Texas newborn denied health insurance over pre-existing condition

[Secretariat]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/26/91120/texas-newborn-denied-health-insurance.html

Whew....welcome to the real world young man. The wingnuts only seem to care about you before you're born.

Texas newborn denied health insurance over pre-existing condition
By Jan Jarvis | The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

At birth, Houston Tracy let out a single loud cry before his father cut the cord and handed him to a nurse.

Instantly, Doug Tracy knew something was wrong with his son.

"He wasn't turning pink fast enough," Tracy said. "When they listened to his chest, they realized he had an issue."

That turned out to be d-transposition of the great arteries, a defect in which the two major vessels that carry blood away from the heart are reversed. The condition causes babies to turn blue.

Surgery would correct it, but within days of Houston's birth March 15, Tracy learned that his application for health insurance to cover his son had been denied. The reason: a pre-existing condition.


"How can he have a pre-existing condition if the baby didn't exist until now?" Tracy asked.

New federal legislation that will prevent insurance companies from denying children coverage based on a pre-existing condition comes too late for the Tracys. The legislation, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this week, won't go into effect until September.

But Houston, who is hospitalized at Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth, needs coverage now.

Without surgery, babies with this condition often die soon after birth, although some may live as long as a year, said Dr. Steve Muyskens, a pediatric cardiologist.

"In his case, we had to intervene in the first days of life," Muyskens said.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/26/91120/texas-newborn-denied-health-insurance.html#ixzz0jNwvmdj6

[BenDiesel26]

New federal legislation that will prevent insurance companies from denying children coverage based on a pre-existing condition comes too late for the Tracys. The legislation, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama this week, won't go into effect until September.

Whoever wrote this might want to read the bill. It wouldn't matter if Obamacare was in effect today. The pre-existing conditions mandate for children doesn't kick in until 2014.

[Tom]

How many companies did he try, Sec?
We can assume from this that Obama doesnt' care about newborn babies, correct?

[jognlope]

Well that stinks, PECs should be out for the most vulnerable right away.

[sandpit]

How many companies did he try, Sec?
We can assume from this that Obama doesnt' care about newborn babies, correct?

Isn't Obama pro-abortion? If he doesn't care about them before they're born, why should he right afterwards.

[jognlope]

this goes into affect in 90 days not in 2014 for kids:

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

 Prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all employer plans and new plans in the individual market. (This provision will apply to all people in 2014).

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

 Provides $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions until new Exchanges are operational in 2014. Effective 90 days after enactment.

[Tom]

Isn't Obama pro-abortion? If he doesn't care about them before they're born, why should he right afterwards.

Good point. He supports killing them AFTER they are born.

[BenDiesel26]

this goes into affect in 90 days not in 2014 for kids:

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

 Prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children. Effective six months after enactment, applies to all employer plans and new plans in the individual market. (This provision will apply to all people in 2014).

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

 Provides $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions until new Exchanges are operational in 2014. Effective 90 days after enactment.





Whoever wrote that jognlope needs to read the bill. Children already covered can't be dropped due to a pre-existing condition. However, denying children who have pre-existing conditions from obtaining coverage does not kick in until 2014. Tell the website you took that off of to read the bill.

[Tom]

Yes, now that is passed, we are allowed to see what is it in.
Let's have the proggies direct us to specific clauses from now on.

[jognlope]

Why don't you write them. It's Harry Reid's site.

[Tom]

You say it is in there - prove it.
What clause?
Or are you just parroting again?

[BenDiesel26]

Why don't you write them. It's Harry Reid's site.

That's great. Proof that Harry didn't read the bill. This has been covered by the Associated Press already in the news. Heck, I guess he could have just read a newspaper.

[jognlope]

So put the actual information here, from a reliable source.

[BenDiesel26]

So put the actual information here, from a reliable source.

Link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0)

...Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday...

...Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems...

[jognlope]

Okay, so only children already covered cannot be excluded because of a pre-existing condition, new policies 2014.

[BenDiesel26]

Okay, so only children already covered cannot be excluded because of a pre-existing condition, new policies 2014.

See post #8. That's exactly what I said. However, children with pre-existing conditions can be denied obtaining coverage through 2014. The article was wrong about Obamacare.

[boxcar]

Isn't Obama pro-abortion? If he doesn't care about them before they're born, why should he right afterwards.

He doesn't. He also strongly supports partial birth abortion.

If the law had been affect, some "Death Panel" probably would not have approved of the surgery anyway because the kid isn't a productive, taxpaying member of society and is, therefore, already a drain to society's limited resources within minutes of his birth. Within the collectivist framework of thinking, the Many always trump the needs of the Few. (Individualism is highly frowned upon.) The poor kid, under ObamaCare, probably would be a prime candidate for a hatchet job.

Boxcar
P.S. But I'm sure the libs would hold a candlelight vigil for the infant in his memory. :rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

Even IF the operation is a success, these children have short lives...Good friend of mine made it until her was 43, but things have improved IF they ever get the chance to find out. Short term survival is now upwards of 90%.

[boxcar]

Even IF the operation is a success, these children have short lives...Good friend of mine made it until her was 43, but things have improved IF they ever get the chance to find out. Short term survival is now upwards of 90%.

