Baby Alex Can’t Have Health Insurance

He’s too big.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I did not let Amanda see this story. I just turned the TV off and said “Oh, I think the fuse blew, honey.”

Comments

  1. #1 Jerad
    October 13, 2009

    Followup, the insurer changed their policy “The insurer said Monday it would change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33283839/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

    Sick babies still get no health care.

  2. #2 Jadehawk
    October 13, 2009

    yeeeaahh…..

    definitely going home if this healthcare bill passes with mandates but without a public option. What a glorious clusterfuck this has turned out to be.

  3. #3 JThompson
    October 13, 2009

    @Jadehawk: Actually it’s kinda looking like we might get a public option. The insurance companies have more or less shot themselves in the foot at this point.
    Blatant extortion probably wasn’t a very good idea. Any Democrat that doesn’t have a field day with this didn’t want a public option in the first place.

  4. #4 george.w
    October 13, 2009

    “Oh, I think the fuse blew, honey.”

    If it hadn’t, one surely would have…

  5. #5 Jadehawk
    October 13, 2009

    which is why I’m not packing my bags just yet, JThompson. but I’m just not nearly as confident about this turning out sensibly as I used to be.

  6. #6 AnonymousCoward
    October 13, 2009

    Glad they came to their senses and decided to “… change its policy for babies that are healthy but fat.”

    And as for insuring the unhealthy babies – they’re just not in that business.

  7. #7 Miss Cellania
    October 13, 2009

    If the 95th percentile is the cutoff, then 5% of all babies are automatically uninsurable. I wonder if they will all have to pay a fine for not being covered?

    Me, I’ll have to pay the fine, since the $1500 they are talking about is still WAY cheaper than even hospitalization-only coverage. But I still won’t be covered.

    Five of the six members of my household have public insurance under three different plans. I am not eligible because I WORK. On what planet does that make sense?

  8. #8 catgirl
    October 13, 2009

    It’s the baby’s own fault for eating all those cheeseburgers, right? Honestly, I never thought fat-shaming could this low! Are big babies at a higher risk for health expenses anyway? I thought it was the little ones that we had to worry about.

  9. #9 marilove
    October 13, 2009

    catgirl, he’s breastfed. Breastfed babies tend to be bigger (“fatter”) than formula fed babies. He’s also probably just a big baby all around. He’s not at a higher risk. And indeed, I’d say he’s probably healthier and at a lower risk for health issues because he IS breastfed and because he IS so fat and healthy.

    Also, fat babies are cuter. :D

  10. #10 becca
    October 13, 2009

    I for one was dismayed by this baby. He’s HUGE. No. GINORMOUS!!! At 3 months? Now I’m worried about my (very) little guy…

  11. #11 Greg Laden
    October 13, 2009

    The baby is disconcerting. Over the next few years, at least, all family portraits will look like photoshop jobs.

  12. #12 General Insurance
    October 20, 2009

    hi what a nice post you have and I really agree with you!

  13. #13 David hogard
    October 22, 2009

    As for insuring the unhealthy babies – they’re just not in that business, such a nice post really i agree with you.