www.reachpeak.com

U.S. Republicans push to repeal healthcare funds

2011-05-04T23:13:00.000-05:00

(Reuters) - In a renewed attack against President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul program, House Republicans voted on Tuesday to deny funding for a central element of the law that sets up marketplaces for people to shop for health insurance coverage.

The bill passed by the House of Representatives would rescind some $1.9 billion in grants that are being made available under the healthcare law to help states establish insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses can shop for medical coverage plans.

The exchange idea is central to the law that has faced a number of challenges in Congress and the courts since it was enacted more than a year ago. Tuesday's bill, which passed on a largely party-line vote of 283-183, likely will be blocked by the Democratic-led Senate, just as an earlier effort by House Republicans to repeal the entire healthcare law was defeated.

Even though the bill targets insurance exchanges, the exchange idea is in fact a major element of a House Republican budget plan that would eventually end the traditional government-run Medicare health plan and instead provide subsidies to private insurers to provide medical coverage for the elderly.

The Republican budget plan, drafted by Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, would have the elderly shop for subsidized medical coverage on insurance exchanges.

"House Republicans rhetorically exalt the private health insurance marketplace," said Ron Pollack, head of Families USA, a healthcare advocacy group. "They ironically, however, plan to de-fund the creation of such state marketplaces that would enable consumers and small businesses to choose the private health plans they want."

The debate over the exchange bill covered familiar ground. Democrats argued the healthcare law already helps millions of people. Republicans argued that the law is costly and gives the federal government too big a role in setting coverage benefits.

"This is not a free-market system; it is essentially central planning," said Republican Representative Phil Roe.

Democratic Representative Frank Pallone said the effort to deny federal grants to the states would not kill the exchanges. Rather, it would make it harder for cash-strapped states to establish their own marketplaces and give more power to the federal government, Pallone said.

The healthcare law calls for the federal government to set up exchanges for states that fail to establish their own.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill would delay establishment of state exchanges and save $14.6 billion over the next 10 years mostly because fewer people would purchase government-subsidized insurance.

About 500,000 people would be without health coverage in 2015 because of the delay, CBO said in a recent analysis of the bill.

How Much Does Your Insurance Pay Your Doctor; Do You Care?

2011-04-13T22:54:00.001-05:00

There are a few cost comparisons we are familiar with when comparing health insurance options, while choosing an insurance option from your employer's benefits package, for example. Generally you'll see the different plan options laid out, with column showing what's covered and at what percentage, out-of-pocket costs such as your portion of the premium costs, deductibles and co-pays.

As healthcare costs grow, there's been a commensurate growth in interest about increasing patient/ consumer cost awareness. In some cases by 'cost sharing'- shifting more costs to the consumer- and in other cases providing actual prices for medical services. The great moral hazard of health finance generally arises from the fact that neither the provider nor the patient (if insured) bears the brunt of costs, and in many cases neither of those parties is even aware of how much a service will cost.

Now imagine if two other columns where added to that table you were using to compare health plans. One of the new columns has quality information, either some measure of how in-plan providers rate compared to all doctors in the state, or some indication of what type of quality data might be available to help you choose a primary care provider, specialist or if you are lucky enough to have a choice, a hospital for non-emergency procedures. Those types of measures have long been hoped for, but are not the main focus of this discussion.

The next column provides information I've not heard widely discussed. This would be some ballpark measure of the average or median amount that the plan in question pays providers relative to other public and private payees and the cost of providing services. Why would you want to know this? A couple of possibilities come to mind:

--Are plans charging more in premiums, etc.. paying providers better?

--Maybe I feel that I'll get better care and more time with providers who are getting reimbursed more for the care they provide me.

One arena where this might come into play: State such as Vermont that are looking to provide some form of single -payer plan to cover all their citizens will be tempted to essentially expand Medicaid to cover everyone. The trouble is that Medicaid pays providers far less than it costs to provide care, rendering the program somewhat unsustainable. Private payers and uninsured persons not covered by Medicaid essentially subsidize the state program.

So what might happen if consumers able to opt into Medicaid were empowered with knowledge about how much their insurance was paying providers relative to the costs of providing services? If choosing between a free state plan and more costly private one, would patients avoid an expanded Medicaid-like insurer who reimburses at low rates, for fear it would impact the care their doctor provides? Do consumers covered by such a plan have a right to know how much their doctor is being paid to provide care for them?

All other things being equal, would knowledge of how much your doctor will be paid on your behalf influence your health insurance choice? Why?

And while we are on the path towards cost transparency, let's add a third new column that tells us what percentage of premiums are spent on administrative overhead. Perhaps I'd like to reward a more efficient company with my business.

What about you?

from Just Means

Health plans must spend premiums on medical care

2010-11-22T08:17:00.000-06:00

WASHINGTON (AP) — Health insurers must spend most of the premiums they collect for medical care, or issue rebates to consumers, the Obama administration said in regulations issued Monday.
The rule unveiled by the Health and Human Services department requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of the premium dollar on medical care and quality. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents.
Part of the new health care law, the rule is meant to give consumers a better deal. Administration officials said it will prevent insurers from wasting valuable premiums on overhead, marketing and executive bonuses. "These new rules are an important step to hold insurance companies accountable and increase value for consumers," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
But the insurance industry says the approach is heavy handed, and doesn't take into account some of the costs of marketing to individuals and small employers. Indeed, some companies are threatening to pull out of the individual market, and four states have already asked the federal government for an exemption from the rule, fearing it could lead to loss of coverage.
Currently, there is no uniform requirement that health insurers spend a fixed proportion of premiums on medical care. Consumer groups say somewhere in the range of 80 to 85 cents on the dollar represents good value, and some plans are able to operate even more efficiently. However, officials said there are also many plans spending 50 to 65 cents for every dollar they collect in premiums.
The rule goes into effect Jan. 1, and applies to plans that currently insure about 75 million people. Starting in 2012, as many as 9 million customers could get rebates averaging $164, officials estimate. That could be a discount on premiums or a payment by check or credit card.
Consumers shopping for health insurance in the future will be able to compare what plans in their area spend on medical care. But they may have to learn some new jargon: the proportion insurers spend on care is termed the "medical loss ratio."
One major exception to the new rule involves large employer plans. Generally major companies pay their employees' health care expenses directly, hiring an insurance company to act as an outside administrator. To employees, it looks like they are covered by an insurer, but it's actually their company that's paying. Because most big firms pay up front, they already have a strong incentive to be as efficient as possible.
Administration officials say they don't anticipate the kinds of dire disruptions that some health insurance companies have warned about.
"These rules were carefully developed through a transparent and fair process with significant input from the public, the states, and other key stakeholders," said Jay Angoff, head of the HHS office of insurance oversight.
But just in case, the regulation provides for a series of adjustments to ease the impact of the requirements.
Very small insurers with fewer than 1,000 enrollees will not be required to provide rebates, and those with fewer than 75,000 enrollees will get an adjustment. Limited benefit plans popular in the food service industry will also be able to claim an adjustment. States can apply for a waiver if state regulators conclude that the requirement would destabilize local markets, for example if a large insurer pulled out.

The best time to buy long-term care insurance

2010-11-18T21:31:00.002-06:00

Toddi Gutner is a contributing writer for The Wall Street Journal and is a former associate editor for BusinessWeek. The views expressed here are her own.

Andy Schupack and his wife hadn’t given long-term care (LTC) insurance much thought until they realized what could happen without it. Some relatives had to do a reverse mortgage for financial resources and others had to move in with family members when they got older, but neither ended up getting the proper care as they aged. To avoid ending up in a similar situation, Schupack, 57, decided to explore long-term care insurance.

He isn’t alone. About eight million Americans have LTC insurance; some 325,000 are new policyholders who bought their coverage in 2009. That number is only expected to rise as the 77 million aging baby boomers begin to look out into the future and consider the care they will need during the last years of their lives. Even so, the industry is changing as insurers, including MetLife, are exiting the business — and experts are concerned that policies will disappear or become unaffordable to keep.

