US: Four-Month-Old Baby Turned Down for Health Insurance. He's Too 'Fat'!

I find it strange (considering what a huge issue obesity and the health effects are) that the doctors think the baby will "out grow" being overweight (most studies I've seen show that is not true) and they aren't concerned with this or viewing it as a problem. 

I don't think it's strange at all.  He's four months old.  The studies that you're probably thinking of were regarding toddlers, not infants.  By the time a child is 2-3 years old, they've already developed eating and other habits that could contribute to a weight problem.  So, if at that age they've developed a problem, of course they're less likely to outgrow it.  However, at this boy's age (and per the original article), all he eats is breast milk.  They're not giving the kid cookies and Big Macs.  And there are *plenty* of large, breast-fed infants that grow into healthy, active, 'normal'-weight toddlers, children and adults.  My best friend's son was one of them-- he was a large baby at birth, quite chubby as an infant, and now at 23 months, he's still at the top of the charts for height, but is so skinny she has trouble finding pants that stay on him.

The thing that strikes me about this issue is that people refer to the health problems of obesity, and yet the discussion seems to focus on the boy's appearance.  The concern, particularly with regards to children, shouldn't be weight, per se, but nutrition.  If you have an 'obese' toddler, the concern should be on whether they're eating a nutritionally balanced diet, and on whether or not they're developing problematic eating patterns. (Do they refuse to eat anything that isn't frosted?  Are they constantly given snacks (healthy or otherwise) in order to placate/bribe them?)  These considerations simply don't apply to infants.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense for the parents and pediatrician to be unconcerned with the baby's weight.

He FOUR MONTHS OLD! Even if it IS  a problem, how do you propose they fix it? By putting him on a diet? An excersise program? Maybe enroll him in Weight Watchers? Buy him a copy of Vogue and hope the shame of it will finally make him change his lifestyle?

What I find strange and interesting is not so much the lack of concern for his obesity (which I do also find interesting) as it is the double-standard of obese children compared to underweight children.  My daughter is underweight and my nephew is now seeing specialists for being overweight, so I've seen both sides of the coin.  Some of the tactics you listed above *are* employed on overweight infants (I won't mention some even worst suggestions given to my sister).  I've always been told that it is "better" (if you can use that term here) to have an underweight child than to have an overweight child because of the strain to their developing organs.

I wouldn't, actually.  I stopped making fun of people's clothes when I finished puberty.  This is what I mean by "subtle attitudes," though.  We seem to think it's OK to make cruel judgements about people as long as we don't say anything to their faces.  But those judgements inform our behaviour nonetheless and continue to influence us even when we are aware that they're wrong. 

If I see something that is extraordinary, out-of-the-norm, or just plain ol' different, I'm probably going to mention it.  That doesn't mean I'm passing judgement or making fun of anyone.

I can't speak for every person in the world, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of the population (even those that have already been through puberty) would not have something to say if they say this walking down their street:

http://www.thevillagenews.com/images/photos/03-23-06-battle-genders-1.jpg

I find it amazing that you actually think that baby is 'obese'. I think you said something along the lines of you'd never seen a baby that big, and that his legs were fat or huge (sorry, not going back to quote you directly at the moment). Are you kidding me?

My grandfather was 12 lbs at birth and I can assure you, he was neither fat nor obese nor out of shape for the majority of his life.

My own son hit the 98th percentile for height and weight in the UK a couple of times (he's leveled off now that he's older). I have seen a lot of shorter babies who are a lot fatter than he is. My son is solid. He is very strong - he was lifting his head from 2 weeks old - and very active. But according to you, he would have had a problem back when he hit his peak weight/height.

I find that a bit bizarre given his doctors never had a problem with it.

And I can speak about this from both sides of the fence as my older son is so skinny, at 3-1/2 years old, he can still wear 18 month trousers on his waist. He does have a medical condition but it is not life threatening. He will probably always be skinny.

Frankly, I don't put much stock in these height/weight charts at all. Just like BMI, they are flawed.

