized when people realized fire fighting apparatus was better handled by someone trained.
People would sign subscriptions with their local firehouse and put a plaque denoting this on their door.
Where? ppfft what utter crap. Even today, fire fighting is almost always run by and paid by community taxes. It is very rare to find fire departments that have subscriptions.
If you are trying to demonstrate an analogy between health care and some other community responsibility, learn something about what you are writing about first.
The bottom line that none of the status quo proponents acknowledge is this:
We pay more, for worse results than any other industrialized nation.