Log In Sign Up

BF baby declared obese and denied insurance


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
October 12th, 2009, 09:21 PM
SusieQ2's Avatar Jersey Girl
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 39,051
Yep, there's nothing wrong with our health insurance system.

A four month old BF baby measured in the 99th percentile for height and weight. An insurance company denied him coverage because they considered him obese. (The insurance company responded to the outrage over it and has changed their policy and given the baby coverage now).
__________________





Reply With Quote
  #2  
October 12th, 2009, 10:06 PM
SweetSimpleThings's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: B.C., Canada
Posts: 7,832
Oh my lord. That's ridiculous!!! DS was in the 100th percentile for height (and between 65 and 75 for weight) from the day he was born, until today ... guess what, he has a TALL and SKINNY dad, lol.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
October 12th, 2009, 11:21 PM
irishxrose
Guest
Posts: n/a
The insurance company wouldn't take any infant after the 95th percentile - which is utterly ridiculous for a four month old, considering they aren't even mobile. And it's a BREAST FED BABY! Like the father said, it's not like they can put him on the Atkins Diet or a treadmill.

Stupid insurance companies.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
October 13th, 2009, 03:37 AM
TheOtherMichelle's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,765
Those companies are run by people who have sold their soul to satan...
__________________







Reply With Quote
  #5  
October 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Whaaaaaat???? I am so glad I'm not on their insurance plan. DD was over 22 pounds by 4 months and completely off the charts. DS was similar. Luckily, I had a doctor that doesn't buy into such BS and kept telling me that since I was exclusively BF'ing, they were growing exactly as they should. And now, they are both tall and very thin, like their dad. In fact, my son's preschool class just measured them in class and he was the tallest in his class and the second to lightest, so fat baby does not mean fat child. I wish I could put some weight on him these days!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
October 13th, 2009, 05:39 AM
KimberlyD0
Guest
Posts: n/a
this isn't a BF issue, this is a moron issue. This baby needs the insurence BF or FF

I'll stick with UHC
Reply With Quote
  #7  
October 13th, 2009, 06:17 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,511
Ivy was about 50/50 BF and FF and she was 99th percentile. Fortuantely insurance can't give you the boot once you are on. Anyway she is totally healthy. I saw that news article and I thought it was ridiculous. That kid looked totally normal.
__________________

Thanks Ryan and Alex's mommy for the siggy!


Reply With Quote
  #8  
October 13th, 2009, 08:11 AM
KimberlyD0
Guest
Posts: n/a
deffinitly insain, but still not a BF issue. She wasn't denied because she was BF, but because she was so called "Obese" THATS what I have a problem with
Reply With Quote
  #9  
October 13th, 2009, 08:31 AM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimberlyD0 View Post
deffinitly insain, but still not a BF issue.
I somewhat disagree with this. If a FF baby is overweight, it is possible something more is going on (force feeding until the bottle is empty so as not to waste any, etc), but BF babies simply grow how nature intends them to. Either way, no baby should be denied health coverage, but I just wanted to point out the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
October 13th, 2009, 09:02 AM
KimberlyD0
Guest
Posts: n/a
the baby was not denied for BF but for being obese. 2 totally different issues. I am more upset that a baby would be denied, or anyone really, because they're obese. Thats what happend, thats what makes me angry. I would have been just as angry if someone called a FF Obese, babies are not obese.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
October 13th, 2009, 10:31 AM
beck12's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 12,330
Well the other thing is that BF babies are actually on a different growth charts (or are supposed to be) so there is nothing to say she was even in the 99th percentile to begin with...

But I also agree with Kimberly that this baby's weight should never have been made an insurance issue regardless of whether she was FF or BF.
__________________
B - Crazy momma to my two boys
We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters. ~Gloria Steinem

If a man has been his mother's undisputed darling he retains throughout life the triumphant feeling, the confidence in success, which not seldom brings actual success along with it. ~Sigmund Freud
My mom is a neverending song in my heart of comfort, happiness, and being. I may sometimes forget the words but I always remember the tune. ~Graycie Harmon
Don't wait to make your son a great man - make him a great boy. ~Author Unknown
You don't raise heroes, you raise sons. And if you treat them like sons, they'll turn out to be heroes, even if it's just in your own eyes. ~Walter M. Schirra, Sr.
A man loves his sweetheart the most, his wife the best, but his mother the longest. ~Irish Proverb
Mother's love is peace. It need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. ~Erich Fromm
Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it. - Harold Hulbert
Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children. ~William Makepeace Thackeray
God could not be everywhere, so he created mothers. ~Jewish Proverb
The best conversations with mothers always take place in silence, when only the heart speaks. ~Carrie Latet




Reply With Quote
  #12  
October 13th, 2009, 11:59 AM
**Badfish**'s Avatar Worth Saving
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,141
Well, I'll defend the insurance company to an extent. They are a local not-for-profit company. It was definitely wrong to deny this family coverage (they live in my town), but Rocky Mountain Health Plans corrected the underwriting issue immediately and contacted the family to offer coverage. I agree that the denial never should have happened in the first place, but they have corrected the mistake. I know I have fought tooth and nail with other insurance companies to get errors fixed to no avail, and there have been other local families who have ended up with atrocious bills due to clerical errors and went to the media with no result.

If we're not going to have a public option, then I would much rather all insurance companies scale down to local not-for-profits like Rocky Mountain Health Plans.
__________________





Reply With Quote
  #13  
October 13th, 2009, 02:18 PM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess is Write View Post
It was definitely wrong to deny this family coverage (they live in my town), but Rocky Mountain Health Plans corrected the underwriting issue immediately and contacted the family to offer coverage. .

