If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS11tv.com)   In an effort to prove that they really do need a government nanny, insurance company denies newborn baby coverage by claiming his congenital heart defect is a preexisting condition   (cbs11tv.com) divider line 413
    More: Asinine, pre-existing condition, Blue Cross, congenital heart defect, North Texas, coverages, insurance companies  
•       •       •

17567 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2010 at 1:48 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



413 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-25 12:21:58 PM  
They're just getting it out of their systems.
 
2010-03-25 12:26:21 PM  
A former co-worker went to work for BCBS Texas, and quit after 3 months because he got sick of having to tell old people who had policies with them for years that they weren't covered for a procedure, or whatever. It was never written down or implicitly stated that he had to do that, but it was made very clear that it was in his best interests as it related to future employment that he had to do everything within his power to decrease the payout rate, even to fully-paid and covered policyholders.

Farking bastards.
 
2010-03-25 12:27:05 PM  
Is there video of a teabagger throwing wadded up dollar bills at the baby?
 
2010-03-25 12:27:20 PM  
www.scooterbomb.com
 
2010-03-25 12:30:47 PM  
BABY KILLER!!!!
 
2010-03-25 12:34:31 PM  
So you're saying it wasn't a preexisting condition?

/actually, TFA doesn't say when they tried to get insurance for him.
 
2010-03-25 12:35:39 PM  
This is just more proof that insurance companies need less regulation and the ability to sell insurance over state lines.

That way, the insurance companies would have all been fighting each other and falling over themselves for a chance to insure this child.
 
2010-03-25 12:35:50 PM  
Oh, even better..

My wife is a double-lung transplant patient, and while she was sick and on the transplant list back in 1997, she was on full disability, and was paying her insurance premiums TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE by certified mail.

When she got the page and it was time to go in, her mother was doing all the admittance paperwork, etc, and the insurance company agent TRIED TO CLAIM SHE WAS NOT COVERED, while she was on the phone. When her mom then told the agent that she had proof of payment via certified mail, and read the person's name signing for it, the agent then made some paper-shuffling sounds, himmed and hawed, and then suddenly came back with "oh, here I see it, there were computer problems".

There are million of people who never would have fought that, and would have taken their word face value. I'm sure there are people who have died directly due to insurance companies' blanket denial policy, despite valid policies being in place.

They deserve everything they get, and more. If they have hundreds of millions to advertise on tv, print, etc etc and host huge conventions and junkets, they have money to pay claims.
 
2010-03-25 12:43:11 PM  
AdolfOliverPanties: This is just more proof that insurance companies need less regulation and the ability to sell insurance over state lines.

That way, the insurance companies would have all been fighting each other and falling over themselves for a chance to insure this child.


+1
 
2010-03-25 12:48:13 PM  
markie_farkie: A former co-worker went to work for BCBS Texas, and quit after 3 months because he got sick of having to tell old people who had policies with them for years that they weren't covered for a procedure, or whatever. It was never written down or implicitly stated that he had to do that, but it was made very clear that it was in his best interests as it related to future employment that he had to do everything within his power to decrease the payout rate, even to fully-paid and covered policyholders.

Farking bastards.


I've heard of many companies just rejecting claims the first two or three times no matter what. The initial claim is rejected with a canned text. "Procedure not covered". You complain, and told it is still not covered. After you second and third escalation, they agree to refund the claim.

They know statistically that (let's say), 30% of claimants will just give up after 2 or 3 attempts. So by being a prick, they can save 30% on completely valid complaints.

Makes me think of the Austin Powers clip where he is interogating Wil Ferrel's character.
 
2010-03-25 12:51:18 PM  
markie_farkie: Oh, even better..

My wife is a double-lung transplant patient, and while she was sick and on the transplant list back in 1997, she was on full disability, and was paying her insurance premiums TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE by certified mail.