I find it amazing that you actually think that baby is 'obese'. I think you said something along the lines of you'd never seen a baby that big, and that his legs were fat or huge (sorry, not going back to quote you directly at the moment). Are you kidding me?

He is obese according to the article, not according to me.  And to quote myself...I said:

Of course, that's just my personal experience and obviously not a representation of every baby in the world. 

If you read the other things I wrote, you would see that my emphasis was on the double-standard of overweight vs underweight children...how the doctors, parents, etc. think it's fine for a child to be overweight but if I child is in the bottom percentiles, they freak out.  I find this interesting because according to all the specialist I've seen being overweight is more dangerous than being underweight. 

If you read the other things I wrote, you would see that my emphasis was on the double-standard of overweight vs underweight children...how the doctors, parents, etc. think it's fine for a child to be overweight but if I child is in the bottom percentiles, they freak out.  I find this interesting because according to all the specialist I've seen being overweight is more dangerous than being underweight. 

I think the point some people are trying to make though, is that the baby is in fact *NOT* overweight, which is why his doctors are *not concerned*. Not that, he is overweight and they are not concerned.

To be fair, in the pic someone posted of the actual baby, the photo is a bit misleading.  Number one, the baby is positioned away from the mother's body and closer to the photographer's lens, rendering the appearance the baby is bigger. Secondly, the mother's posture lends to the illusion.  And if I were a betting person, I'd say the mother is quite a tiny woman anyways, making the comparison more absurd.

Not being a parent, I have no knowledge to draw on to assess what 17lb means for a 4month old. But the photo is no indicator of how big the baby actually is.

There is no such thing as an obese infant. BMI is only really useful for older children and adults of low to average fitness (superfit musclebound people get classed as obese sometimes because BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass!) and shouldn't apply to infants; the person from the insurance company is a total moron for trying to do so.

So children have to be on an healthcare insurance plan as well, they aren't automatically covered by the state?
The more I hear about the US healthcare system the more I think it is completely immoral

The more I hear about the US healthcare system the more I think it is completely immoral

You should watch Sicko...which granted is a biased film...but still...

You should watch Sicko...which granted is a biased film...but still...

I've seen it, and DW said that the US stuff is basically as it is.

I worked for an insurance company in the UK, and when someone doesn't pass the initial screening - too fat, drink too much, have a pre-existing condition, etc. - they don't automatically get denied, they just become subject to more scrutiny. For example, they might have to answer more detailed questions about their medical history or undergo a medical exam.

In this case, if the child's weight raises a red flag, then the insurance company should have a doctor give him a medical exam - checking his heart and lung function, for example - to determine  how healthy he really is.


 

So children have to be on an healthcare insurance plan as well, they aren't automatically covered by the state?
The more I hear about the US healthcare system the more I think it is completely immoral

So wrong isn't it. Certainly with respect to children. And yet none of my stateside family would ever entertain the idea of even discussing socialised healthcare. Yet they all think it's cool and how lucky I am when I tell them about any visit to the doctors or hospital etc.  ''Wow. You were in the hospital for 4 days and didn't pay nothing? Wow you are so lucky, we got to do... blah blah blah...and we gotta pay...blah, blah, blah...moan, moan, moan''  Yea I'm the black sheep of the family or is that red sheep in this case?
 

http://www.thevillagenews.com/images/photos/03-23-06-battle-genders-1.jpg

I'd probably think something along the lines of "They must enjoy bright colours" then forget about it.  I really don't get worked up about what other people wear unless it's gorgeous and I want it for myself. 

And anyway, what's wrong with what he's wearing if it makes him happy? 

Just as an aside, healthcare for children does vary from state to state. Where I live in Maryland, they have a pretty good state system to make sure kids don't go uninsured if the parents can't afford it.

Many states provide it even if the parents earn quite a bit of money.  Even when parents can afford it, if your kid gets really sick, the state has good coverage.  At least in PA.