Catholic Dads

13 Responses to Breast-fed baby “too fat,” denied insurance.

1. semperjase says:

   October 12, 2009 at 1:19 pm

   I know the article tries to paint this as an example of "evil health insurance companies" but a look at the baby's picture proves that even breastfed babies can be over fed.

   I suspect that these parents have not learned that babies sometimes cry for reasons other than hunger.
2. The Dutchman says:

   October 12, 2009 at 2:42 pm

   Let’s start here by not blaming the victim. Scientific research has shown that there is "no evidence that a baby who gains rapidly on human milk will have weight problems as an older child, an adolescent, or an adult" (Mohrbacher and Stock 2003), while on the other hand, an overview of recent literature found no research to support putting breastfed babies on "diets" (Dewey 2003).

   I guess the point is not that insurance companies are “evil” for pursuing their own interest, just that any organization working on a “for profit” basis is not the best means for delivering public services. This incident, I think, illustrates the point nicely. After all, why should we expect a for profit corporation to take a chance on an over-weight baby? For that matter, why shouldn’t they chose to insure Asian-Americans (with an average life-expectancy of 85 years), while rejecting African-Americans who can expect to live thirteen years less? As things stand now, insurance companies make money by paying for as little as they can, when what we want is a system that rewards health care providers for keeping people healthy.

   All of the Catholic moms that I know with newborns are nursing them because they think that is what’s best for their babies. Many of them are using “environmental breastfeeding” as a way of spacing their children. Do we really want private, for-profit corporations to tell our wives and daughters how to care for their children?
3. Rich says:

   October 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm

   "…just that any organization working on a “for profit” basis is not the best means for delivering public services."

   This is an incredible statement. And the alternative is? You got it, the "government." Those same people who have bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Do you think that for one moment when politicians have complete control over the delivery of medical services that things will be better? Have you been to visit your local VA Hospital? How about the Indian Health Service? And the government response to Katrina was wonderful, right?

   Politicians make POLITICAL decisions. They will do what is expedient, not what is right. Abortion, yes. Fertility services to gays, yes. Grandma getting cancer treatment at the age of 75, maybe not.

   Take just an hour and look to Canada and England. Put aside your notions that they have superior services and read about rationing, delayed care and unnecessary suffering.

   And why not speak of Big Government and "evil" government. The government is more "moral" than those "evil" for-profits, right? The "government" has done a great job protecting the little guy, right? Right unless you're less than 8 or 9 pounds and yet to be born. Dutch, you have some perverse notion that for-profit in healthcare is inconsistent with a fair and honorable delivery of care. For goodness sakes wake up for the utopic view that government can handle healthcare. This couple above has insurance. They were shopping for a better price.

   I'll take private, for-profit any day over a political calculation. At least I will have some recourse if things don't go so well.
4. The Dutchman says:

   October 13, 2009 at 7:09 am

   “Those same people who have bankrupted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” Uh — as long as government has taxing power, it can pay for public services. Government goes bankrupt only when it refuses to tax adequately and runs up huge deficits. This has NOTHING to do with the kind of program government chooses to underwrite.

   “Do you think that for one moment when politicians have complete control over the delivery of medical services that things will be better?” No one is asking for the government to RUN our healthcare system, just to pay for it. As your example of the VA shows, the government record of running things is mixed, but the government record of handling disbursements is unsurpassed. Social Security has an overhead of less than 1%, far lower than the cost of any private disbursement system (e.g. banks or insurance companies).

   “And the government response to Katrina was wonderful, right?” Well, that certainly is an example of BAD GOVERNMENT, now isn’t it? Of course the answer to BAD GOVERNMENT isn’t less government or no government any more than the answer to bad health is less health or death. As an example, when Hurricane Ivan hit Cuba it caused $1.2 billion in property damage, but no human casualties. This is because Cuban civil defense authorities evacuated the north face of the island, taking everyone to safety. The fact that we didn’t do this when Katrina hit indicates that what we need is a healthy dose of good government!

