October 12, 2009
-
Insuring Fat People
An insurance company is coming under fire after they denied a 4-month-old insurance because the baby was overweight.
The baby was denied insurance because he was in the 99th percentile of his weight. Obesity is considered a “pre-existing condition.”
After it made national news, the insurance company reversed its decision and covered the baby. Here is the link: Link
My wife used to work with a woman who was denied insurance because she was obese.
If you think about it, overweight people are more likely to have medical problems.
Do you think insurance companies should be able to deny fat people insurance because it is a pre-existing condition?
Comments (106)
No, they should just have to pay a higher premium.
lol.
Isn’t that discrimination? Yes, weight can be linked to health problems, but a lot of larger people are INCREDIBLY healthy, and lot of skinny people are NOT.
yes. they should have a different insurance. like a lower coverage
It’s a business. That should be up to them. I do not think they should do that, but I don’t think I (or the government) have the right to tell them how to run their business.
This is inhumane.
Just because someone is obese doesn’t mean they choose to be. I mean, this baby hasn’t had any life choices to make that would lead to obesity. And, certain medical conditions lead to obesity.
Fucking American Healthcare.
I believe the American healthcare needs to take a lesson from places such as Canada and Britian.
@Pensamientos@revelife - Exactly!!! It’s up to them…freedom, America, etc. At least we still have it for now.
No. I dont think so.
I’ll get back to you after I eat this Big Mac.
No. :/
xo
@Dare2BDiferentt - Agreed.
@MomGoneMadd - hehehe, nice! ^_^
@Dare2BDiferentt - yeah, agree
No one should be denied insurance or given a higher premium because of a pre-existing condition. Especially obesity – not all fat people have health problems, and I’m skinny and have a crap load of health problems.
I just feel bad for obese people who get denied this.
Aren’t 4 month olds supposed to be like kind of chubby? LOL.
It should depend on their health related to doctor visits, not a particular weight percentile. Otherwise, it’s just ridiculous and irrational.
I understand more so not covering an obese adult. Because chances are it’s probably the adult’s fault they’re that way. But not covering a baby is stupid. It’s not the baby’s fault. I think not covering an obese adult is stupid too..but it’s understandable from a business point of view.
It’s only fair if they refuse to insure underweight people as well. Yes, people can be underweight or overweight and healthy, but both underweight and overweight people are at risk for more issues than those of a healthy weight. there are just as many health risks for underweight folks as there are for overweight people.
No. That’s just…wrong.
I think it’s a disgrace to deny medical insurance to anyone. Especially a baby, for pete’s sake. My daughter was in the 90th percentile when she was born, but in the 25th percentile by the time she was a year old. It’s stupid to call a chubby baby obese.
How about a dollar per pound.
Problem I see here is that smoking, drinking, ilicit drug use, driving too fast, unprotected sex and overall reckless behavior can cause health problems too. How do you deny insurance or adjust premiums when you have these conditions that are not as obvious as an obese person’s physical presence.
@seedsower - I’d be broke
@MomGoneMadd - YOU? OMG…What about me?
Wait, so even in a system where people can afford insurance, they are denied coverage??? SHOCKING!
@seedsower - yeah your idea SUCKS
we don’t like fat people.
Everyone seems to forget what type of economy we have. You can’t be Capitalist and moral. It simply doesn’t create profits.
Looking at it from the insurance companies p.o.v., obese people are going to need more money for hospital bills and medicine than the amount of premiums they pay. Ergo, these companies lose money, or they increase premiums to make up the difference.
Health Care in America is more like Sick Care. We have no preventative maintenance.
Now, from the person’s p.o.v., they’d love to be covered for every single thing. It’s not realistic, but it is morally just.
The denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions is one of many reasons why American health care is ranked nearer the bottom while Socialist medicine and Universal Health Care rank higher. And these ranks cover things from life expectancy, to infant mortality rates, to efficiency.
