4 month old baby denied insurance coverage for being obese

Well, this reminds me of a scene in the movie Bruno: when the parents were willing to have their babies undergo diet or surgery to lose weight and being casted for a "commercial". The sole idea of putting a baby on a diet was outrageous, albeit funny.
Now this insurance company is giving "outrageous" a whole new dimension. It seems that greediness (and stupidity) have no limit, and obviously this is not the CEO's child.

that insurance thing -- what a bunch of dimwits.

I'm glad they backed down and agreed to provide coverage. Just curious though?? I weighed 3# at birth while my husband weighed more than 4x as much (his mom was diabetic.) Would we each have been denied on the basis of our birth weights? ... and because I was a preemie and his mom had gestional diabetes?

Kathy
sharpeimom

I think your hubby would have been because he must he been higher than the 95th percentile. As a preemie you might have been as well. Interesting question. I would think you'd have been in the percentile on the opposite end. Sad that a baby might not get insurance because their mother ran into illness and complications. I find this story depressing. I'm glad the baby has coverage but it never should have come to this. He's a long baby and as such would weigh more.

And if you make the kid mad they might just pee at you or make the diaper dirty on purpose

This why the pre-existing clause needs to be removed.

I've tried to get worked up about this all 3 times I've seen the story today, I just can't.
Another link:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

The little guy was 8.25 pounds at birth, not 9. He's more than doubled his birth weight and is wearing size 9 months at 4 months old. If his pediatrician hasn't expressed concern about his weight gain, s/he should have.
Fat babies are not healthy babies.

I'm into nitpicking some of details.

By whose numbers?
Is this the numbers the parents reported to the press or is this off some chart used by the insurance company?
If it is taken from a chart I'd like to see it because it sure isn't the CDC chart, which is the standard in the US. Per the CDC chart at 4 months his weight of 17 pounds puts him just on the up hill side of the 90th percentile and his length of 25 inches is on the 50th. That is assuming he was that size on the day he was exactly 4 months old, if he is 4.5 months he's below the 90th for weight and above the 50th for length. http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data...l/cj41l067.pdf

Neither the baby or his family are without health insurance because of this, unless his parents were foolish enough to drop their existing coverage before securing a new one.
He wasn't denied coverage by the plan he was (presumably) born under.

Do they have grounds for appeal? Certainly, if for no other reason than the insurance company is apparently not using the growth chart that is the standard.

I'm afraid I'll need some more information before I can get worked up over the "40% increase" in their premiums that led his parents to look for different insurance. Was it $40 or $400 because to me, that is relevant. Having kids cost money, they should have known their premiums would go up, why did they wait until he's 4 months old to start shopping for a new policy?
The reality likely is they blew it of because it really wasn't that important to them...until they couldn't get the insurance they wanted, right at the very moment they wanted it.

Give the kid a couple weeks, I bet the pounds he packed on in preparation for an impending growth spurt (typically one happens around 4 months) will balance out and this is all a non-issue.

But it's far more sensational to go running to the press so it can be spun to support health care reform and snatch 15 seconds of fame.

good point. you are probably 100% right about that. Kudos to you for seeing through this twisted agenda.
This is an article on health care reform in support of "the great fix" that this new healthcare plan is "supposed to fix"

It sure sounds good...

I'm conjecturing that you did not click on the link to read the article that the original poster included with the first post of this thread. If you had truly read the article, you certainly would have noticed that the link was from the Fox News Network, which has been one of the biggest criticizers of government healthcare reform and the Obama administration.

The Fox News Network would be the last entity on the face of the earth to support your so-called "great fix."

Perhaps they are presenting information on both sides of the health care "reform" debate, without shoving an agenda down their viewers' throats.

Fair and Balanced, you know