For consumers like Schupack who have decided they want long-term care coverage, questions remain about when is the best time to buy it, for how long should coverage exist, what your policy should include and even whether buying a policy is the right decision at all. Unfortunately, the answers aren’t easy, but there are guidelines that can help make the decision less challenging.

The typical time to buy is between 50 and 60 years old. “This is when you’re getting to the end of your working years and you can pay off the premiums by the time you are 65,” says Nick Erin, a long-term care specialist at Mass Mutual. “Most companies have a 10-year pay period.”

Many websites have cost/benefit calculators that can help you figure out the right time to buy. In some cases, however, “people don’t really need the product,” says Erin. LTC insurance is for income protection and sometimes “Medicaid is a more viable option for people who don’t have an estate,” he says.

As you would expect, your health will also determine your insurability and your cost. A 50-year-old who develops a chronic mid-life health problem like multiple sclerosis can be locked out of a policy. “I get one call a week from people who waited too long to get coverage,” says Rhonda Gimbel, an insurance agent for LTC Professional Insurance Group. The problem is people don’t look at the planning properly. An estimated 20 percent of applicants are turned down due to health reasons.

Indeed, the cost of long-term care insurance rises each year as you age. “The difference between years can be 2 percent to 9 percent and the older you are, the greater the increase in cost,” says Gimbel. For example, the average annualized premium for individual between 45-54 year-old is $1,900. That number jumps to $3,250 per year for someone 65 and older, according to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance.

If you buy a policy at a younger age, you can also qualify for preferred health discounts of up to 10 percent. An estimated 62 percent of applicants between the ages 40-49 and 46 percent of the applicants between the ages 50-59 qualified for good health discounts in 2009. That percentage fell to 38 percent for ages 60-69. There are also marital partner discounts.

Your policy benefit should be based upon the current cost of care, and include some inflation protection, because long-term care costs are increasing. “For example, in 2010 the national median rate for a private nursing home room is $75,190,” says Sam Fleet, president of AmWINS Group Benefits. “In 2011 that price is likely to be almost $79,000,” says Fleet.

In some cases, there may be some federal income tax advantages for people who buy LTC coverage. “These policies are called tax-qualified long-term care insurance contracts or simply qualified contracts,” says Fleet. “There may be other tax advantages depending on the state in which you live,” he says.

Once you’ve decided to purchase LTC insurance, consider what you want your policy to cover as there are more coverage options today than in the past. Typically, a policy will cover a nursing home, assisted living, home and adult day care. Additionally, a policy should offer caregiver training, medical alert systems, home modifications and durable medical equipment. It may cover hospice care, too.

You also need to decide coverage level and for how many years. The average daily benefit should be a minimum of $300-a day or $9,000 a month for at least three years—preferably five. Also be sure the policy has an inflation rider of at least 3 percent.

Schupack and his wife choose a flexible eight-year option—six years for him and two years for his wife—with a $400 daily benefit. He pays $2800 per year for the two of them. Given that the average stay in a nursing home is just under three years, Schupack figures he has bought himself peace of mind.

Health reforms not increasing rates

2010-11-16T10:18:00.000-06:00

Jack Beckner, Dillon
AARP Congressional Liaison, District Two

There's been much concern expressed in the media recently suggesting that our new health care law (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective Sept. 23, 2010) was the chief cause for rising health insurance premiums. That is a myth. Our own Colorado Division of Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison, in a Nov. 4 press release, says “…what may be eye-opening for some people is that federal health reforms have contributed from zero to a maximum of 5 percent of those increases. It's not the primary cause for increasing rates.”

In fact, the increase in health insurance premiums can be attributed more to people visiting the doctor more often, and more expensive lab tests due to an overall aging population. The average health status of Americans is decreasing.

Finally, aggressive pricing on the part of carriers follows a pattern. According to the same DORA release that says by offering lower premiums to new customers to make coverage more attractive, carriers then adjust premiums for current policy holders to cover the loss of revenue from the new customers. Typically, the discounted premiums are adjusted to higher levels over the next few years.

Federal changes have minimally affected premium costs. As a responsible society, we have an onus to exercise discipline over our insurance carriers and their industry.

Employers Given More Leeway to Switch Providers Under Obamacare

2010-11-16T10:15:00.001-06:00

U.S. employers offering health insurance to workers will not lose protected status under the new healthcare law if they decide to switch healthcare plan providers, U.S. administration officials said Monday.

At issue is President Barack Obama's pledge that people can keep their current healthcare plan if they liked it and administration officials have said the protected status aims to minimize disruption in coverage.

Under the overhaul passed earlier this year, employers must adhere to certain rules to keep special "grandfathered'' status that exempts them from imposing other provisions in the law such as an appeals process and mandatory preventive care.

Any plan that made significant changes to their employees' coverage, such as reducing workers' benefits, increasing costs or changing health insurance carriers, would lose protection.

But officials at the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury said, if an employer chooses another health insurance company to provide coverage, they can keep their protected status.

"The purpose of the grandfather regulation is to help people keep existing health plans that are working for them,'' the agencies said in a statement.

"This amendment furthers that goal by allowing employers to offer the same level of coverage through a new issuer and remain grandfathered, as long as the change in issuer does not result in significant cost increases, a reduction in benefits, or other changes described in the original grandfather rule.''

The change comes after complaints that preventing companies from choosing another insurer would restrict "their ability to shop around for the best deal,'' one official told reporters in a conference call speaking on background.

Health insurance providers include Aetna Inc., Cigna Corp. and UnitedHealth Group Inc., among others.

The amended rule only affects group health insurance plans, not those sold to individuals. Only a small number of employer plans are expected to be affected, officials said.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; editing by Andre Grenon)

Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com

The Need for Health Care

2010-11-16T08:46:00.001-06:00

Do young adults need health insurance? Come on. We’re in college; we could eat plastic bags and still be healthy. This is how most young adults think, and it’s one reason why people aged 19 to 29 represent a third of the uninsured in the United States.

The other, much bigger reason is that we can’t afford it by ourselves. We need help, and President Obama’s health-care reforms were a good first step.

But proponents of the bill’s repeal are dragging us right back in a wave of blind idealism. The 2010 reforms raised the maximum age at which we can remain on our parents’ health plans from 19 to 26. This has several advantages (aside from the obvious fact that it provides cash-strapped young adults with affordable care).

First, by including us as dependents, our parents avoid having to purchase individual coverage for us at much higher costs. They can help us and help themselves at the same time. Second, the change eases the pressure on our age group from the bill’s longer-term provisions, which will require most people to purchase coverage. Third, if health insurance companies can enroll more young adults, they can lower rates for older people — who need health insurance most.

Making it easier for us to buy coverage makes it easier on everyone else. Sound good?

So there must be some other reason why Republicans in Congress like House Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) want to repeal the health insurance bill. Maybe they don’t like the fact that it bans insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

No, that can’t be it. Could it be that the bill will reduce the national deficit by $143 billion over 10 years? Not likely. Could it be that it requires insurers to devote at least 85 cents of every premium dollar to health care rather than to administrative costs? How about the provision that prevents insurers from imposing a lifetime cap on the amount of health services you can receive? I doubt it.

No, Republicans and Tea Partiers say they oppose the bill because it emblemizes Big-Government intervention in the lives of Americans. They say it strips us of the right to make our own decisions and puts more power into the hands of an administration that has already seized control of our banks, insurance companies and car companies. For Boehner and his colleagues, it’s a battle for ideals, not policies.

The truth is that many of these arguments are not only outdated, but they conflict with what their alleged followers really want. No family, Republican or Democratic, wants to see their child denied health care because of a pre-existing condition. No senior citizen, liberal or conservative, wants to see his or her insurance rates go up because providers can’t sell to younger people. And yet Republicans are seeking to dismantle legislation that prevents these things simply because it deviates from their capitalist vision — the same vision that led us into a recession and forced government takeover of industry in the first place.

One problem is that our terminology and our labels are obsolete. Opponents of the health care bill criticize it as “socialist.” Do these same people also object to Social Security and Medicare? These socialist programs are the two most popular programs in the country.