I conclude that Health Insurance companies are not at fault and are only doing what is best for their company. At this rate, food stores should just hand out 50 dollars worth of groceries to everyone that walks in saying they need food. >.>
well since by some projections 90% of the nation is overweight, obese or more vulnerable to heart disease then everyone’s rates should be raised. Or you just go with single payer and universal health insurance to bring the costs down…
This mirrors this discussion on HealthKicker: http://www.healthkicker.com/714292179/a-quotfat-taxquot-may-increase-obese-peoples-healthcare%E2%80%A6/
Insurance companies consider me ‘high risk’. By their charts, I’m obese, but I have a lot of muscle, low blood pressure, and acceptable cholesterol. On the other hand, I was diagnosed with MS, arthritis, and had encephalitis as a teen. That makes my premium over $900/month. I do no currently have health insurance, because that is an impossible amount.
Instead of relying solely on modern medicine, I have dedicated my health to eating nutritious foods and exploring homeopathy and other forms of holistic health. There are alternatives to health insurance.
@Pensamientos@revelife - Agreed. Just because it’s not nice doesn’t mean we should stop them. Saying “you’re ugly” isn’t nice either, but you’re allowed to do it.
@breaking_expectations - I agreeeeeeeee like fully.
I’m betting the bureaucrats and computers at that insurance company never even looked at the age of the baby before denying that claim.
Um yeah. its their company they can do what they want.
I think that’s wrong. That poor baby. How is it the baby’s fault it was overweight??
I don’t think insurance companies should deny obese people insurance. Shouldn’t they be given resources to help them lose weight? Insurance companies give smokers resources to help them quit smoking…how is this any different?
no, just make them pay more.
:/
wow, that is wrong
Yes, they should be able to deny coverage to anyone that they don’t want to cover, for any reason that they decide.
nien
One more incident proving that insurance companies don’t get a shit about you. They see $$ and if you are going to use more $$ than you pay them, they tell you to fuck off. Since when is it the job of those in the healthcare business to decide that the healthier have more of a right to live?
I don’t think that someone should be denied health care because they’re obese, something that can be caused by many factors which are not all related to self-control. But it seems especially ignorant for them to not cover a baby, as babies can certainly have their chubby periods.
It used to be that only children made fun of fat people, and adults scolded them for it. Now it’s adults not only making fun of fat people but treating them as subhuman. We’ve become so childish as a nation.
I think obesity should be considered right along with the other things they consider. They charge more for smokers, why not charge more for obesity?
@P1AutismMom@autisable - Smokers are charged more. And as far as I understand it’s based on honesty. But, if it comes time for the insurance company to pay out and they find out that the person lied about smoking they would likely be denied benefits or dropped.
My doctor use to get on me all the time about my weight. Every visit he tells me to go see he dietician and blah blah blah. I finally got sick of it and went to see another doctor. My new doctor doesnt say anything about my weight because my blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and everything else is PERFECT (slight anemia though). She said that if I had had problems with my test results she would have sugested losing weight. This made me upset, the whole time my other doctor made me feel like I was unhealthy. I confronted him and asked if there was a reason he wanted me to lose weight besides the fact that my lovely lady lumps were an eye sore for him. He didnt know what to say.
So my point is that you cant base someone’s health just on their weight, if they have a history of hospitalizations or frequent doctor visits, then maybe, but I will never believe that you should turn down a sick person; you can NOT just leave them to die because you dont want to pay the cost.
By merely living, one is likely to get sick. Thus living should be a pre-existing condition and all health insurance companies should deny all living people health insurance. It would only be fair.
As someone with a boatload of preconditions, I’d gladly pay more. But if companies don’t want to cover me, I can’t blame them.
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn’t it?
Is it fair? No. Is it true that obese people have worse medical conditions, and are insurance companies total and complete heartless assholes? Absolutely.
@Dare2BDiferentt - is right
@seedsower - everyone would be thinspo
idc
Honestly, yes. It causes just as many health problems as smoking does. If they can deny a smoker, or make them pay more, they should treat obesity the same way.
Absolutely! Fat people should totally be denied. Because that automatically means we have money, ya know.
I’ve had three surgeries this year- NONE OF THEM WEIGHT RELATED- totaling over $30,000. I should have had to pay that out of my pocket?!