When she got the page and it was time to go in, her mother was doing all the admittance paperwork, etc, and the insurance company agent TRIED TO CLAIM SHE WAS NOT COVERED, while she was on the phone. When her mom then told the agent that she had proof of payment via certified mail, and read the person's name signing for it, the agent then made some paper-shuffling sounds, himmed and hawed, and then suddenly came back with "oh, here I see it, there were computer problems".

There are million of people who never would have fought that, and would have taken their word face value. I'm sure there are people who have died directly due to insurance companies' blanket denial policy, despite valid policies being in place.

They deserve everything they get, and more. If they have hundreds of millions to advertise on tv, print, etc etc and host huge conventions and junkets, they have money to pay claims.


But how can they make a profit if they have to actually insure everyone that pays them premiums??????

Seriously. Fark this industry. I'm sick of them pulling bullshiat like this and THEN crying about how low their profit margin is. You know what? If it's so hard to turn a profit doing this without ruining your own customers, then fark you and fark your company. That's just the invisible hand of the market punching you in the balls. Go cry at your bankruptcy filing and make room for either a company that CAN turn a profit doing its job, or a government program to take your place when you finally admit that you're playing three card monte with people's lives.
 
2010-03-25 12:53:46 PM  
markie_farkie: Oh, even better..

My wife is a double-lung transplant patient, and while she was sick and on the transplant list back in 1997, she was on full disability, and was paying her insurance premiums TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE by certified mail.

When she got the page and it was time to go in, her mother was doing all the admittance paperwork, etc, and the insurance company agent TRIED TO CLAIM SHE WAS NOT COVERED, while she was on the phone. When her mom then told the agent that she had proof of payment via certified mail, and read the person's name signing for it, the agent then made some paper-shuffling sounds, himmed and hawed, and then suddenly came back with "oh, here I see it, there were computer problems".

There are million of people who never would have fought that, and would have taken their word face value. I'm sure there are people who have died directly due to insurance companies' blanket denial policy, despite valid policies being in place.

They deserve everything they get, and more. If they have hundreds of millions to advertise on tv, print, etc etc and host huge conventions and junkets, they have money to pay claims.


That is a major procedure. I hope your wife is still alive and doing well.
 
2010-03-25 12:56:05 PM  
aden_nak: That's just the invisible hand of the market punching you in the balls.

I usually have to pay my mistress extra for that.
 
2010-03-25 12:58:06 PM  
But the BCBS CEO gets a bigger bonus. That's what really counts here! Never mind the babies, who will speak off for the poor, oppressed insurance company executives?
 
2010-03-25 12:58:41 PM  
patrick767
who will speak off for up the poor, oppressed insurance company executives?

meh... fixed.
 
2010-03-25 01:01:45 PM  
patrick767: patrick767
who will speak off for up the poor, oppressed insurance company executives?

meh... fixed.


Are you sure?
 
2010-03-25 01:02:26 PM  
aden_nak: markie_farkie: Oh, even better..

My wife is a double-lung transplant patient, and while she was sick and on the transplant list back in 1997, she was on full disability, and was paying her insurance premiums TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE by certified mail.

When she got the page and it was time to go in, her mother was doing all the admittance paperwork, etc, and the insurance company agent TRIED TO CLAIM SHE WAS NOT COVERED, while she was on the phone. When her mom then told the agent that she had proof of payment via certified mail, and read the person's name signing for it, the agent then made some paper-shuffling sounds, himmed and hawed, and then suddenly came back with "oh, here I see it, there were computer problems".

There are million of people who never would have fought that, and would have taken their word face value. I'm sure there are people who have died directly due to insurance companies' blanket denial policy, despite valid policies being in place.

They deserve everything they get, and more. If they have hundreds of millions to advertise on tv, print, etc etc and host huge conventions and junkets, they have money to pay claims.

But how can they make a profit if they have to actually insure everyone that pays them premiums??????