   “Take just an hour and look to Canada and England. Put aside your notions that they have superior services and read about rationing, delayed care and unnecessary suffering.” Okay, are you saying that everyone in the US gets all the care they need? Of course not. Until we have an unlimited supply of health care, decisions have to be made about how these resources are allocated. The question then becomes: do we want healthcare allocated by a democratically elected government, or by private insurance companies who answer to no one except their stockholders?

   “The government is more “moral” than those “evil” for-profits, right?” You don’t blame a dog for barking. For profit corporations are just that, and we can’t expect them to be anything else. But government can and ought to be for the public good. How would you like it if you called up the fire department and they decided that, because your wiring was old when you bought the house, that your fire resulted from a “pre-existing condition.” I think everyone agrees now that fire departments work best on a publicly funded, as needed basis, and it is pretty obvious to me that healthcare is more like fire protection than automobile insurance.

   “This couple above has insurance. They were shopping for a better price.” True, but I know plenty of people who can’t get insurance. My buddy Earl was in an horrendous car crash years ago, left him unable to work full time. Of course, there was a substantial settlement, but that was twenty years ago and now he’s unemployable, uninsurable, and living from hand-to-mouth. From time-to-time he gets septic infections in the old injuries and he has to pay for them out of pocket. We’ve held two benefits for him, his sister helps him out with his bills, but it’s a rough life. So, I ask myself — why can’t my high taxes go to pay for Earl’s health care instead of wars of imperialism?

   “I’ll take private, for-profit any day over a political calculation. At least I will have some recourse if things don’t go so well.” You can do what? If your insurance company turns down your claims (and I have plenty of friends who’ve experience that!) I guess you could get private treatment or sue (if you are rich) but you really can’t force private power to be fair to everyone all the time. You can’t vote to change private power, only to abolish it.
5. Rob Kaiser says:

   October 13, 2009 at 9:48 am

   The government does a pretty bad at most thing that resemble anything requiring customer service.

   You also make the false assumption that somehow the Government won't make choices just like companies do. You are basically arguing that they will be able to deliver more because they have more profit. The problem is it just ain't so. I laugh when you think that the government and government decision makers are motivated to do good just because there is no obvious profit calculus. Sorry, these fat cats love power and they get their money through a more complex balance sheet.

   So maybe you mean the bureaucracy will be motivated to do good. The government would have no reason to increase efficiencies and this inefficiency and waste will lead to rationing (which is what is happening to the fat baby). So waste is the overhead instead of profit. The only difference is that the government program won't be answerable to anyone – not even the market. Sorry, not a recipe for success.

   And, with a company you do have recourse to someone – the government. When the government is the company, there is no recourse to anything. Not to mention the tremendous violation of privacy.

   Let's pretend that the government could be efficient and motivated without any reason to be (outside of some fringe folks or Acorn volunteers, I don't think you could get many to agree that would be true). Now let's further presume that the current administration and congress have nothing but the best of intentions, what do you do when the next guy comes in and decides to change things up. And don't tell me it doesn't happen. What do we do when the health czar answerable to only the president decides to violate our rights or renege on promises? What then?

   But we don't have to wait for the next set of clowns, the current ones are already bad enough. If this deal passes without hard assurances written into law, we will institutionalize public funded abortion and eventually have euthanasia and perhaps a new eugenics program (after all if your using government money…).

   No, big government is the WRONG answer here.
6. Rich says:

   October 13, 2009 at 10:11 am

   Dutch, you are hopelessly confused about the role of the government in the lives of its citizens. You trust the govenment to act responsibly, I don't. I trust that free people will make choices which work best for them and that in doing so, will increase the welfare of all. Socialism in all its forms has failed and yet this is exactly what you advocate. Dutch, you've got to open your eyes, brother. Purge your mind of all the liberal nonsense and look at the world as it is.
7. The Dutchman says:

   October 13, 2009 at 11:04 am

   Rob, again let me say that no one is asking the government to RUN something (like the Post Office), we are simply asking the government to disburse the funds (like Social Security).