Forty percent of Americans call themselves “conservatives.” What, exactly, are they trying to conserve? The capitalist infrastructure that allowed banks to run amok, that allowed BP to drill in the Gulf without any oversight? The Bush administration that ran the economy into the ground? With 9 percent of Americans unemployed and the accumulated national debt at $13.7 trillion, do we really want to conserve the system that got us here?

The term “liberal” is no better. Liberals define themselves as open to change, but what do they want to change? Simply labeling oneself liberal is unproductive. We need to abandon these purely rhetorical affiliations and consider what we, as individuals, really want from our government.

The maximum-age provision of the health care bill is a perfect example of the conflict between alleged ideals and real interests. Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare, but surely they want young adults to be able to afford health care. They want their own kids to be able to afford it. If we can mandate comprehensive care and make it affordable for young people at the same time, why shouldn’t we?

Our nation has outgrown its capitalist shell, and still our glorification of outdated values wins out over rational policy. Universal health care is the norm throughout the industrialized world, and yet we continue to let “conservative” ideals stifle the potential of this system in our own country.

If opponents of the bill can look at themselves — and their kids — as humans in need of health care and not as party affiliates whose independence is being threatened, America will be a healthier place, and our youth will have coverage whether they think they need it or not.

Ari Comart is a College senior from Needham, Mass.

2010-01-16T11:41:00.002-06:00

EDITORIAL: A crazy quilt of health reform?

Jan. 15--Millions of working Americans don't get health insurance through their employer. How they can access affordable, quality insurance is at the core of final discussions over a federal health care reform bill.

Both the House and Senate bills include insurance "exchanges" that would allow individuals to compare and shop between different plans. But the differences between the two bills are enormous.

The Senate version creates 50 separate state exchanges -- a patchwork of varying quality and affordability.

The House version sets up a national federal exchange, with an opt-out for states able and willing to meet certain standards.

Massachusetts, for example, already has a well-functioning exchange. Other large states, such as California, also might want to manage insurance on their own with tough national standards for insurance companies that participate.

On this score, the House bill is far better than the Senate version. That's why California's congressional delegation should fight for a national health insurance exchange. Fortunately, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, the White House wants a national exchange in the bill that goes to the president's desk.

A national exchange, as many experts have pointed out, would reduce insurers' ability to game the system. If they want to compete for the estimated 30 million new customers who would come to the exchange, insurers would have to follow certain standards.

A national exchange also would create a sizable risk pool for small states that would have little negotiating power with insurers in a state exchange (bringing down premium costs for individuals).

A national exchange also would add "another cop on the beat" to make sure that insurers do as they say in providing coverage and ending discriminatory practices (such as denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions).

Equally important, a national exchange can provide a forum for standardized information about insurance plans, including complaints and satisfaction, so individuals can make informed choices. Individuals would have a choice among several national insurers as well as the local insurers.

Such a function wouldn't be new for the federal government, which already successfully runs exchanges like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

If the Senate version were to prevail, states would be authorized to create their own exchanges. Some would likely take the job seriously, some won't. The Senate version would allow the federal government to step in if states failed to meet their obligations. But this would create a crazy quilt of health care coverage, with very different results for individuals depending upon the state in which they reside.

California is key to the outcome. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen George Miller and Henry Waxman, on the team negotiating with the White House, still have some heavy lifting to do to ensure a national exchange makes it into the final bill.

A 50-state patchwork, without some meaningful national benchmark, doesn't provide the choice and competition Americans deserve in a major reform package.

Editorials are the opinion of the Merced Sun-Star editorial board. Members of the editorial board include Publisher Debra Kuykendall, Executive Editor Mike Tharp, Editorial Page Editor Keith Jones, Copy Desk Chief Jesse Chenault and Online Editor Brandon Bowers.

To see more of the Merced Sun-Star or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.mercedsunstar.com/.

2010-01-16T11:28:00.002-06:00

Health Care Mandate Applies to All -- Except the Amish

By Molly Henneberg

- FOXNews.com

While most Americans will have to prove they have insurance or face a fine under the health reform legislation that is now nearing the finish line in Congress, at least one group won't have to worry.

Most Americans would have to prove they have insurance or face a fine under the health reform legislation that is now nearing the finish line in Congress, but at least one group won't have to worry, on religious grounds.

Democrats are planning to exempt the Amish and similar religious groups from the health insurance mandate in the final health care bill.

That's because when the Amish need medical care, they go to regular doctors and hospitals and pay in cash often with financial help from their church and neighbors. They rely on each other, not the government or insurance companies as a tenet of their faith.

"The Amish believe it's the fundamental responsibility of the church to care for the material needs of the members of the church," said Steven Nolt, a professor at Goshen College who has written books on the Plain community of Amish.

"And so they don't buy commercial health insurance and they don't participate in public assistance programs."

So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.

Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.

"Here the statue is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don't have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion," said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. "And that's perfectly constitutional."

This would not be the first time the Amish received this type of special accommodation. Congress exempted this and other communities from Social Security and Medicare taxes since 1965 for the same religious reasons.

But if the Amish can opt out, then some civil libertarians say they want out, too -- not for religious reasons but because they don't think the underlying health insurance mandate is legal.

"If they can do it for religious objection, well, I have a different type of objection," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute said. "I think I'm being coerced into doing something against my will, and so the challenge would be from a different perspective."

Health Care Reform can be complex

2010-01-16T11:20:00.003-06:00

Health care reform is complex, and many Americans are not even sure why reform is necessary, or what it would do for them - but we will address the basics.

Real health insurance reform would lower costs, improve choices, and ensure that all Americans have access to meaningful, quality, and affordable insurance

. Legislation has made its way through Congress that tentatively would ensure that those who are currently insured satisfied with their coverage will be able to keep their current plan.

A couple of the other provisions in health care reform discussions are limiting what insurance companies can force patients to pay out-of-pocket and tax incentives for families and small businesses to help afford quality coverage.

True health insurance reform would help curb growing health care costs, stop unfair insurance practices, and decrease the number of Americans without insurance.

Whole Life Insurance Makes Sense For Youth, Teens Rates are significantly cheaper and the terms are much better for young life insurance seekers

2009-08-01T15:49:00.001-05:00

by Tom Lustina

(OfficialWire)

CHICAGO, IL

You may feel that you are invincible when you are young, but as you get older and you have a family and the financial obligations increase, you start to wonder how your family will be supported if you pass away. Which is why the younger you are when you buy a whole life insurance policy, the less you will pay, and the more financially secure you will be your entire life.

According to a recently published article on InsuranceAgents.com, Whole Life Insurance for Youth, “When you’re young, the idea of buying whole life insurance isn’t exactly on your list of priorities. But maybe it should be. You’ll be saving yourself and your family a lot of stress and financial frustration if you choose to invest in their future now for the most affordable rate as possible.”

Whole life insurance has many advantages over other types of life insurance such as a locked in rate, a cash-value that means you are actually saving money inside the policy that you can pull out later, and since the payments do not increase you can offset inflation as well. Whole life insurance premiums are paid for the entire remainder of your life and the death benefit is paid out to anyone you specify as the beneficiary.

The younger you are the better says the article, “Purchasing whole life insurance at a young age can be a great investment, because the rates are going to be as low as they’re going to get for you, while you’re still young and healthy. Whole life insurance provides a full coverage offer for a low rate.”

There are many ways to get a whole life insurance policy when you are younger and the benefits go beyond saving money on lower premiums, but you always get the lifelong peace of mind knowing that your family is protected in case you pass away. Also, its much easier to secure a whole life insurance policy when you are younger and the older you risk being rejected completely if you have health problems.

What if I don't want health insurance?

2009-07-20T14:19:00.002-05:00

The government is trying to force me to buy it, but absent federal meddling, the price of medical care would return to reasonable levels.

By Becky Akers

from the July 20, 2009 edition of Christian Science Monitor

"If you do want Health Insurance..go to www.reachpeak.com for a free quote"

New York - I'm one of the nearly 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. I don't want it, either.

But the bill the House of Representatives is debating would force me to buy it. How good can any product be if Congress compels me to purchase it?

Politicians and interest groups have been trying virtually all my life to foist medical insurance on me. But their proposals rest on mistaken and even insulting assumptions.