This is just another way for insurance companies to deny their obligations, and it’s just another excuse for individuals in our sex-obsessed, vain, shallow society to look down their noses at other human beings who may not be *gasp* just like them!
sure, also do DNA tests on everyone to check if they are prone to any other health problem. It only makes sense. The insurance company only wants to collect insurance fees, they have noo interest in actually helping people who end up needing medical care. They know they end up forking out some money for some individuals, but it’s their goal to find enough helathy people to buy insurance from them-
@MagisterTom - I kind of figured about the smoking since it is a question they ask quite often. If there weren’t those pesky scales lying in wait, with a good girdle and a slimming black outfit, you could lie your way out of about 20 lbs. As far as honesty, I’m sure no one lies about their other risky behaviors. Right? :) ha
It’s a business. They have the right.
No..
It’s a private business, so really, they have a right.
Any privately-owned company should be allowed to deny service to anyone it wants for any reason. This is why this is a free country–you’re free to go to someone else if one company is giving you the runaround. A health insurance company isn’t obligated to provide service to everyone in the nation, the only thing they are obligated to do is to make a profit, by offering insurance services to people for whom it is profitable to do so.
Forcing a company to take a client is unethical in any form–in fact, said family is guilty of coercion via the media and should be lambasted for whining about not receiving a “right” that doesn’t exist. Forcing market exchanges that otherwise would go unmade is the whole premise of “organized crime” to begin with.
mother fuckers
@anaraug - this is true, and is a major fault of private-for profit health care.
@rhiannonator - What exactly is the fault? Individuals have an incentive to buy insurance because it reduces risk on an individual basis. The company has incentive because on average, only some of the risks ever actually happen. Both parties benefit. Companies aren’t doing any harm tword those who don’t qualify, they’re just neutral. This is like saying the fact that I don’t hide in my neighbor’s yard and look for trespassers without pay is a “problem with the for-profit security industry”.
They shouldn’t be allowed to deny until a human reaches past a certain age, 5 or 10, it’s not like anyone younger can help who they are yet.
Most definitely. An insurance company is a business, and in the job of making money (Or atleast break even).
That’s upsetting. Fat people need it the most but they shouldnt charge them more to keep them insured. EQUAL RIGHTS PEOPLE.
@anaraug - no, it is not like saying that. far from it. You talked about what is ethical v. unethical in your first comment. how is it more unethical to force a company into a market transaction than it is that we have people who cannot get coverage? Since when is the ethical treatment of a corporation more important than the ethical treatment of human beings?
TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE
My English teacher had us start watching Michael Moore’s SiCKO in class today. Insurance companies deny people coverage to save money. Someone who is obese will have the most health issues (generally), and would therefore cost the insurance company lots of money. It’s a disgusting thing…
It would be unethical to deny any person – child or adult – medical insurance because of obesity. There are always factors relatively out of a persons control when it comes to “unhealthy” weight. I, for one, am a very short size 16 and I can still out everything my gym-healthy friends!
I think it should depend on their health expenses maybe from the previous year or so. I would not like to see them denied but I can understand a companies need to charge higher rates for someone who is already sick when they come to the company whatever the reason that they are sick.
@rhiannonator - Companies are formed of human beings. The rights of those human beings have been indiscriminately compromised for the sake of those of other human beings. If I see 3 bums on the street and give 2 of them a dollar each, I haven’t harmed the third one–if someone were to tell me that what I’m doing is unethical, they would be laughed at. What would be unethical would be to force me to give it to them. Or if I gave nothing but shot one of them. Then I’d be actively harming him.
Insurance companies do not harm anyone, ever. They provide benefits to their customers but they do not provide anti-benefits to their non-customers. They’re equivalent to the characters in the good samaritan other than the samaritan–they might be going to hell, but they haven’t neglected any duties that are legally required of them.
People not being able to get insurance is a shame, but shame isn’t justification for cheating a company out of profits that it legally accquired.
@anaraug - that is hwere your idea of what is ethical and my idea of what is ethical diverge. Giving to bums is not like denying an
essential
service that the company would be paid for–it exposes why essential services should not be private, as I originally stated. i don’t think people should be denied basic services because of their weight, and with private health insurance, this is simply bound to happen.
