Baby Alex Can't Have Health Insurance : Greg Laden's Blog

Profile

Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.

Search

Baby Alex Can't Have Health Insurance

Category: Healthcare
Posted on: October 13, 2009 12:41 AM, by Greg Laden

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."

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/122169

Comments

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.

Posted by: Jerad | October 13, 2009 3:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Jadehawk | October 13, 2009 6:11 AM

@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.

Posted by: JThompson | October 13, 2009 7:04 AM

"Oh, I think the fuse blew, honey."

If it hadn't, one surely would have...

Posted by: george.w | October 13, 2009 8:22 AM

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.

Posted by: Jadehawk | October 13, 2009 8:41 AM

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.

Posted by: AnonymousCoward | October 13, 2009 9:26 AM

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?

Posted by: Miss Cellania | October 13, 2009 10:13 AM

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.

Posted by: catgirl | October 13, 2009 10:53 AM

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

Posted by: marilove | October 13, 2009 11:30 AM

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...

Posted by: becca | October 13, 2009 11:58 AM

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

Posted by: Greg Laden | October 13, 2009 12:26 PM

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

Posted by: General Insurance | October 20, 2009 7:06 AM

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

Posted by: David hogard | October 22, 2009 7:42 AM