First, they presume that everyone wants, needs, and should have abundant medical attention. But I come from a long-lived and healthy family, I've been a vegetarian since childhood because I've never liked the way meat tastes, I don't smoke, and I love to hike – the more miles the better.

I am disgustingly healthy, so much so that the only doctors I see – or try to: I'm near-sighted – are ophthalmologists. Could I be hit by a bus tomorrow when I head out for my daily walk? Possibly. But that's such an unlikely disaster that I've chosen to spend my money on more personally pressing needs than medical insurance.

On the other hand, unlikely disasters do happen. So I might purchase catastrophic coverage if it were reasonably priced – just as I might visit doctors for lesser complaints if their care were reasonably priced.

But the government's meddling is what helped mess-up the medical market to begin with.

The federal government perverts costs with its Medicare and Medicaid programs: Recipients of this largess have no incentive to save money since someone else pays their bills.

In fact, the incentives run the opposite way as patients demand more procedures and tests while magnifying problems I resolve out of my medicine cabinet into emergency-room runs. Doctors who get away with charging Medicare hundreds for diagnosing Grandpa's indigestion would charge me the same.

Meanwhile, state governments shackle the insurance industry, mandating that policies cover everything from chiropractic care to hormone replacement. These launch premiums into the stratosphere. I'd much rather pick and choose the coverage I want at a price I'm willing to pay than buy the plan bureaucrats and special interests decree.

But the universal-healthcare crowd thinks it knows better than I do how to spend my money. Why can't they leave me alone? I'm not forcing them to eat flaxseed and bike to meetings instead of hopping into their limousines. It's time for them to return the favor.

Besides, if that bus does hit me tomorrow, I want – and will pay for – top-notch care. And that's not what government-run medical systems dispense. Delays, expedient rather than proper treatment, and double standards of care depending on who you are and whom you know characterize universal-healthcare systems.

Which makes sense. We live in a world of finite resources and infinite desires, where medical care must be "rationed" like all other products and services.

Though we can't choose whether goods are rationed, we can choose how they are. Either the politicians and bureaucrats who bring us long lines at DMVs, failing public schools, and the endless war in Iraq will decide who gets what kind of treatment, or the free market will.

Fans of universal healthcare deride the market: They say it's cold and cruel because we each have to pay for the care we demand. But government healthcare can be far colder and crueler. Its care is inferior: Contrast an inferior, run-down veteran's hospital with a general one. And it's expensive. Dr. Jeffrey Anderson recently wrote in Investor's Business Daily, "Since 1970 – even without the prescription drug benefit – Medicare's costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid…."

Absent such meddling, the price of medical care would return to reasonable levels. It benefits no provider of any service to charge such astronomical fees that customers can't afford to patronize him.

Then, too, in a market free of the state's stranglehold, doctors and hospitals would compete with one another to lower prices and attract the ill or injured.

That doesn't mean everyone could finally buy all the procedures they wanted or even needed – but that's where private charity would come in. Humanitarians who send inner-city kids to summer camp and volunteer their time or money at soup kitchens would strive to ensure that needy Americans received medical care.

President Obama says, "We have no choice but to fix the healthcare system because right now it's broken for too many Americans." But the only fix we need is for government to get out of medicine.

Becky Akers is a freelance writer and historian.

Pick type of life insurance that fits your need

2009-07-14T07:40:00.002-05:00

Get Life Insurance from Peak Services... www.reachpeak.com

Column by Van Sievers • July 14, 2009

Life insurance is a basic fin ancial product for most families. If you have a spouse and children who depend on your income and you don't have extensive resources, then life insurance is a useful tool to help them pay expenses. Single people without dependents typically don't need the same amount of life insurance because they don't have as many responsibilities that will outlive them.

Often, it is hard to decide which type of life insurance meets your needs. This is where a financial planner can really help. We tell clients that insurance is not a replacement for a long-term savings or investing strategy but an additional cushion. Depending on your financial situation, life insurance and its ancillary products can have some very attractive tax characteristics as well.

Who needs life insurance: Those with dependents, either children or friends or family members with special needs, with a nonworking spouse or one with an income substantially lower than yours or those with a big mortgage that will be too overwhelming for one income to pay off.

How much is necessary: Optimally, the right amount of life insurance allows your survivors to invest the insurance payout and then draw down the account over time in a way that matches the income you would provide if you were still around. You need to figure far more than a family's basic living expenses adjusted for inflation. Also consider:

Education funds needed for each child from grade school to college.

Money to cover special health expenses for a family member already diagnosed at the time of the insured's death.

Funds for child care if the surviving spouse needs to keep working.

Emergency funds that your survivors can keep in reserve.

Types of life insurance: There are several basic types of life insurance.

Term: Term life insurance is the simplest kind of life insurance because it pays if death occurs during the term of the policy, which is usually from one to 30 years. There are two kinds of term life insurance: Level term means that the death benefit stays throughout the duration of the policy, and decreasing term means that the death benefit drops in one-year increments over the duration of the policy. Term policies do not build any cash value.

Whole life/permanent: Whole life or permanent insurance has a level premium and pays a static benefit whenever you die. For this guaranteed benefit, whole life is usually the more expensive choice because it front-loads its costs into the early premium years of the policy so it can invest the money to pay for death benefits at the end of several years or decades. At a certain point, the policy owner will pay in enough where he or she will start accruing cash value on that money, which can be withdrawn if the policy owner decides to cancel the coverage.

There are four types of permanent insurance:

Whole or ordinary life: This is the most common type of permanent insurance policy, offering a death benefit with a savings account. You agree to pay a certain amount in premiums on a regular basis for a specific death benefit. The savings element would grow based on dividends the company pays to you.

Universal or adjustable life: This variation offers a little more flexibility, such as the possibility of increasing the death benefit if you pass a medical exam. The savings product attached to this kind of account generally earns a money market rate of interest, and after you start accumulating money in this account you'll generally have the option of altering your premium payments. This helps if you lose your job or have some other financial misfortune.

Variable life: This policy lets you invest your cash value in stocks, bonds and money market mutual funds which is good if those investments go up. If they go down, your cash value and death benefit will shrink, but you need to make sure there's a guarantee that your death benefit won't fall below a certain level. This type of policy can be more risky for ordinary consumers.

Variable-universal life: This choice allows you the flexibility of premium payments with a more aggressive investment scenario for the cash value of the policy.

Life insurance proceeds don't generally go into Uncle Sam's collection plate, which makes life insurance an attractive purchase for many individuals hoping to maximize the amount to give to heirs. Yet life insurance also can be purchased in a way to give the living policyholder tax-free income during retirement. Since we're talking about estate issues here, getting proper advice is critically important. The federal government's current estate tax ceilings are set to expire in 2010, and this fact alone could affect the attractiveness of this strategy for your situation.

Viewpoint: Insurers hit the panic button

2009-06-24T15:26:00.002-05:00

-Get a Short Term Health Plan from Peak Services...

from modernmedicine.com By: Bob Feigenbaum

For the first time in decades, health insurance companies are panicking a bit lately. For years, too many of them have gotten away with cherry-picking those they choose to insure; denying coverage for preexisting conditions; making insurance virtually unaffordable for the self-employed, underemployed, and unemployed; underpaying physicians and other providers for the services they perform; subrogating the accident claims of those they insure; refusing or delaying payment for legitimate claims; and influencing legislation favorable to their industry—all while making billions in profits.

So why the panic? Congress is likely to push for a public plan as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform package. The intent of a public plan is to offer Americans an affordable and accessible option to private health insurance. Health insurance companies argue that a public plan would put them out of business and would be the first step toward a universal, single-payer health system. Not really. A properly constructed public plan would force private insurance companies to compete in the marketplace. And if they do that, private and public health insurance options can coexist.

Last month's meeting between President Obama and executives from major health industry groups representing insurers, hospitals, unions, and pharmaceutical companies gives cause for cautious optimism. The executives promised to reduce healthcare spending growth over the next decade, perhaps by as much as $2 trillion. But one can't help but hear the whispers of the Greek chorus: If it's not codified in law, it doesn't mean anything.