Seriously. Fark this industry. I'm sick of them pulling bullshiat like this and THEN crying about how low their profit margin is. You know what? If it's so hard to turn a profit doing this without ruining your own customers, then fark you and fark your company. That's just the invisible hand of the market punching you in the balls. Go cry at your bankruptcy filing and make room for either a company that CAN turn a profit doing its job, or a government program to take your place when you finally admit that you're playing three card monte with people's lives.


The low profit thing pisses me off too. What is an appropriate profit margin for a company that contributes nothing to society and provides no tangible service whatsoever.

How much does a car salesman make when he sells you a care? Maybe 1 or 2%. What type of commission should a car salesman make if you show up to the dealership and he just kicks you in the balls.

Anytime a claim is unfairly rejected, you should be entitled to double. You submit a claim for $1,000 and it is rejected. You can than submit a claim for $2,000. That one is rejected, you can submit a claim for $4,000K etc.. etc... That should smarten up those farkers.
 
2010-03-25 01:11:17 PM  
Yeah, this is clearly the insurance industry the Republican needed to fight so desperately to protect.
 
2010-03-25 01:14:37 PM  
It's just more profitable that way, and that is all that really matters.
 
2010-03-25 01:21:08 PM  
mrshowrules: That is a major procedure. I hope your wife is still alive and doing well.

Yes she is, and is back to FIVE packs a day, thanks to her new lungs, and the $3000 a month in meds she takes!

/i KEED on the smokes, she never touched them before or after.
 
2010-03-25 01:22:39 PM  
What's funny is people actually think that the level of care they are receiving will actually improve under Obamacare...
 
2010-03-25 01:27:58 PM  
I can understand the rage against insurance companies (and personally I don't think I could live myself if I worked for one), but on a purely cold-blooded, intellectual level, I can't really blame them for doing this type of thing - their mandate is to increase profits and make their shareholders richer, not to save lives or make the world a better place.

With that being said, it's a sign of how broken the system is that a profit-driven corporation acts as the gatekeeper to something as universally fundamental as health care. In my opinion, it should be on the same level as police and fire services and military protection - something that is paid for by taxes, and as a result, unconditionally guaranteed to all citizens.
 
2010-03-25 01:45:51 PM  
dethmagnetic: their mandate is to increase profits and make their shareholders richer, not to save lives or make the world a better place.

And that's why they need to be cut out of the loop. The decision needs to not be theirs any more.
 
2010-03-25 01:45:51 PM  
BCBS used to be a good brand, but about a decade ago they realized they could make a lot of money by taking the premiums and not paying out anything and also by taking every opportunity to take the people that were locked into decent rates and change their coverage.

A few years ago, my wife and I were on an individual policy b/c she was a contracted employee (the employer still paid half the premium b/c he was an awesome guy) and we were healthy and there we no issues. Then the state decided to change our zip code. BCBS decided this was all the change they needed to drop our coverage and move us onto a MUCH more expensive plan. When we asked what the hell was going on, they said that "there was an address change" so we were no longer grand-fathered into our plan (a plan they stopped offering about a year prior). An address change. That we didn't choose to make. Our rates doubled overnite.

THIS is the industry the Republicans are fighting to defend. Don't think for a second I'll forget that in November.
 
2010-03-25 01:52:05 PM  
It amazes me that anyone thinks that health insurance is an industry where profit motives are a good thing. Nucking futs.
 
2010-03-25 01:53:54 PM  
the Tracy's

[img-angryflower]
 
2010-03-25 01:54:24 PM  
dethmagnetic: In my opinion, it should be on the same level as police and fire services and military protection - something that is paid for by taxes, and as a result, unconditionally guaranteed to all citizens.

this
 
2010-03-25 01:55:14 PM  
If babies themselves aren't a "pre-existing condition" how can they have a condition deemed so?
 
2010-03-25 01:55:45 PM  
mrshowrules: That is a major procedure. I hope your wife is still alive and doing well.

One could say, it's a big farking deal.

