that's the whole point.
that you haven't answered: why would they turn down free money unless they could prove the weight was a valid risk factor? Our contract (for any sale) has some very specific legal verbage in it, not because those problems show up at every site, but because they CAN show up and we have been screwed by them before.
If he's not risky, they would accept the money coming in for a baby that couldn't be expected to show up at the doc more than expected. It seems very unlikely that they would simply decide to turn down a baby because they wanted to.
Sure, it's probably crap that they can turn him down, but it's a business. They can do what makes them a profit. That's why we need something that can help people who fall through the cracks.
As health insurers escalate fight against reform, more bad PR... baby denied coverage, is too fat...
- 12/10/2009 08:14:31 AM
916 Views
that's ridiculous.
- 12/10/2009 01:02:52 PM
570 Views
This will probably be a mistake, as it usually is, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate. 
- 12/10/2009 05:35:09 PM
648 Views
- 12/10/2009 05:35:09 PM
648 Views
the child has been declared otherwise healthy
- 12/10/2009 05:46:19 PM
591 Views
Er, but how is it for their own good?
- 12/10/2009 06:01:01 PM
563 Views
they are turning them down
- 12/10/2009 06:11:16 PM
586 Views
he's got a good point
- 12/10/2009 09:29:43 PM
640 Views
Choices..
- 12/10/2009 05:39:08 PM
564 Views
Apparently you didn't read my comments or the article.
- 13/10/2009 02:50:34 AM
592 Views
Apparently I didn't care to read your comments or the article.. at least get it right.
- 13/10/2009 03:17:50 AM
557 Views
Now.. my real answer.
- 13/10/2009 03:56:40 AM
637 Views
On the plus side, rates for the mother dropped substantially after she lost 18 pounds *NM*
- 12/10/2009 06:15:38 PM
254 Views