In the coming months, Congress will be center stage for the future of healthcare reform. One of three scenarios is likely to unfold:

1. Various congressional committees will hold hearings ad infinitum. Charges and countercharges—including who really is and is not a socialist, who will and will not bankrupt America, and who is standing and not standing between Americans and their doctors—will be flung back and forth, and nothing will be passed.

2. A bill will emerge with some concessions to healthcare consumers, but no fundamental healthcare reform.

3. A bill will emerge most likely with a public plan option and other major reforms of private health insurance.

In order for the third option to emerge, the Obama administration and its supporters in Congress will need to ensure that the public plan and private health insurance reforms do not create a tidal wave of more red ink. In addition, consumers—voters—must be convinced they will be able to select their doctors, that they and their doctors instead of a government (or, for that matter, a private insurance company) functionary will determine the treatments they receive, and that they won't have to wait weeks or months for tests and procedures.

Healthcare reform also must do away with the yearly government habit of threatening to reduce physicians' reimbursement. This January, unless Congress acts, physicians are scheduled for a 21 percent cut in reimbursement under Medicare. Not only must this practice be changed for Medicare, but any reform package must provide appropriate funding to fuel reimbursement for physicians. Otherwise, this country will see further shortages of primary care physicians, as medical students opt for high-income specialties and primary care doctors fold up their tents in disgust.

The Death and Life of Health 'Reform'

2009-06-17T11:27:00.001-05:00

Get Short Term Health from Peak Services

A glimpse of a future without nationalized health care.

from Wall Street Journal

The following is a draft of a speech titled "The Obama Years: A Reappraisal" that mysteriously was never delivered at the 2070 national meeting of the Institute of Advanced Obamalogy:

So it came to pass in the waning days of the health-care wars that Democrats learned the American people really didn't want a nationalized health-care industry.

The Obama administration's "public option," which all knew to be a vote for a government takeover, proved a drink too stiff for four or five Democratic senators whose re-election was not in the bag.

President Obama applauded himself for achieving "85% of what we set out to accomplish." But pundits and wonks were in despair. They retreated to their watering holes and cried into their Stoli martinis. The cause of their lives was over. A once-in-a-generation opportunity had been muffed. Without a massive bill in Congress, with many titles and subtitles and subchapters, they moaned, there was no hope for fixing all that ailed the American health-care system.

M.E. Cohen

But politics went on, and while the armies of wonkdom mourned, three little-known congressmen (Eric Paul, Ryan Cantor and Kemp Newtley) discovered an unexpected public enthusiasm for a flat tax.

Through incessant Twittering over the heads of the media, they persuaded millions of voters they'd be better off with lower rates even if it meant giving up tax-free employer provided health insurance. It didn't hurt, either, that the wailing of insurance and medical lobbyists was over-the-top -- convincing voters that the tax benefit really was just a form of corporate welfare disguised as a mostly illusory benefit for individuals.

Though the realization was slow in dawning, policy experts would eventually rediscover what they had known all along (but had conveniently forgotten in order to lend their voices to "solutions" that required ever more government spending) -- that tax reform, in the American context, is health-care reform.

And, lo, it proved true, as 100 million intelligent, well-educated employees of Corporate America were allowed to see for the first time what "tax free" health insurance was really costing them. They saw how it distorted their behavior and caused them to allocate far more of their incomes to the medical-industrial complex than they would have chosen for themselves.

Eyes newly opened, they demanded cheaper insurance options, covering fewer services (cancer wigs, family counseling, in-vitro fertilization), and opted for plans with higher deductibles and co-pays in return for much lower monthly rates.

Because consumers were now spending their "own" money on health care, doctors and hospitals found it necessary to publish and even advertise their prices. A hospital that specialized in heart surgery, performing thousands of procedures a year, found it had both the highest quality and lowest cost -- and now marketed itself as such. Ditto specialists in cancer, diabetes and other conditions.

For the first time, Americans spent less and got more. Spending fell overnight by 13%, which happened to be exactly what economists had predicted if the price tags were restored to health care and consumers were allowed to see clearly what they were getting (or not getting) for their money. As predicted, too, spending thereafter rose only in line with incomes.

What's more, many fewer people remained voluntarily uninsured now that health insurance was no longer a gold-plated extravagance affordable only by those in the top brackets who could slough off 40% of the cost on other taxpayers. Existing programs for the needy, in turn, could be downsized and revamped into voucher programs. The federal budget benefited twice over -- from fewer claimants and from medical care that was less costly. Fiscal wreck was avoided.

In truth, President Obama had been little involved to this point. Following his early domestic "successes," he was spending more and more time abroad sharing his matchless eloquence with previously unblessed audiences from Ulan Bator to Ouagadougou.

A highly symbolic moment, however, came when Mr. Obama, who had put on weight in office and now tipped the scales at nearly 300 pounds, returned from a speaking tour on the virtues of nonproliferation to audiences in the Islamic Republic of Palau. Having overindulged in local delicacies, he was surprised when the White House medical office handed him a Wal-Mart debit card and sent him to a nearby Wal-Mart supercenter boasting "Everyday Low Prices on Gastric Bypass Surgery."

Emerging afterward to the usual crowd of ululating network reporters and bloggers, Mr. Obama pronounced himself entirely pleased and satisfied with the "success of my health-care reforms."

And so it came to pass that historians and Obamalogists would count health-care reform among the incomparable triumphs of the Obama administration, and lost to history would be the names of Eric Paul, Ryan Cantor and Kemp Newtley.

Those Wary of Health Insurance Reform May Have Ally in Physicians

2009-06-13T14:06:00.002-05:00

Complete Online Process... Reachpeak.com has the Life & Health Product for YOU!

-From the Insurance Journal-

President Barak Obama takes his case for reform of the nation's health insurance system to the American Medical Association, the nation's largest physicians group, on June 15.

While the AMA says it is honored to welcome the president to its annual meeting, where policies that guide the association's advocacy initiatives are often decided, the group apparently has some concerns about President Obama's call for a public health plan.

AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen M.D. said the group has "major concerns about government control over health care decisions," according to an Associated Press report.

In an announcement released by the physicians' association, Nielsen said the AMA "is actively working for health reform that covers the uninsured, makes private insurance more affordable, increases the value our nation receives from its health-care spending and enhances prevention and wellness for patients."

The group's position, she said, is that any "health reform that covers the uninsured must also include permanent Medicare payment reform, antitrust relief and medical liability protections."

Insurance agents' groups have expressed concern over plans to create a public health insurance system. Many property and casualty agents also sell health insurance and are concerned that a possible government-sponsored health plan might compete with private insurance plans, which could diminish agents' share of the health insurance market.

Charles Symington, senior vice president of government affairs and top lobbyist for the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America (Big I), said that health care reform was at the top of the Big "I's" agenda at that group's legislative conference earlier this year.

The Big "I", along with the AHIA-NAIFA Health and Employee Benefits Association (AHIA), The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB), the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU), and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) have announced that they will host a special joint health care reform Capitol Hill fly-in July 14-15, to lobby lawmakers on this issue.

Options for health insurance and aid for unemployed

2009-05-21T13:45:00.001-05:00

Get Temporary Health Coverage From Peak Services... www.reachpeak.com

EMILY C. DOOLEY AND LOUIS LLOVIO TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITERS
Published: May 17, 2009

For individuals and families facing unemployment and no insurance to cover health-care costs, there are several options.

These include state and federal programs; free health clinics; clinics that provide care on a sliding payment scale; negotiating fees with doctors, hospitals or employers; and short-term or temporary insurance. A look at a few of the offerings:

Getting care for children should not be as difficult as for adults.

Medicaid provides benefits to children under age 6 whose family income is up to $29,327, which is 133 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four.

For families who make too much to get Medicaid, another option is FAMIS, which stands for Family Access to Medical Insurance Security.

Eligible children must be under age 19, and their family income can not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $44,100 for a family of four.

Adults whose family income is less than the same 200 percent of the federal poverty level can turn to free clinics. There are six in the Richmond region that are part of the Virginia Association of Free Clinics.