@rhiannonator - Sure. I think what is diverging is more of what is essential and what isn’t; or possibly what is a right and what isn’t, etc, or a little of all three but with the same end effect. It does expose a certain demand that is unmet, which if provided by a government would not be undercutting private insurance, which is IMO the ideal “location” for government services.
They are private companies; they should be able to deny coverage for any reason they want.
If someone wants to start an insurance company for obese people, by all means go ahead.
But to say private insurance companies can’t deny certain people? Whatever happened to capitalism and freedom?
Maybe? If you’re genetically predisposed AND eat like crap/dont exercise then maybe…
I have a 5month old at work who is also 17 pounds. He is definitely overweight and his parents seem to think its funny? He barely fits in a size 3 diaper … its sad …
Wow even though it’s wrong, it’s there money and they have the right to cover whoever they please.
~Alexx
No.
It’s interesting how the insurance industry prefers to conduct its business in secret. If you really feel that you’ve been treated unfairly by an insurance company, go public and take it to the news. They can’t justify their behavior under the eye of public scrutiny.
I HATE insurance!
depends
some people are fat because they don’t take care of themselves
just like some people have lung cancer because they don’t take care of themselves (smoking)
some people have cervical cancer because they don’t take care of themselves (HPV and not having sex or staying protect)
Maybe they’d offer coverage based on the individual joining some sort of weight loss support group, and having to go to biannual check ups to show that they are attempting a healthier life style. If the persons numbers worsen then their premium would go up or something.
No! >=O
@saintvi - Holy cow! For real? I knew I was a big baby, but jeez!
@P1AutismMom@autisable - great answer !
I vote for higher premiums, for a lot of people obesity is something that can be changed
I think it should be a factor, but not the sole reason. Perhaps a higher premium instead.
@yourkbear - I agree completely.
Don’t they have enough of our money already?
So many medical conditions derive from weight issues. So many weight issues are self inflicted. The fat baby is one of those rare exceptions. Should insurance companies worry themselves with why the person is overweight, or should they just consider the risk of accepting a money losing customer? Under our current system of health care, it’s perfectly acceptable for for-profit insurance companies to consider their bottom line. They’re a business and that is in part is why our government needs to work hard at developing and implementing some alternative.
I think its dumb to be denied because of a “pre-existing condition”. I mean hell it would make more sense for the insuance companies to take pple who have this pre-existing conditions on the grounds that if it is already there they are likely to have to go to the doctor or some type of specialist for it which means that the insurance companies would make more money from people with such issues whether is be obesity, or something more serious.
I think healthcare companies, should not be allowed to deny anyone, regardless to what their current condition is. the government gives them too much power and then complains that there are too many people who aren’t covered. No wonder they arent covered when the health care agencies are free to decide whatever they like and discriminate as they see fit.
Deny, no. Rate them, yes. If they are a greater risk, they should have to pay more until their “pre-existing condition” goes away. They CAN do something about that pre-existing condition if they really want to.
@P1AutismMom@autisable - auto insurance companies are pretty good at raising premiums on people with risk taking personalities. I really don’t think it would be that hard for health insurance companies to profile people in the same manner.
I have no problem with insurance companies tacking additional charges onto insurance plans for people who don’t take proper care of themselves. Regularly smoking/drinking, participating in extreme sports like MMA cage fighting or football, eating at McDonald’s regularly, etc. But they should never, ever, deny coverage for any reason because everyone needs that safety net even if they don’t know it.
The baby clearly didn’t decide to eat a lot so the parent should be penalized with a higher premium for their baby so that they start feeding it right and prevent it from going down the obesity road.
@locketine - There are kids who are within normal range weight limits and all they eat are chips, cookies and Starbucks. Check out your local middle school. Unfortunately Charts and Numbers don’t tell the whole story. Statistics are what insurance companies roll with. This is why when my son get’s his license he will most likely be paying $2000.00 annual premium whether he drives safely or not. Not saying it’s wrong, it’s just how it is.
@P1AutismMom@autisable - Yep, unfortunately statistics are the best thing we’ve got for…. doing practically everything, actually. Even electrical engineers work off of statistics.