   Do you know anyone who has actually had trouble with the Social Security Administration? I haven’t. It’s an efficient, well run operation with a very low operating cost.

   Know anybody on Medicare? More than once I’ve heard a family member or friend talk about how, when they got sick at age 67 or 69, and they had to use Medicare for the first time, how EASY it was. No paper work, no co-pays, no haggling with a claims adjuster, the same doctor they’d always had, just a lot less trouble. Statistical surveys show that most people are happier with Medicare than the private insurance they had before retirement.

   Socialism doesn’t work? Look at the numbers! We pay more for medical care than any country with socialized medicine:

   United States — 14% of GDP

   Germany — 10.5%

   France — 9.7%

   Canada — 9.2%

   Japan — 7.1%

   England — 6.8%

   And we get the least.

   Japan —16.2 hospital beds per 1000 population

   Germany — 9.6

   France — 8.7

   England — 4.5

   Canada — 4.2

   United States — 4.0

   And our life expectancy is shorter:

   80 — Japan

   79 — Canada

   78 — France

   77 — Germany

   77 — England

   76 — United States

   So, I’ve got this buddy Andy who grew up in the UK, spent three years working in the States, before going back the Sheffield a few months ago. He’s experienced both systems, and I asked him which was better. He wrote back:

   “When in the UK (like now) I get Fox news on cable and to listen to there coverage you would think any country with socialized medicine must be nuts to have it. Yet no western democracy with public funded medical systems are seeing insurrections demanding a US based system.”

   As a dad I’m worried about our kids. Cuba, a third world country with a per capita GDP about 20% of the United States, where they spend about 4.5% of what we do on health care, has socialized medicine and their life expectancy is just six months shorter than ours and their infant mortality rate is actually lower than ours. Socialized Medicine bottom line: it’s good for kids.
8. Rob Kaiser says:

   October 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm

   I'm with Rich, Dutch. I think you have an incorrect view of the role a government should play in the lives of its citizens. I think that you swallowed a particular kool-aide flavor and like to argue these over and over again. Btw, the arguments from your statistics are spurious. You can't shoot those out and make the conclusions you want to make. You treat them as if there was a single cause to any one of them. Not sound reasoning.

   Socialism, in the end fails because it removes the freedom of the people, and places the state before the individual. In extreme cases like communism, the state becomes a religion.

   In this particular case, socialized medicine will dictate morality surrounding issues of life and will infringe on its citizens rights and privacies.

   I don't want to live in Cuba, a country that persecutes the Church and infringes on the freedom of its people. That is EXACTLY where socialism leads.
9. The Dutchman says:

   October 14, 2009 at 7:00 am

   I think, even if you disagree with me, that I’m being pretty reasonable here. I’m not calling for government control of industry, committees of public safety, or the liquidation of the exploiting classes. No, I’m just pointing out that some public services are done better and more efficiently when socialized. Police and fire protection, for instance, are FULLY socialized, available to the public on an “as needed” basis, with the government not only paying for them, but running them as well, and I don’t think that many people have a problem with that. [Of course, socialization of police and fire service has led to rationing. There isn’t a fire station on every block, nor does each of us enjoy police bodyguards. This has led to fatalities, which are regrettable. Just the same, I think on the whole more lives are saved under a public than private system.] And I’m proposing even less than that for healthcare, not that the government own and run anything, just that they underwrite its cost.

   To support my views I have offered comparisons to other countries where socialization of medicine has been a success, as well as statistics, all of which have been dismissed without being addressed.

   The only real argument made against my position is that “Socialism, in the end fails because it removes the freedom of the people, and places the state before the individual.” Of course I concede that countries run on the Soviet model are repressive, but there are many forms of socialism. I can easily point to countries like the Dutch Netherlands and France where health care and pensions are socialized, or to Sweden and Japan where the government plays an even larger role in social and economic planning, and challenge anyone to say that these people are in any significant way less free than we are. The idea that hugely successful, market driven economies like the Netherlands or Japan are on the way to becoming communist states that repress human liberty and religion is simply laughable.