"We are seeing people who have never been without health insurance," said L.M. "Lou" Markwith, executive director of the association. "They've lost their job. Their company has closed. They have no benefits.

"We become the place that can treat them."

Free clinics act almost as general practitioners and can provide prescriptions. Some also provide dental services, counseling and food pantries.

If you are not sure you qualify, the best thing to do is call the local free clinic, which may refer you to other resources, Markwith said.

If you make too much to go to a free clinic but can not afford health insurance, consider going to one of several federally funded community health centers, which charge on a sliding scale based on what you can afford.

There are 11 in the Richmond area. Stimulus money has prompted the Virginia Community Health Care Association to plan for two more clinics in the area.

"Too many people may avoid health care because they feel like they can't afford it," said Rick Shinn, the association's director of public affairs. "You still need to maintain your health so you can go out there and take care of your family."

Should you end up at the hospital, many health-care organizations are willing to negotiate fees and set up payment plans. They also will do financial screenings to see if people are eligible for Medicaid or indigent care.

At Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, billing agents can give 25 percent discounts to people who are self-paying. An additional 5 percent discount is added when people pay in a lump sum, said Linda McLaughlin, director of financial and governmental services for the health system.

Payment plans are also available.

"This is a tough time," McLaughlin said. "We understand that. The biggest thing is to communicate with us. Just because you can't pay, don't let it go to collections."

Meg O. Wagner-Diggs, director of communications at the Richmond Human Resource Management Association, said it is not uncommon for people to negotiate payment terms or ask for the "cash price."

But negotiating doesn't have to be limited to the doctors and pharmacists, she said.

"If you're getting laid off, my advice is negotiate your severance agreement with your employer," she said. One thing to ask for, she said, is extended insurance coverage. But to get more insurance, you may have to give up something else, even some pay.

Preparing for a layoff and looking at alternate policies before being laid off can save time and money later.

Wagner-Diggs said people who are worried they might lose their jobs should begin exploring options. That can include looking into professional associations that offer group coverage or looking at sources including AARP.

People should also look at a spouse's policies to see if they can piggyback on those.

Jackie Myers, who oversees the life and health division of the Virginia Bureau of Insurance, said people need to be aware of what the spouse's employer's enrollment policies are.

"Some employers have open enrollment periods, some depend on timelines, and others will not allow it if there are other coverage options," she said.

Those type of policies have a limited time period in which to sign up, so you should know how long you have.

But several experts said more and more companies are doing insurance audits to see if the people on their policies belong there.

The best advice though, Wagner-Diggs said, is putting money away for health care.

Short-term, temporary insurance is a viable alternative for some but not all.

"It's important that people who have existing . . . problems really take a look at buying individual coverage," said Jill A. Hanken, staff attorney at the Virginia Poverty Law Center.

Investigate any plan and consider the deductible, what is covered and any exclusions, she said. Nongroup coverage, as it is called, can be more costly, and there are no federal limits on premiums.

In 2005, the latest year available, nearly three in five adults who considered nongroup coverage had trouble finding an affordable plan, according to a March 2009 study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Even for people without pre-existing conditions, the costs can prohibitive.

Experts recommend either buying policies with high deductibles on smaller procedures to keep costs down or buying catastrophic coverage. While not providing the same amount of coverage, these policies can help handle major illnesses.

Myers of the insurance bureau recommends that people with pre-existing conditions look at individual policies that waive underwriting if purchased within 63 days of their previous policy expiring.

If you need prescriptions, there are ways to get some discounts.

All Virginians can use the Virginia Drug Card, a free prescription-drug card program that offers name brand-name and generic drugs, some up to 75 percent off.

Free clinics also have access to donated medicines, as do some national drug companies. Pfizer said last week that it will give its drugs free for nine months to newly unemployed people.

Pharmacies, including at Wal-Mart and Target, offer deep discounts for generic drugs and even more savings for three-month supplies.

Samples also may help. When Sally Compton got laid off from her job as a project coordinator for a general contractor, she took a look at her prescriptions.

A doctor gave her samples of one medicine, and she switched to a generic that costs $4 for a three-month supply. She also decided to take a break from another medicine.

Get A Quick Quote Online at www.reachpeak.com

HEALTH CARE REPORT: No easy answers

2009-05-18T20:05:00.002-05:00

By Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact) and Sean Lengell (Contact) | Tuesday, May 19, 2009

GET SHORT TERM HEALTH FROM PEAK SERVICES... Get a Free Quote Right Now!

No easy answers

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Texas Republican, said Monday that it's going to be hard for Democrats or Republicans to come up with a detailed health care reform bill that won't immediately be picked apart by the other party.

"No one has really identified the specifics yet because then it becomes very easy to pick things apart," said Mr. Burgess, who practiced medicine for more than two decades before being elected to Congress in 2002.

"We on the Republican side get a lot of criticism that we don't have a bill out there yet. But I would submit to you that President Obama talked about some very specific things during the campaign but they don't have a bill," he added. "Senate Finance [Committee] doesn't have a bill. [Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman] Henry Waxman doesn't have a bill. There is no bill out there."

Mr. Burgess said during a roundtable discussion with health care experts that he would like to see legislation without firm mandates, such as limits as to the number of times patients can be hospitalized or see a doctor.

Sick times

In yet another negative result of the bad economy, a new national survey shows that Americans are cutting back on healthy activities such as eating fresh foods and exercising regularly.

The American Heart Association (AHA) report showed that 57 percent of the respondents said the economy has affected their ability to take care of their health, while 32 percent said they have made health care cutbacks in the past six months to save money, such as delaying preventive care appointments, not taking medications or skipping a dentist visit.

The survey also showed that 25 percent of Americans with gym memberships have canceled in the previous six months, and 42 percent plan to make changes in the next six months that may impact their health, such as buying fewer fruits and vegetables.

Results of the study, which surveyed 1,000 people in March, spell trouble for Americans' overall well-being and heart health in particular, said AHA President Dr. Timothy Gardner.

"We've made dramatic gains in recent years in our fight against heart disease and stroke, but trends like these threaten to reverse these gains," he said."

To view the report go to americanheart.mediaroom.com.

HHS news

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) last week released a report showcasing deficiencies in how the nation's health care system treats women, showing that 21 million women and girls are without health care insurance.

The report, "Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work For Women," also shows that women often are charged higher premiums than men are during their reproductive years. A 22-year-old woman may be charged one-and-a-half times the premium of a 22-year-old man.

The report also details a recent national survey that shows that more than 52 percent of all women reported delaying or avoiding needed care because of cost, compared with 39 percent of men.

The full report can be viewed at healthreform.gov/reports/women.

HHS last week also announced the release of $1.79 billion to help people with HIV/AIDS have access to life-saving health care and medications. The grants are funded through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which annually provides funding for health services for more than 500,000 people who lack adequate health care or money to cope with the HIV disease.

More than $1.16 billion will be sent to states and territories under Part B of the Ryan White program, with $780 million of that earmarked for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). In addition, $41 million in ADAP funds was distributed through competitive supplemental grants.

In other HHS news, agency Secretary Kathleen Sebelius addressed the World Health Assembly Plenary Session in Geneva on Monday, discussing the United States' response to the H1N1 influenza virus, or "swine flu," among other topics.

Sean Lengell and Jennifer Haberkorn can be reached at slengell@washingtontimes.com and jhaberkorn@washingtontimes.com.

GET A FREE QUOTE FOR SHORT TERM HEALTH.... go to www.reachpeak.com

The basics of short-term health insurance ( temporary health insurance )

2009-05-05T11:28:00.005-05:00

GET A SHORT TERM / TEMPORARY HEALTH INSURANCE QUOTE FROM PEAK SERVICES...

By Insure.com Last updated Feb. 1, 2009

Short-term health insurance is the ticket for people in transition.

Designed for healthy individuals and families, short-term policies can provide an affordable safety net for those who are transitioning from one life event to another without a basic health plan. Depending on the short-term plan, benefits can be wide-ranging, with some policies providing up to $5 million in individual coverage.

Just as the name implies, these health insurance policies are a temporary solution to a short-term insurance gap.

