Thanatos340

Of course not. But that is NOT what happened here. She HAD Insurance. For some unknown reason she lost that insurance and went looking for ANOTHER policy. This Particular OTHER Policy had an Exclusion that said "If you ever been on Anti-Aids Meds, You cant buy THIS policy". OK, Did she look at other policies?? Did she talk to other companies? What happened to her was horrible but trying to spin her tragedy into a position piece for Insurance regulation is pretty pathetic.

Another biased stupid position piece trying to pass it self off as News. As usual, The truth is distorted and sensationalized (Just like the Fat baby story). She was NOT dropped because of the rape or even the Ant-aids drugs. She "Lost her health Insurance", The article does not say why she lost her insurance but it was NOT because she was raped or was on Anti-Aids meds. She went to ANOTHER company and they decided not to cover her based on their criteria. Again.. Just like the last time someone posted one of theses sensationalized stories that only tells part of the story, It was ONE company that she went to that denied her. Did she try any others? Why did she Loose the insurance she already had? Insurance is NOT a god given right. It is a product that is sold by private companies. Not all products are right for all people. What happened to her was tragic and I hope they find the assholes that did this to her cut their balls off or execute them myself. But a Private Business that offers a Product (Insurance) can set the condition upon which that product is offered. Saying that if have ever been on Anti-Aids Meds make you ineligible for THIS particular policy seems reasonable to me. If the exclusions are too broad, People will not buy the policies. I will once again say I think is the ENTIRE problem with Insurance right now. Group Policies and employer provided Health care. Most people do not have any real choice in their health insurance because they will just take whatever their employer is offering. Insurance companies know this. They are geared 100% towards selling to employers, Not to individuals. Want to Fix almost all problems?? Simple, Outlaw group Policies and make insurance companies have to start selling to individuals again. Give people a real choice in health insurance and the Companies will have to change the way they do business to be more customer centric.

Very easy here.. 1st -Skinnyshrek. and then GFD or Beazy. One more day with any of these people would be fantastic.. Not a day goes by that I don't think of one of these people. For Skinny The day would spent like any other day with him was. Playing Poker, Getting fucked up and Harassing anyone that needed Harassing. Beazy.. Have enough drinks to get the stories flowing out him and actually record them this time. This sport lost so much history when Beazy passed on. GFD - A Day spent chasing leprechauns and hiding from penguins would be great.

Thanks!! You just made her day.

My SO is a HUGE Star Trek fan. The new Star Trek movie is being released on a limited edition USB Jump drive but is only available through Play.com and they do not ship to the US. The Girl is having a Hissy fit over getting this thing. [Where is the icon with the pointy ears and pocket protector) Anyone in the UK here that would be willing to order this thing for me and then ship it me. I would of course cover all costs in advance. Thanks.

Nope. Never will. I still think that texting is the stupidest for of communication ever (Unless you are sending a message that does not require a reply or a message to multiple people). If you have a question.. and you are holding the phone in your hand, Why not hit talk and ask your question and get an answer, Hang up and go about your life. Typing on one of those microscopic keyboards is a royal pain in the ass (And don't even get me started on how stupid it is to try to type on a Number pad). Talking on the phone while driving is bad enough.. But the IDIOTS that text while driving should be shot on site and removed from the gene pool immediately. I am a firm believer that texting is NUTS!! (As many people here that have randomly texted me have discovered.) Also as a male that does not carry a Purse and rarely wears a belt, I dont see how the hell you are supposed to carry a Blackberry or Iphone because of the shape/size. They do not look like they would fit comfortably in jeans pockets. and even if they did, the screen would get pretty scratched up. I like an old fashion clam Phone. Fold it up (protects screen and keypad) stuff it you pocket, Answer it if it rings.

Most Marriages Do not last long. Interracial or not. This is a load of crap and the Justice of the peace should be removed from office. Clearly discrimination. Yep, Just some people a little more equally than others.

generally I get your humor and have even defended you on occasion, But laughing at what is most likely the Fatality of a 6 year old child can only be described as fucking disgusting.

Yea.. Sounds like they should have stayed swapped. Very sad. I dont think this will end well. I hope to be proven wrong.

http://abc.go.com/shows/wife-swap/episode-guide/heenemartel/132697 This is the family. Edit - Read that wrong.. The safety freak was the other family on that show.

Now that is a costume I could pull off.

Anyone got any good creative/funny Ideas for a Costume this year they want to share?? I am actually having a Costume Party at my House this year and still have no idea what I am going to wear.

AT a LOWER COST. Why was it a Lower cost?? They have higher standards on who they will cover. They did not want to pay 40% more for adding a third person to their existing policy (Which had no problem covering the Child). Sorry, You have a Kid, Costs go up. They went looking for cheaper alternative. This particular Alternative would not cover a Child that had a BMI of higher than 95% of the rest of the kids in this country. There were other options that would but they cost a little more. You don't get something for nothing. Unfortunately, They were able to browbeat this company into giving in to them with the help of a VERY biased news story that misrepresented the facts and sensationalized the story. The child had insurance. The Child was insured. One company said that ONE policy was not available for this child because this lower cost option did not cover ANYONE that was fatter than 95% of the rest of the people in their category. No mention of the 1000`s of other options that WERE available to this couple to insure their child.