   Of course, there are arguments against socialism that I would acknowledge as demanding consideration. The trend of socialized countries to become ever more secular is troubling. There is also the weight that we must give to the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity. And there is the demographic evidence that socialized economies discourage family formation and reduce fertility to less-than-replacement levels. These are all important considerations that I would welcome discussion of.

   I had hoped that, despite our disagreements on these issues, we could reason together. Instead, you insult me by saying I drank the kool-aide.
10. Rich says:

    October 14, 2009 at 8:57 am

    Dutch, I'll make one last post. You're reference to the police and fire departments as examples supporting socialization of medicine are incredibly off the mark. The analogy is so flawed on so many levels as to make the rebuttal impractical in this venue.

    Secondly, by your logic, grocery stores, gas stations, retailers of various sorts should also be socialized. After all we all need to eat, we are "entitled" to fuel and we other things such as clothing and household goods, are we not? Anything claimed as "needed" universally would be subject to your scheme. This has been tried repeatedly with consistently the same result-failure. (I had a good laugh when you held up Cuba as an example.)

    You have some notion that the government would just fund healthcare and not interfere with its delivery, right? Can you give me ONE example of an agency or service which the government substantially funds that it does not significantly control? There is NONE, not one! Your contention that the government could fund healthcare but not exercise regulation is…well…stunning.

    Does not the moral imperative "thou shalt not steal" apply at some point? Can you explain why it is morally good to take money (even if the government is the mechanism) from one group and give it to another group? I'm not talking about taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government. I'm talking about how you can think it moral that working people should be forced to support those who, because of their behavior or bad choices, prefer not to care for themselves. Cell phones for those on welfare? Got them. How about cars, cigarettes, air conditioners? Got them. Even those down on their luck are not entitled to steal. Your friend Earl is not entitled to take money, goods or services from anyone against their will. YOU could help him. The idea that you want to compel me to help him is just wrong. (Liberals have this great notion that if there is a cause that they support, they should compel others to do it while they stand back. By the way, did you help Earl?) Christian charity to the poor is not the same as corporate charity. It is personal. It cannot be compelled by the state.

    Free societies will have disparity of wealth necessarily. That is what happens when men are free from government constraint. The great liberal (socialist) lie is that there can be material equality in a free society.

    You note the disturbing trends in socialized countries (fertility, etc.) There is a reason for this. Socialism kills the soul. Any socialist program destroys the independence, fortitude, strength, and moral fiber of the people. How can a people be strong and independent when they have become frightened, dependent wards of the government?
11. Rob Kaiser says:

    October 14, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Dutch, sorry if I offended, but many of your arguments sound a lot like propaganda.

    For example, you point out that the we spend more on health care than any other country – but more than a third of that is our government Medicare and Medicaid.

    Then you point to hospital beds as a the measure for what we get. That doesn't make sense – it is new drugs and new tests that are driving expenses. That and doctors performing too many tests for fear of malpractice. And oh, those new tests and new drugs come about here because of competition. Without it, all those drug companies remain unmotivated.

    Then, you point to life expectancy as the reason for socialized medicine – but life expectancy problems in the US stem from our workaholic and indulgent lifestyles.

    Finally, you hold Cuba up as a country to emulate. I mean, I am not sure what to say with that.

    Dutch, I really do apologize for offending you. I am not sure you can see what I see, and I am sorry. I am sure I suffer the same problem – so I really do apologize.
12. Will says:

    October 15, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Fat baby denied insurance given a second chance:

    http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/v…
13. Rob Kaiser says:

    October 15, 2009 at 2:44 am

    Thanks for pointing to the article Will.

    I think that Rocky Mountain insurance moved faster than I have ever seen the government move.