Most plans last one to six months and can be renewed for a total of 36 months. The application process is simple and policies can be issued the next day. Most insurers take credit card payments.

The most important thing to remember is that a short-term plan is not designed to cover pre-existing conditions. These are typically defined as any condition you had during the 36-month period prior to the start of coverage. The "look-back" period for these conditions can vary by state. The insurance department in your state can tell you what laws apply.

It's important to answer the health questions on the application honestly. Otherwise, you could wind up with a denial of any treatment related to your pre-existing condition.

All short-term policies have very specific limitations and exclusions, so read the policy carefully before you buy.

Who needs short-term health insurance?

Individuals who are temporarily out of work:

Folks who are between jobs make up a large market for short-term health insurance.

Employees who are newly hired:

If you have just started a new job, you may be waiting to become eligible for your company�s group health plan. This can take one to six months after your start date. In order to avoid a lapse in coverage, short-term health insurance can fill the gap.

Recent college graduates:

Many grads look for jobs offering health insurance benefits, but until they land full-time jobs, short-term insurance can fill the gap.

People waiting to qualify for a standard health insurance policy:

People applying for private-market individual health policies may not want to go without coverage while they wait for their applications to be approved. Having a short-term health insurance plan in place while you wait provides a seamless transition, and if you are denied for your standard policy, you still have basic health coverage through your short-term plan.

Those losing dependent status:

If you reach the cut-off age of your parents' health insurance plan and are not enrolled as a full-time student, you will be dropped. In this case, you may be eligible for COBRA, but premiums can be very high. A short-term policy can keep you insured at lower premiums until you find a job that offers health insurance, or you enroll in an individual health plan.

People on strike, military discharge and early retirees:

You might consider a short-term plan if you are temporarily without insurance for some other reason. If you have retired early, you may need coverage until you qualify for Medicare. See other health insurance options for early retirees.

How does it work?

A short-term health insurance policy works like an "indemnity" plan, giving you the freedom to go to any doctor or specialist you like. However, most plans require that you obtain pre-certification from your insurer before you are hospitalized (except for emergency treatment). Without pre-certification, the plan may not reimburse you for hospital bills.

Surgery, hospital care, emergency services, diagnostic tests, prescription drugs, follow-up office visits and even limited mental health care could be included under a short-term health policy.

While many short-term policies are usually renewable for a total of 36 months, keep in mind that if you file a claim under your short-term policy your insurer will likely not renew the policy again. They might offer you another policy, but they will treat any injuries or illnesses that occurred during your previous short-term policy as a pre-existing condition.

Most reputable insurers offer a 30-day guarantee of satisfaction and will refund 100 percent of your premium within this time should you decide you don't want the policy after all. In order to get your money back, you can�t have made claims under the policy.

What will it cost me?

Low premiums are an important perk to a short-term health insurance policy.

Short-term health insurers have established pools of healthy people and families, each of whom will need coverage only for a short period. Given the low-risk characteristics of this group, the cost of insurance remains low for everybody because insurers expect few claims.

For example, a healthy, single male nonsmoker under the age of 30 could pay about $150 a month. A healthy, single female nonsmoker can likely find a policy for $140 a month. For those over age 30, premiums are slightly higher.

With some short-term policies, you pay a deductible on a per-injury or per-illness basis. After you've met your deductible, most insurers will pay some portion, typically 50 to 80 percent of the next $5,000 of expenses, and then 100 percent coverage kicks in, up to the plan maximum.

Many short-term plans will allow you to pay your premiums up-front (often with a discount for doing so) or on a monthly basis. Major companies offering short-term health insurance include Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA and United Heathcare’s Golden Rule.

Advantages of short-term health insurance plans:

Short-term medical coverage is less expensive than traditional medical coverage. If you're in an accident, have an injury or have to be hospitalized due to pneumonia or other illness, this policy would cover you for treatment. Without a short-term health insurance policy, your out-of-pocket expenses for a visit to the hospital could deal a severe financial blow.
Plans can be used with any doctor or hospital in the U.S., and there is no physician network in which you must stay.
Some insurers provide a "Certificate of Creditable Coverage" to be used with your next employer's health insurance policy. This guarantees that your new group coverage cannot exclude your pre-existing medical conditions. For more on this, read about the HIPAA law.
It will cover you the day after you postmark the application.
Some plans cover preventive care such as mammograms and PAP smears. These things will be listed on your policy.
Plans cover certain transplants.
All eligible dependents such as your spouse and children can be covered.
Some plans cover home health care such as a health aide or services from a registered nurse.

Disadvantages

While short-term plans can prevent you from having a coverage gap and losing your HIPAA rights, short-term plans themselves are exempt from HIPAA. That means pre-existing conditions are not covered.
Policies cannot be renewed beyond a certain point. Although you can reapply, there is no guarantee that you will qualify for another short-term policy.
There is no dental or vision coverage.
Plans don't cover pregnancy and childbirth.
If you develop a serious condition after your coverage goes into effect, you may not qualify for another plan after your policy period expires.

Who is ineligible?

Most insurers sell short-term health policies only to people under age 65. And if you have ever been denied health insurance, you may not qualify for short-term insurance.

You shouldn't buy short-term health insurance if you are already covered by another policy. Each short-term health plan application asks a number of questions about other available coverage to determine which plan will pay first. Carrying double coverage may not be a value for your money.

You must meet acceptance guidelines, usually including acceptable height and weight.

Your state�s insurance department can provide a list of companies offering temporary or short-term health insurance policies.

Peak Services for short term / temporary health insurance

Get a free online quote right now....Click on this link !

www.reachpeak.com

Get a Quote on Life Insurance RIGHT NOW!!..It's Easy at Peak Services...

2009-05-01T11:31:00.004-05:00

How Much Life Insurance Do You Need?...
(Great excerpt from Mainstreet.com)

Life insurance is an important part of any financial strategy. But it is just as important to make sure you buy the right amount of coverage.

Life insurance is often overlooked for the simple reason that most people do not like dealing with their own mortality. But accidents happen and it is important to know that you would leave behind enough money to provide for your family.

"If you neglect your insurance needs, you're just hoping the worst doesn't happen," says Daniel D'Ordine, a certified financial planner with Life and Wealth Planning in New York City. "And that never really works."

Even if you're young and healthy, it is a good idea to consider life insurance. According to D'Ordine, there are two reasons to get life insurance. "If you die and you leave debts to be paid, or, more commonly, if you have dependents and you need to replace your income," he says. If you meet either of those two criteria, it makes sense to consider how much coverage you'd need.

Experts suggest buying coverage equivalent to eight times your gross income or 20 times your take-home pay. But those numbers largely depend on your needs and specific situation. For example, while a $500,000 policy might seem like enough to cover the income needs of a single parent, it won't if the money first has to pay off a $300,000 mortgage and $50,000 worth of student loans.

D’Ordine advises adding up what you need the money to cover. That includes existing debts such as a mortgage and car loans, future expenses such as high school and college tuition for your children, and enough money to replace your income until your spouse is able to retire. There are restrictions on how much coverage an individual can purchase—usually based on salary and the risks associated with lifestyle—so it's important to carefully think through the potential expenses.

Also, recognize that higher coverage means a higher premium. Just as it doesn't make sense to buy insufficient coverage for your needs, it can also represent a drain on your resources to buy too large of a policy.

Peak Services..the Online Insurance SuperStore....

2009-05-01T11:26:00.005-05:00

The more you know the easier it is to make decisions...

When you boil it all down, there are really only two fundamental types of life insurance policies: Permanent Life and Term Life.

Permanent Life
As the name would suggest, permanent life is a lifetime insurance policy. You might also think of it as life insurance with a savings account built in. With permanent life, a portion of the premiums you pay to the insurance company go toward establishing a “cash value” which can be withdrawn if you cancel the policy or may potentially be used to pay for future premiums on the policy. And unless you exhaust your cash value, your beneficiaries are guaranteed to receive the death benefit when you pass.

So in a way, a permanent life policy is like an investment with a life insurance component. It is particularly useful for individuals who are concerned about their ability to pay premiums in later years or for those lacking the discipline to establish a separate savings plan.