(Holy crap, double lung transplant? It's literally astounding what modern medicine can accomplish)
 
2010-03-25 01:56:27 PM  
I'm sure the insurance company's line is that the mom should have gotten insurance for the baby BEFORE it was born[1], when it was still up in the air statistically as to whether it would have any health issues. So in a sense, yeah, I can see their argument about it being preexisting - they knew of the problem at the time they wanted to join, there was no gamble involved.

That said, fark this, bring on real national health coverage already.

[1] is that even possible, though? Got no kids, I have no idea.
 
2010-03-25 01:57:03 PM  
LordZorch: What's funny is people actually think that the level of care they are receiving will actually improve under Obamacare...

LOL...well, Obamacare doesn't affect me, personally, "genius"
 
2010-03-25 01:57:20 PM  
This pretty much says it all.
blogs.ajc.com
 
2010-03-25 01:57:50 PM  
FTFA: ""He's doing really good," his mother said with a smile, "he's a little tough guy.""

Don't know the difference between adjective and adverb?! Wh.. Uh.. What is this woman doing procreating?! GRAMMAR NAZIS, GET HER!!! CLAIM REJECTED
 
2010-03-25 01:57:53 PM  
Pastor of Muppets: BCBS used to be a good brand, but about a decade ago they realized they could make a lot of money by taking the premiums and not paying out anything and also by taking every opportunity to take the people that were locked into decent rates and change their coverage.

NPR had a show about "the Blues" last week. A while ago they officially (for the most part, most subdivisions) went for-profit, and that's when things all started going downhill coverage and denial-wise.
 
2010-03-25 01:57:58 PM  
Jument: It amazes me that anyone thinks that health insurance is an industry where profit motives are a good thing.

Not just profit motive, short term profit motive.

/boggle
 
2010-03-25 01:58:04 PM  
Jument: It amazes me that anyone thinks that health insurance is an industry where profit motives are a good thing. Nucking futs.

www.joeydevilla.com

"SOCIALIST. I don't know what that means, but I'm told it's bad."
 
2010-03-25 01:58:22 PM  
Pastor of Muppets: BCBS used to be a good brand, but about a decade ago they realized they could make a lot of money by taking the premiums and not paying out anything and also by taking every opportunity to take the people that were locked into decent rates and change their coverage.

They tried to drop me when I got cancer. It was found in the lymph nodes of my right arm. I had shoulder surgery on my left arm prior to that.

They tried to claim the doctor who did my shoulder surgery should have detected the cancer on the other side!

Took months of fighting to keep my coverage.

The thing is, stories like this are commonplace, yet Republicans have someone managed to convince their constituents only the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR matters and just ignore these problems.

It is sad what America has become. NOTHING matters in this country anymore but making a buck. Morality be damned if there isn't profit involved.
 
2010-03-25 01:58:36 PM  
FTFA: "They kept saying it's preexisting, it's preexisting, but I don't know how it can be preexisting on a baby that was just born." his father said. "If it's mandated that everyone have health insurance, than how can one be denied?"

maybe because it won't be required until 2014? the amount of ignorance about this bill explains why so many people are against it. sure it's far from perfect, but it'll do a lot more good than harm.
 
2010-03-25 01:59:36 PM  
REPEAL
 
2010-03-25 01:59:38 PM  
Surely tort reform would prevent this.
 
2010-03-25 02:00:57 PM  
ne2d: So you're saying it wasn't a preexisting condition?

/actually, TFA doesn't say when they tried to get insurance for him.


Things do vary state-to-state, but it was made clear for me in the cases of both my kids that I couldn't arrange for health insurance for a child not yet born. In my case, however, both kids were automatically covered for 30 days by mommy's insurance no doubt by law. That was fortunate, since we had to take baby #2 into the hospital for a week of Dr. House treatment when she was seven days old.

I did get a "pre-existing conditions exclusion period" clamped down on my first when we added our 2nd to my policy, however. I called them and informed them that he had been covered by them since he was born and it would be nice if they'd pull their heads out. Yet another entertaining episode of them trying to deny claims and then chalking it up to "computer error."

