Crowley, Texas - Newborn Baby Denied Insurance Due To Heart Defect

[luckytxn 2,264]

A dollar is a dollar, funny man.

And since you asked for proof, why don't you show us yours that proves a measly 4-5 percent profitability.

Tell you what. I asked for your proof first but you have shown nothing of course. I have already googled the sites that show my figures are correct. So show yours and I will start showing mine. You are the one after all that said I knew nothing what I said, so lets see what you know genius.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Then I take it that you can't back up the 20% figure? Because if they were making 20% profit, you could bet your life that media wouldn't be harping on the pre-existing conditions in place of the unethical profit margins.

If they were making that kind of profit they would have so much money that they would more share holders that everyone in the states would get rich.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Ok I see that the genius has found so much proof that it is taking forever to forward it here so I will come back later to re google my stats and do the back and forth. I need to go work for a bit.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I'll concede that 20% for clear profit would be too high. But...

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/

But as NPR’s All Things Considered points out the group’s “fact check” is itself misleading, since insurers are measuring their profits against total health care spending, not company revenues. “All that statement says is, if you eliminated all our [insurance company] profits, national health spending in America would be 1 percent lower. It has meaning only in that context,” health care economist Uwe Reinhardt explains. Within the context of companies’ revenues, insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits. In fact, an examination of insurers’ medical loss ratio — the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premiums that goes to pay for medical services– suggests that within the last 10 years, insurers have been spending less on medical care and more on administrative costs or profit.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's obvious from the article the parents couldn't really afford the child to begin with, so what the hell they are doing having a third child, when they can't even afford to take care of themselves, is beyond me.

Most parents cannot afford to take care of a child with a major health issue post-birth without some sort of insurance. You are fighting the cause of those who truly could afford to do so, even though you likely could not either. It is quite sad to see your total lack of both rational thought, and compassion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course pre existing conditions can cost a lot of money. Costs have to be passed on so prices will be spread across to everyone. Of course since insurance companies need to at the least break even to survive then what happens if they start not making any profit? They will go under and then all will lose their coverage. This means that the Socialists will now win and be able to say that the Feds are the ones coming to the rescue and have to handle their health care. It is all steps for total take over.

Where's the right to life in all this, though? Why can't the conservative movement care as much about the born as they seem to care about the unborn?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Where's the right to life in all this, though? Why can't the conservative movement care as much about the born as they seem to care about the unborn?

Precisely! They would be up in arms about paying a dime towards aborting this child due to it's birth defect, but insist paying for the child once born is solely the responsibility of the parents. Adding insult to injury, at today's cost for medical care, tossing in that these parents are 'irresponsible' for having a child in the first place. Classy!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It's obvious from the article the parents couldn't really afford the child to begin with, so what the hell they are doing having a third child, when they can't even afford to take care of themselves, is beyond me.

You're absolutely right. The baby should have been euthanized and the parents sterilized. Anyone who wants to have a child should be subject to a battery of tests and have adequate finances put in escrow to prove that they can afford the child and pay for it's healthcare.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Precisely! They would be up in arms about paying a dime towards aborting this child due to it's birth defect, but insist paying for the child once born is solely the responsibility of the parents. Adding insult to injury, at today's cost for medical care, tossing in that these parents are 'irresponsible' for having a child in the first place. Classy!

You know, I do agree that parents ought to be responsible for the upbringing and well-being of their children. Problem comes in when it is made virtually impossible for parents to do that. The couple in the OP isn't some gathering of welfare folk that were looking to dump the responsibility for their child's welfare on the taxpayer. They were looking to purchase health insurance as they've done for their other kids and simply can't do that because the child was born with a defect. That's what makes my blood boil. That much of the right-to-life crowd only cares about the life that isn't (yet) rather than the life that is. They don't care about life, they care about their narrow view on abortion. If they'd care about life, they'd support reform of the health care system from a system where one needs to be able to afford care (and thus life) to one where we recognize the right to life and hence the right to health care.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's also very obvious that morons shouldn't be parents either like a few on this board.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

If i take it from one of those right wing pro life hypocrite folks, would that assumption be wrong?

One assumption i guess, the family should have aborted the baby, so the insurance company don't have to pay for the child medical health.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I'll concede that 20% for clear profit would be too high. But...

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/

But as NPR’s All Things Considered points out the group’s “fact check” is itself misleading, since insurers are measuring their profits against total health care spending, not company revenues. “All that statement says is, if you eliminated all our [insurance company] profits, national health spending in America would be 1 percent lower. It has meaning only in that context,” health care economist Uwe Reinhardt explains. Within the context of companies’ revenues, insurers skim off 15-20 percent of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits. In fact, an examination of insurers’ medical loss ratio — the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premiums that goes to pay for medical services– suggests that within the last 10 years, insurers have been spending less on medical care and more on administrative costs or profit.

OMG. You mean now instead of the 20 percent goes to the evil share holders pockets that it is 15-20 percent that is left over after paying for the service they are supposed to be in business for they then divide up for administrative costs and their profits? Wow a big difference from telling me I know not what I was talking about. Their profits have been and historically 4-5 percent. The rest goes to administrative costs, which is the costs of doing business, guess they could just fire a bunch of workers and raise the unemployment rate. That would help lower health care costs.

Also historically when the government has taken on the role over private industry the profit savings have been eaten up more than enough by the entrenched bureaucracy. Socialism at its finest.

[yogib37 3]

Where's the right to life in all this, though? Why can't the conservative movement care as much about the born as they seem to care about the unborn?

it is the conservatives being hypocrites again. Just like in the Health care bill.

[Teacher Mark 53]

The kid died.

http://smartabouthealth.net/diseases/2010/03/28/newborn-denied-coverage-by-ruthless-health-insurance-company-dies/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

OMG. You mean now instead of the 20 percent goes to the evil share holders pockets that it is 15-20 percent that is left over after paying for the service they are supposed to be in business for they then divide up for administrative costs and their profits? Wow a big difference from telling me I know not what I was talking about. Their profits have been and historically 4-5 percent. The rest goes to administrative costs, which is the costs of doing business, guess they could just fire a bunch of workers and raise the unemployment rate. That would help lower health care costs.

Also historically when the government has taken on the role over private industry the profit savings have been eaten up more than enough by the entrenched bureaucracy. Socialism at its finest.

Total overhead in PHI averages about 25% - 30% while total overhead for Medicare / Medicaid is less than 1/10 of that.

So, take the 2.5 trillion we spend on health care and do the math. I'd prefer the lower overhead because we'd be saving a truckload of money. If there was a value add that PHI brings to the table to justify their take, then I'd be all ears. I just don't see what value they actually add. They created one of the biggest and most bloated bureaucracies in this country and force medical providers to maintain bureaucracies to accommodate theirs.

It's cost, cost, cost - hundreds of billions of dollars a year - and no discernible value added.