Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart?s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to ?pre-existing conditions.?

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

The hospital and doctors there are to be highly commended too.
Can't pay? Then die.
I expect these stories to continue, and add impetus to accelerating
improvements to the flawed health care bill.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, hk
wrote:

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the
rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the
union so they would never have allowed a baby to die....

oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****.


The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a
new born...

but we have the best medical care, right?


Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”


the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die.

it wasnt rich

its parents were middle class so deserve nothing

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 28/03/2010 5:19 PM, hk wrote:
Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading?

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up
long before even getting knocked up.

Just the kind that should have a 40% flat tax on their income unless
they can show health care coverage as to prevent their attempt at
abusing the system. Then perhaps your rates will not go up so quick.

Too bad you couldn't charge the parents for wreckless welshing.

If on the other hand Blue Cross was in force before conception, let them
sue the asses off of Blue Cross. I would give them $100 million if this
were the case. But I suspect it is not the case.

This really smells like taking out a life insurance policy after death
has occured. Some people still call it fraud.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'? and
what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING

but to the right...let him DIE...

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up
long before even getting knocked up.

yep. kill the kid


this is why we need socialized medicine

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading. Which
this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and
father as money there had different priorities. Further, they sought
insurance AFTER they needed it.

This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'? and
what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING

but to the right...let him DIE...

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up
long before even getting knocked up.

yep. kill the kid

Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors court.
Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it
legally, they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type
of abuse.

this is why we need socialized medicine

In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of parents
that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time as
they think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it.

Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home
economics. Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so
they pay for their needs, including heath care.

Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:57:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading. Which
this case highlights perfectly.

couldnt have said it better myself

he just said he wants dead babies to punish freeloading parents.

Did you do further research? Bet not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and
father as money there had different priorities. Further, they sought
insurance AFTER they needed it.

uh...so what? so the baby dies. just punishment, eh? more dead middle
class kids...that's what the middle class deserves


This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading.

and if we'd had universal healthcare like in more advanced countries
the baby would have lived

but you dont care. you're right wing. if children die, so what? at
least the rich stay rich and THEIR children will live
Playing the sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

kill 'em. hell, why not just shoot the babies of the poor...gas
'em...

and if it jacks the rates for the rest of us...then why doesn't this
happen in other countries?

you right wingers have no answer for this, do you? other countries
have better healthcare, universal, at lower cost

BUT...because it's socialized, you'd rather have children die than
admit your fundamentalist faith in the free market HAS to be right

even when it's wrong


Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.

should we at least pay for coffins to bury dead children? would the
right wing support THAT?

or is that freeloading, too?

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 5:19 PM, hk wrote:
Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

Houston Tracy was born in Crowley, Texas, and unfortunately only lived
for a total of 10-days after he was denied coverage by BlueCross
BlueShield of Texas.

The baby boy was born with a condition that is known as
d-transformation. This is diagnosed when there is a transposition of the
heart’s great arteries.

This can be fixed, but a major surgery is needed, one that the insurance
company would not pay for.

The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

Since they considered his disease as this, they refused to cover the
health care of the baby boy.

What this meant is that the boy was not able to get the surgery, and
unfortunately died less than two weeks after being born.

Could you imagine what it felt like for his parents, Doug and Kim Tracy,
to be told that their son was not going to be covered?

This is an absolute tragedy to say the least and one which health
insurance companies should be absolutely embarrassed about.

Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to “pre-existing conditions.”

- -

What the Blues are practicing is "Republican" health insurance...you
know, the right to life until you are born and then...buzz off.

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe by
convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it freeloading?

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up
long before even getting knocked up.

Just the kind that should have a 40% flat tax on their income unless they
can show health care coverage as to prevent their attempt at abusing the
system. Then perhaps your rates will not go up so quick.

Too bad you couldn't charge the parents for wreckless welshing.

If on the other hand Blue Cross was in force before conception, let them
sue the asses off of Blue Cross. I would give them $100 million if this
were the case. But I suspect it is not the case.

This really smells like taking out a life insurance policy after death has
occured. Some people still call it fraud.

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


you're really sick but even you shouldn't be denied care


--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2010 6:26 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:01 -0600,
wrote:

So let me ask, if this was a precondition, did they jump on health care
after getting the ultrasound that showed defects? You know, subscribe
by convenience? That is, not subscribe until they needed it
freeloading?

notice how the right hates the middle class so much they're willing to
blame a dying baby for having a 'pre existing condition'?

Don't hate them at all, just don't like the abuse and freeloading. Which
this case highlights perfectly. Did you do further research? Bet not.
Turns out these idiots didn't have health care on the mother and father as
money there had different priorities. Further, they sought insurance
AFTER they needed it.

This is a pure case of some low lifes freeloading. Playing the sympathy
screw for parental negligence. Not having insurance and then when they
have a problem they subscribe.

Just jacks the rates for the rest of us.

how the hell does a newborn baby have a 'pre existing condition'? and
what the hell relevance is this? the kid is DYING

but to the right...let him DIE...

Sorry, the parents here are to blame. They should have being paying up
long before even getting knocked up.

yep. kill the kid

Nope. Should have saved the kid, jailed the parents in debtors court.
Obviously the parents would not mortgage their home and persue it legally,
they don't have a case. And they can't really persue this type of abuse.

this is why we need socialized medicine

In a weird sort of way, I agree. This was a tragic neglect of parents
that should not be allowed to happen. But it happens all the time as they
think they can cheat the system and get others to pay for it.

Pretty obvious far too many parents have this problem with home economics.
Time for these people to be forced to pay and do without so they pay for
their needs, including heath care.

Now think of the millions who get jobs with health care when they think
they need it yet as soon as they don't... Too much free loading.
--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.


No... you hate them. You hate anyone who isn't like you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:19:00 -0400, hk
wrote:

Boston (SmartAboutHealth) - A ruthless health insurance company denied
coverage to an ill newborn baby in Texas, resulting in the death of the
young boy.

this could never happen. the US has the best healthcare because the
rich are always covered. and texas is the most pro life state in the
union so they would never have allowed a baby to die....

oh..wait...this wasnt an abortion so they really don't give a ****.


The baby boy was born on March 15th with what BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas deemed a pre-existing condition.

THAT'S cool!! what a neat trick..call it a pre existing condition on a
new born...

but we have the best medical care, right?


Under the new health care initiative from President Barack Obama, health
insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to infants
due to "pre-existing conditions."


the attitude of the right is that the baby deserved to die.

it wasnt rich

its parents were middle class so deserve nothing

And maybe it was an inoperatable condition on this baby. Babies do die
because of this. Is what JFK and Jackies baby that died shortly after birth
died of. And they had all the health care money could buy.