Hmm...well, in that case, the Death Panel might rule in the infant's favor if the parents can prove they are card-carryin' DEM[on]S and signed a paper pledging to raise their kid as one if he survives.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Hmm...well, in that case, the Death Panel might rule in the infant's favor if the parents can prove they are card-carryin' DEM[on]S and signed a paper pledging to raise their kid as one if he survives.

Boxcar
It was the same OBSCENE insurance company pariahs

[Tom]

How is the insurance agency obscene?
What did they do?

[JustRalph]

Even IF the operation is a success, these children have short lives...Good friend of mine made it until her was 43, but things have improved IF they ever get the chance to find out. Short term survival is now upwards of 90%.

Glad to see that 43 yrs old is "short lives"

Many have lived very full lives while only living until their 40's

[lsbets]

The baby had the surgery, right? Seems like another example that our healthcare system is excellent, and takes care of people whether or not they have insurance.

[PaceAdvantage]

It was the same OBSCENE insurance company pariahsPariah? Wow.

For a self-professed "smart-guy"....

[lamboguy]

i don't understand why an insurance company should be forced to take a poor risk to begin with. why do they need laws to force people to do things they don't want to do. health insurance company's are in business to find healthy people snd convince them to pay for their product so they don't have to pay claims and make top profits for their company's.

[boxcar]

i don't understand why an insurance company should be forced to take a poor risk to begin with. why do they need laws to force people to do things they don't want to do. health insurance company's are in business to find healthy people snd convince them to pay for their product so they don't have to pay claims and make top profits for their company's.

And now that the government is going to force insurance companies to take all the bad, costly risks, two things can only happen: Premiums go up "3,000%" (which is still more reasonable and rationale than saying they'll be reduced by that much :rolleyes: ), and eventually insurance companies will be forced out of business. After the steep increases, what the state will do is tell us that the insurance companies are STILL greedy and evil and that government needs to do more. Welcome to one payer system! This is what I predicted from the beginning. The government will do this through the "backdoor". They would write a bill that would eventually destroy the heath care insurance industry, leaving the state "no choice" but to take it over "in the public interest", of course.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

I'm surprised the father was allowed to keep the child alive. :rolleyes: .

I'm sure the Shriners would help the baby. Oh, and their services are free.

[Secretariat]

i don't understand why an insurance company should be forced to take a poor risk to begin with. why do they need laws to force people to do things they don't want to do. health insurance company's are in business to find healthy people snd convince them to pay for their product so they don't have to pay claims and make top profits for their company's.

Well said. Obviously, as Isbets said everything worked fine. The baby had the needed health care so all's well. Who cares if the parent was denied coverage for a newborn's pre-existing condition? He should not have been born with that. The insurance company doesn't care about the parent's finacial issues. It is only interested in insuring profits. If the Dad can't pay the hospital bill despite having insurance, well then that's his problem. He should have known they wouldn't cover a newborn baby with this condition right?

[Space Monkey]

he pre-existing conditions mandate for children doesn't kick in until 2014.

Wrong genius. The preexisting mandate for children starts NOW. Later for adults.

[BenDiesel26]

Wrong genius. The preexisting mandate for children starts NOW. Later for adults.

Nope. See post #14. This has already been covered. Read the article. Read the bill.

[Space Monkey]

takes care of people whether or not they have insurance.

In this case, yes, and we pay for it. Thats why we need everybody covered.

[BenDiesel26]

Link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYnajhWrPEXihcCrpRNfUKN7rN-AD9EKTKIG0)

...Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday...

...Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems...

Here's a quote from a previous post just for you Space Monkey.

[johnhannibalsmith]

In this case, yes, and we pay for it. Thats why we need everybody covered.

And who is going to pay for those that aren't covered now? They are, I suppose?

Every time I hear one of the fine legislators speak in support, those 30 million uninsured are on death's door because of some major financial calamity or other situation that precludes them affording care. So, in order to prevent having to pay for their emergency care, the solution is to pay for all the care that they desire?

Count me among those that is currently paying for my own care, but given my income level, I can now count on you to cover me thanks to this bill. :jump:

I'm not sure what the bill will do with regards to your quote... and I really don't think that anybody does for sure.

[Warren Henry]

Seems to me that the parents could have avoided this problem by having family coverage. Instead they elected to only have insurance on their children and none on themselves. A PERSONAL DECISION that came back to bite them in the behind.

I just love it when people make decisions. Then after it turns out to be a bad decision, they want someone else to be the bad guy. Insurance company just did what they had to do under their current business model. This would be somewhat similar to me betting a long shot, but when it finishes up the track being mad at the teller for not giving me the favorite/winner. Not my fault, (s)he should have known that I wasn't making a valid decision. Gimme a break.



I would think that if they already had two children and could not afford health insurance IN ADVANCE, they should have been trying hard not to have any more children.

However, in the new nanny state, this will no longer be a problem as we will all be cared for cradle to grave. Whoopee.

[Tom]

Funny how Sec starts a thread just to belittle this country and all he ends up doing is showing how good our HC system works. The baby what he needed, as does anyone who needs it.