I hate health insurance companies.
 
2010-03-25 02:01:18 PM  
I'm sort of surprised that none of the corporate executives that have farked up this country so badly haven't been killed.
 
2010-03-25 02:01:48 PM  
LordZorch: What's funny is people actually think that the level of care they are receiving will actually improve under Obamacare...

How do people like you (those who say "Obamacare") expect to ever be taken seriously?

Really, like the HillaryCare shiat wasn't stupid enough. You and your kind fell for that shiat 15 years ago and look how much health care improved!

Congratulations on being a shill.
 
2010-03-25 02:01:52 PM  
itazurakko: I'm sure the insurance company's line is that the mom should have gotten insurance for the baby BEFORE it was born[1], when it was still up in the air statistically as to whether it would have any health issues. So in a sense, yeah, I can see their argument about it being preexisting - they knew of the problem at the time they wanted to join, there was no gamble involved.

That said, fark this, bring on real national health coverage already.

[1] is that even possible, though? Got no kids, I have no idea.


With my plan, when my wife became pregnant all visits for prenatal were co-pay free and our daughter was covered from day one on our insurance with a 90day grace period to add her to our package.

Its not that good of a plan but it is Kaiser and they have the whole preemptive care thing down pat.
 
2010-03-25 02:02:02 PM  
You all do realize that Medicare denies payment for more procedures than all the insurance companies combined? They also deny the highest percentage? This is what the Dems ran roughshod over the will of the people to implement more of. Hope that works out for you.
 
2010-03-25 02:02:15 PM  
factoryconnection: Things do vary state-to-state, but it was made clear for me in the cases of both my kids that I couldn't arrange for health insurance for a child not yet born. In my case, however, both kids were automatically covered for 30 days by mommy's insurance no doubt by law. That was fortunate, since we had to take baby #2 into the hospital for a week of Dr. House treatment when she was seven days old.

Well hell, then. I see my previous post was in fact naive.

Do you at least get exempted in when you move the kid from Mom's insurance onto her own insurance?

/still thinks this entire system is crazy
 
2010-03-25 02:02:21 PM  
dethmagnetic: on a purely cold-blooded, intellectual level, I can't really blame them for doing this type of thing - their mandate is to increase profits and make their shareholders richer, not to save lives or make the world a better place.


I keep saying this over and over. Why do people expect corporations to do anything except make the most money possible? They have no motivation to do anything but make money. Any time a corporation does something that seems to be generous or compassionate, it's to increase profits through advertising or by cutting a potential loss. Period.

That's not a "corporations are bad" rant, it's simple fact. Corporations by definition can not do anything but make money for shareholders. Period.

That's why private hospitals, prisons and schools are bad, bad, bad ideas.
 
2010-03-25 02:02:48 PM  
LordZorch: What's funny is people actually think that the level of care they are receiving will actually improve under Obamacare...

Yeah, because quality of care is so good right now that a newborn baby might be condemned to death.

Why do you people only care about life when there hasn't been a birth yet?

Baby-killers.
 
2010-03-25 02:02:49 PM  
dethmagnetic: it's a sign of how broken the system is that a profit-driven corporation acts as the gatekeeper to something as universally fundamental as health care.

THIS.

People who feel like us really need to organize, get some more pro-single-payer congresscritters elected, and get this shiat fixed!

Hopefully, this will happen now that HCR is in place... people will eventually realize "most health care is paid for via taxes, why not cut out the unnecessary for-profit middleman?"
 
2010-03-25 02:02:55 PM  
pinual: With my plan, when my wife became pregnant all visits for prenatal were co-pay free and our daughter was covered from day one on our insurance with a 90day grace period to add her to our package.

Its not that good of a plan but it is Kaiser and they have the whole preemptive care thing down pat.


That is good news.
 
Displayed 50 of 413 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report