I can't help but wonder if they would have done this on their own if the issue hadn't made national news.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
October 13th, 2009, 03:16 PM
**Badfish**'s Avatar Worth Saving
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by donomama View Post
I can't help but wonder if they would have done this on their own if the issue hadn't made national news.
I think they would have. The father is a local news anchor here, so it would have at least gotten local attention. Rocky Mountain Health Plans is solely a Colorado company, so from a business standpoint, it wouldn't really matter that it received national attention. But, based on what I know about the company and their standing in the community, I really believe the mistake would have been corrected no matter what. I DO NOT agree with denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including obesity, but that's the reality of health care right now. The error was that the underwriters didn't have age limitations when taking that factor into consideration. It was an oversight that infants don't follow the same body-weight index as the rest of us. And like I mentioned earlier, the company does not take a profit margin, so denying this family coverage wouldn't have increased anyone's bonus.
__________________





Reply With Quote
  #15  
October 13th, 2009, 04:28 PM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess is Write View Post
I think they would have. The father is a local news anchor here, so it would have at least gotten local attention. Rocky Mountain Health Plans is solely a Colorado company, so from a business standpoint, it wouldn't really matter that it received national attention. But, based on what I know about the company and their standing in the community, I really believe the mistake would have been corrected no matter what. I DO NOT agree with denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, including obesity, but that's the reality of health care right now. The error was that the underwriters didn't have age limitations when taking that factor into consideration. It was an oversight that infants don't follow the same body-weight index as the rest of us. And like I mentioned earlier, the company does not take a profit margin, so denying this family coverage wouldn't have increased anyone's bonus.
Well, I'm still skeptical. I did hear that the dad is a local news guy, so no doubt that had something to do with this story making the news. It makes me wonder how many other babies this exact thing has happened to in the past, as I'm sure he's not the first ever. This baby just happens to have a dad with the ability to turn the heat on this company. It's not like a 17 pound 4 month old is completely unheard of so I would be shocked if he was the first turned down. And just because it's a non-profit does not mean that no one over there is making any money or they're not thinking about their bottom line more than anything else. I worked for a non-profit for several years. The term non-profit should really be changed because it conjures up an image of a do-gooder company that donates all its income to needy children or something. People do get bonuses and lots of money is made over at the non-profits.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
October 13th, 2009, 04:55 PM
**Badfish**'s Avatar Worth Saving
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by donomama View Post
The term non-profit should really be changed because it conjures up an image of a do-gooder company that donates all its income to needy children or something. People do get bonuses and lots of money is made over at the non-profits.
How would they maintain their tax status? Not this company in particular, just any non-profit that is taking more than their operating cost?
__________________





Reply With Quote
  #17  
October 13th, 2009, 06:00 PM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess is Write View Post
How would they maintain their tax status? Not this company in particular, just any non-profit that is taking more than their operating cost?
Almost every non profit makes a profit, which is why I think the term needs changing. The reason they are called non-profit is because they are forbidden from making payouts to stockholders (or even have stockholders for that matter) or their officers/people sitting on their board. When they make money, it has to go back into the operating expenses for their company, which salaries and bonuses fall under. Think of it like this - you know all churches have a non-profit status, right? Well, you still hear about ministers in these large super churches making millions off their donations, so it's in their best interest to boost their membership, thus boosting their donations. Other non-profit companies work the same, so of course the employees, and especially higher ups have motivation to drive up "profits" (although I'm sure they don't call them that). Increasing their revenue increases salaries, bonuses, etc. I'm not familiar with this health care plan, but I have no doubt that it works the same way, which is why they are interested in denying coverage to those they deem expensive, like this "unhealthy" baby.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
October 14th, 2009, 10:10 PM
(.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by donomama View Post
I somewhat disagree with this. If a FF baby is overweight, it is possible something more is going on (force feeding until the bottle is empty so as not to waste any, etc), but BF babies simply grow how nature intends them to. Either way, no baby should be denied health coverage, but I just wanted to point out the difference.
My doctors have been so mean to me about my dd's size and weight.. They are taught to schedule feeding because of formula so they assume that's the same for breastfeeding. Since my dd didn't fit on their charts, I got hassled enormously from it. I've been encouraged to wean throughout my whole bfing journey for many reasons but since 9 months to now, my "overweight" child is the reason.

To the OP, it's hard for me to comment because I can't wrap my brain around insurance companies, paying for healthcare and for-profit health care. I would rather be dealing with ignorant doctors than no doctor at all.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
October 15th, 2009, 06:11 AM
fluffycheeks's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by (.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.) View Post
My doctors have been so mean to me about my dd's size and weight.. They are taught to schedule feeding because of formula so they assume that's the same for breastfeeding. Since my dd didn't fit on their charts, I got hassled enormously from it. I've been encouraged to wean throughout my whole bfing journey for many reasons but since 9 months to now, my "overweight" child is the reason.
That really sucks and is so wrong! You know I've had huge babies, and while I've gotten comments from other people, my docs have been nothing but supportive and THEY are the ones that have told me that I shouldn't do anything different (from bf'ing). They are the ones that have taught me that a bf'ing baby will grow as nature intends them to. Now, if I'd been FF, I'm sure it would be a very different story, but my peds office is VERY pro-BF'ing and I know how lucky I am. Don't you worry about Samantha, I know she will be just fine, just as my kids have thinned out as they have had time to grow and stretch it all out - my kids are not the least bit chunky now, and in fact, my son is very very skinny. Chunky babies are perfect. The only problem with them are the back problems they cause their mamas!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
October 15th, 2009, 08:19 AM
(.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0