But that is not what we are talking about. we were discussing PERSONAL CHOICES. Two totally different concepts. I never even came close to saying "Business is right to do whatever the fuck it wants to" (Nice Hyperbole though). Business do have a right to offer a product (As long as that product meets legal requirements). Health Insurance is a product. There are 1000`s of different programs and policies out there. The Consumer can shop around and find one that is right for them but not all policies are designed for all people. The lower cost policies will have more exclusions. People that make poor lifestyle choices should expect to higher insurance rates. personal responsibility. Your examples had nothing to do with Lifestyle choices. I was speaking specifically about People that CHOOSE to do things that put their health at higher risk should expect to pay more.

So what you are saying is that a LIFESTYLE choice that cause adverse health conditions should not have to pay higher insurance rates?? I disagree. If you Smoke, You should pay higher health insurance. If you can not control your weight solely based on your eating habits, You should pay higher health Insurance. Lifestyle Choices and Personal Responsibility do come with a cost. Hard concept for the left to swallow sometimes.

You mean the parents that HAD insurance for the kid but tried find a Lower Cost policy only to discover that their child did meet the criteria for that particular policy?? TANSTAAFL!!

Wow!! And I thought the Right was supposed to be the party full of hate. Anyway.. Mods, I truly take offense at the following PA`s And I have no idea what a "VI" is but I suspect that was yet another uncalled for personal attack (Most likely a an abbreviation for to Village Idiot) Ect.. Ect.. I will gladly discuss my position with any rational person willing to stick to the topic at hand. This person does not meet that criteria in my opinion.

This is NOT about their group insurance provider. The group insurance provider was willing to cover the infant, No problem. It was when the parent decided they wanted a Cheaper option and went looking for INDIVIDUAL coverage that the OTHER insurance that offered lower cost insurance said, Sorry, That child is not eligible for this policy. No one is "denying specific children based on your assumption that fat babies are sick and/or dying". The LOWER cost alternative to this couples Group plan simply didn't cover ANYONE outside of the 95th percentile in Weight/Height. It is reasonable to think that someone that is FATTER than 95% of the people in this country, They will have some additional health problems. This company has acknowledged that there was a flaw in their underwriting in excluding Infants on this and they have decided to change the policy. No Conspiracy here, No one wanting to let Fat Babies die. Just a Couple that had a baby and did not want pay what one company was charging for health insurance so they went to a different company with cheaper rates and then cried when they didn't get their way. Pretty sad actually. Makes for nice Hyperbole though if can get everyone to ignore what actually happened.

Buy you a beer when I get there. You are a lawyer, Right?? So no question I can count on your company at some point.

Read on.. The mandatory "Want then to Die" accusation was tossed out as per the lefts Party Line (although the accuser did try to polish the turd a little by acknowledging that it was an unpopular plan. Yes, I would categorize a Plan that NO-ONE is suggesting could be fairly categorized as "Unpopular") but hey.. He did at least get his assigned daily "Talking" points in. Just remember.. Disagree with any part of Chocolate Jesus`s plan and you are a heretic that clearly wants people to die. One of these days I will finally learn to just shut up and enjoy the Kool-aide.

Is she Retirement age or Disabled? If so she can get Government Health insurance. If not she has to wait till age 65 just like the rest of us. I do not listen to any of the Right Wingers either and certainly do not consider thema credible "NEWS" source. They are entertainers. The Denver Post is Supposed to be a legitimate news source. (Unlike the ones you mentioned). Journalistic integrity is dead in this country and it is a very sad thing.

In THIS case a Public Option is not necessary. The Parents had insurance coverage. they just wanted it cheaper and were turned don for the cheaper policy. Again I support a Public Option for people that can not get coverage in the private sector. That would not apply here. The Parents had insurance for the infant, They just wanted it cheaper and were turned down for the cheaper policy. Gotta admit though, The Denver post did a great job of spinning the story for maximum sensationalism.

Business are the People.This country is made up of small businesses that are owned by The People, The Large Evil Corporations are Owned "By the people" who are shareholders. The Businesses are what provide Jobs for the people. We have the freedom to start our own Businesses if we think we can do things better/smarter/faster/cheaper. Businesses and People are one and the same.

I could not agree with you more. We should have Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance Policies!! At some point Common sense has to be applied.

And look how good they are doing. Back on THIS topic.. It looks like Rhonda may have seen what most are Missing here. This Family HAD Insurance. The issue was their premiums went up 40% when their child was Born (NOTHING to do with the child's weight.. Just Higher premiums because the Child was born and added to the policy). So they went to look for another CHEAPER Policy. When that Cheaper Policy would not accept the Child because the child was outside of the defined Coverage group for that Policy, The child rejected for coverage for THAT policy. How do you think they are able to offer a cheaper Policy than the one the Parents already had?? OH, They are picky about who they will cover. Well that makes sense. There is absolutely no question that child is abnormally large. 99th Percentile. I certainly see why an Insurance company would be concerned about talking on an abnormally large or abnormally small infant on an INDIVIDUAL Policy (Remember, they already had a GROUP policy that covered the infant. They just wanted something cheaper) because the likelihood there may be additional heath issues is much greater. Once again.. The Press has spun a story to get the maximum shock factor without telling the whole story. No victim here. Just people trying to sensationalize a story so they can get special treatment. No need for Government regulation on this. The child has coverage available. The parent just did not want to pay for it. As for the 40% increase that started all this.. Lets see a Couple already on the Policy.. They add a third person (33% increase).. Oh yea, That 3rd person is an infant.. First couple years that baby is going to incur some medical costs like shots, checkups and other normal things also being there is no medical history yet to know how healthy the baby really is, there is some extra risk so an extra 7% increase on the policy. Sounds reasonable to me.