The insurance companies should raise premiums on coffee drinkers too, especially kids. Drinking coffee when you’re young causes all sorts of problems later on. The problem is simply these people are more likely to cost the health care industry more money because of their riskier behavior. Why should the people who take good care of themselves pay higher premiums to cover the people who don’t?
@Dare2BDiferentt - I agree. It’s been proven again and again that there are more health risks when someone weighs more. On top of that, while some people are naturally heavy…true obesity can usually be altered with diet and exercise…as opposed to someone with say MS, they can’t really help that.
of course. it’s a business, not charity. the insurance company can choose whoever the hell they want to cover
@locketine - Agreed
while they’re at it, why don’t they just not insure different minorities because they are more likely to develop certain diseases then others, such as africans are more likely to develop sickle cell anemia then someone who is caucausian. the whole thing is rediculous.
Sure, and while we’re at it, lets charge cancer patients too.
WTF?!
I saw this yesterday and blown away by how ridiculous this sounds.
I do however think we should charge more for people who intentionally hurt their bodies.
Like those who smoke, or drink, do drugs…whatever.
inhumane.
If I was an insurance company official, I’d naturally be inclined to offer better rates to people who didn’t abuse their bodies and were, thereby, more likely to live a long and productive life. Insurance is a business, not a privilege. If you gave out equal rates regardless, you’d not only be doing your stockholders a disservice, but you’d likewise expose your clients to non-coverage should your company fail. Insurance is a means of protecting people against unforseen setbacks and disasters… not for enabling irresponsible people on the backs of their fellows.
I can understand that. They need to make money, after all, and not lose more than they can.
But it’s not nice.
I don’t know. We are studying the same sort of stuff at University, actually. It’s interesting.
No. While there is obviously a level of unhealthy fat, a person’s weight or even BMI isn’t a true indicator of health. I am technically overweight but have perfect cholesterol, blood sugar, and exercise for 30 minutes 3-5 times a week. Some of us just have a healthy weight that’s more than what is considered “normal” for whatever reason. On the other hand, I see tons of young people where I work who are “skinny” (or at least within what’s considered a normal weight range) who never eat anything healthy, smoke, and spend time just lazing about. If insurance companies want to base a person’s eligibility on his health, they should have a more comprehensive system than evaluating ONE skewed number.
Well, personally I don’t think they should be allowed to deny anyone insurance based on ANY pre-existing conditions. I understand their reason for doing it, but at the same time I can’t help but think it is wrong to deny a person who needs health care the means for getting it and not going bankrupt in the process.
But, that is not the question.
If I did think that it was right to do that to people, I would not think it would be right to do that to obese people. Depending upon HOW obese they are. Someone who is classified as morbidly obese would probably be where I would draw the line. And as far as I know there is (although I don’t know what it is) a scale that medical professionals go by to decide when a person becomes morbidly obese, rather than just simply obese.
I think that the reason this made national news and the insurance company came under fire, however, is because it was a baby. If it were an adult woman, I don’t think there would’ve been anywhere near as much coverage of the story, not enough to put enough heat on the insurance company to make it decide insuring the person was better than making people boycott them and giving them horrible publicity. Because, that is the motivating factor, as far as I am concerned. They were getting bad publicity, a bad rap, and they may have been losing or worried about losing customers. So, they fixed the ONE issue to quiet the masses.
But, whether it is an adult person, a minor, or someone as young as a baby, I think it is wrong to deny them coverage just because they have a pre-existing condition. To me, the idea that you should only have health insurance if you are healthy is kind of ridiculous. But, maybe that is just me. :/
no, but they’ll probably keep doing it
I think people should still be able to get healthcare.
Reminds me of something that I saw on the news a few days ago. In the state of South Carolina, where I live, they can legally deny a person insurance because of domestic violence. If they look on your record and see multiple injuries, they could classify it as as domestic violence, and dismiss your contract. They don’t even have to ask you how you got your injuries.
because, apparently, domestic violence is consisted a pre-existing condition.
@saintvi - Because some risk factors can not be taken into account, the ones that can should be factored in. Health insurance only works because it is regulated.