Term Life
Term life, on the other hand, provides insurance coverage for only a specified period of time. The death benefit is only paid if you die during that specified term and have paid the required premiums. At the end of the term, however, the policy expires and you walk away with nothing to show. There is no cash value built up and your insurance coverage ceases to exist unless you purchase another policy.

In other words, term life insurance provides temporary coverage. If you live past the end of the term, you will have made years of premium payments but receive no money in return from the insurer. Of course, if you were to die at the beginning of the term, you would have paid very little in the way of premiums and yet the insurance company would have to pay your beneficiaries the full policy benefit.

At first blush, term life insurance may not sound as appealing as permanent life. That is, until you get to the cost. The premiums for a term life policy can be considerably less expensive than those for a permanent life policy. That’s because with term life, you’re not contributing anything extra to build up a cash value. Instead, you’re only paying for the insurance coverage plus the insurer’s administrative expenses.

Thus term life makes the most sense for people who only need life insurance for a limited amount of time, such as until the children are grown and earning their own living, until the mortgage is paid off, or until the family can afford to carry on without your financial contribution.

If you’re still intrigued by permanent life insurance, many financial advisors suggest that disciplined savers are better off purchasing a term policy and investing the extra premium dollars that you would have spent on a permanent policy. This methodology is essentially the same thing as permanent life—i.e. insurance with a savings component—except that the savings component is not tied to the policy, giving you much more freedom in how you invest and use the funds. Assuming you make prudent investment choices, you could then use the amount invested, plus any added investment earnings, to pay future premiums on a term policy.

Term Life Policy Features
If you make the decision that term life is right for you, you must consider any added policy features that you’re willing to pay for. Options available typically include:

Renewable Term
A renewable term life policy will allow you to add another term onto the policy when the current term expires, thus extending the term of coverage. This renewal provision usually requires that you extend the policy for the same term and the same face amount as the original policy. The premiums during the second term will be higher than the original policy because you are older, but you usually won’t be required to submit any new evidence of insurability (i.e. no medical exams or health history questionnaires).

Convertible Term
A convertible term life policy will allow you to convert the policy from a term policy to a permanent policy at some point in the future without requiring new evidence of insurability. This feature can be appealing if you would really prefer a permanent life policy, with its savings component, but can’t currently afford the higher premiums.

Waiver of Premium Rider
A rider is an addendum to the policy that can either expand or limit the policy’s benefits, with a corresponding increase or decrease in premium. A waiver of premium rider will allow you to skip your premium payments if you become disabled, thus enabling you to keep the policy in force even when you can’t work and make money to pay the premiums.

Spouse Rider
A spouse rider will provide insurance coverage for your spouse in addition to yourself. This may be appealing if you need coverage for both yourself and your spouse since it will typically cost less than purchasing two separate policies.

Children’s Rider
Similar to the spouse rider, a children’s rider will provide insurance coverage for your children in addition to yourself. In addition to the added coverage being cheaper, this rider typically covers all of your children, no matter how many you have, for one premium amount. Additionally, many children’s riders will allow the child to convert the policy to his or her own life insurance policy at a specified age, without requiring evidence of insurability.

(Great excerpt from Mainstreet.com)

U.S. health insurance mandate gains support

2009-03-29T14:51:00.003-05:00

Reuters

GET SHORT TERM INSURANCE FROM PEAK...

By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Support grew on Friday for insurance industry demands that all Americans be required to obtain coverage as part of a planned healthcare system overhaul, with a senior Senate Democrat and a coalition of business and consumer groups promoting the idea.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat who is helping write healthcare legislation, said an insurance requirement, or mandate, would help the market function better and reduce premium costs for everyone.

Baucus argued that the cost of medical care for people with no insurance is being shifted to those with insurance, forcing costs higher.

"An individual obligation to get health coverage is essential," Baucus said in a speech to the Center for American Progress think tank.

Meanwhile, an influential coalition of hospital, nurses, doctors, business, consumer and insurance groups said on Friday its members had agreed on a set of reform ideas including a mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance.

The coalition, called the Health Reform Dialogue, also backed the idea of federal subsidies to help people pay for medical coverage.

The coalition includes groups such at the AARP, which represents older Americans, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans industry group, the healthcare advocacy group Families USA, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

MANY AMERICANS GO UNINSURED

There currently is no requirement that Americans have health insurance, and many do not. The government says about 46 million people went without any public or private coverage in 2007, the last year for which figures were available.

President Barack Obama has called a healthcare system overhaul one of his leading priorities for this year.

The support of this coalition and Baucus make it more likely that any healthcare legislation will embrace an insurance mandate despite concern in both parties about imposing it on people who may be unable to afford it.

Baucus did not spell out how his idea for a mandate would work, but it could be imposed on individuals, or employers could be required to provide coverage to workers, or a combination of both.

Insurance industry representatives told a Senate hearing this week that they needed a mandate to keep premiums affordable if they were going to end the current practice of charging higher premiums for the sick and excluding pre-existing medical conditions from coverage.

Obama also may be softening his stance against a mandate, telling a White House question-and-answer session on Thursday that the issue will be "part of the debate."

During his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, Obama argued against a mandate, while his rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, who is now his secretary of state, backed it

Obama said on Thursday he was still "skeptical" about a mandate because people who lack health insurance do so because they cannot afford it, not because they do not want it.

Get a free quote from PEAK for Short Term Health Insurance..up to 70% cheaper than COBRA

2009-03-16T19:48:00.003-05:00

From msnbc.com

Reports Downsized Employees Consider Dropping Health Insurance Unnecessarily

ARROYO GRANDE, CA - Facing severely decreased household income after a job loss, unemployed workers risk further financial distress by dropping their health insurance. Health insurance experts warn against making this budget cut, explaining that good medical insurance protects a family, especially if major illness or injury occurs. Struggling families can find affordable plans that offer excellent coverage.

The initial step is to learn about the options that are out there for affordable medical insurance. By taking the time to investigate how plans are different, consumers can learn which one best fits their needs. Sometimes by giving up certain control over healthcare choices, they can save money on premiums and overall healthcare costs. An HMO is a good example. There is typically a restriction on which doctors and facilities the insured can use, but the deductibles and co-pays on this type of policy are much lower than other policies like PPOs. This means that often healthcare costs are lower overall in the long run -- especially for families that make frequent visits to the doctor.

For many people, a more basic medical insurance plan is sufficient. In many cases, a comprehensive insurance plan represents spending more money for little true added benefit. Experts also recommend cutting dental and vision coverage if they are not absolutely necessary. Raising the deductible can be a sound move, providing the insured has a cash reserve. Higher coinsurance percentages will also mean taking on more of the risk, therefore premiums will be lower.

Obama has big challenge in overhauling health care

2009-02-22T13:12:00.002-06:00

Get Short Term Health Insurance from Peak Services...

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR –

WASHINGTON (AP) — Now for the hard part.

Even if the national credit card is maxed out and partisanship remains the rule for Washington's political tribes, President Barack Obama and Congress are plunging ahead with a health care overhaul.

This week, Obama will start the dialogue on how to increase coverage, restrain costs and improve quality.

Whether a bill can get through Congress and to Obama this year is uncertain. For half a century, the track record on health care has been one of missed opportunities, spectacular failures and hard-won incremental gains.

Obama plans to stress the need for major changes in his address to Congress on Tuesday, administration officials say. He quickly will follow up with a budget that includes a commitment to expand coverage for the uninsured. A White House summit on health care is being planned in coming weeks.

"They don't intend to blink. They intend to plow ahead," said health economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation. "Health reform is seen as essential to balancing the federal budget and economic recovery in the long run."

People in the U.S. spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care, or about $7,900 per person. That's more than twice as much per capita as in other advanced countries. But few would claim those dollars are buying good value. The costs are a staggering burden for taxpayers, employers and families, and the recession is leaving more people without insurance.

Yet even a self-described optimist such as Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., says he has doubts about prospects for overhauling health care. "It needs to be done up front and quickly," said Enzi, the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "I'm not so sure that we haven't already lost that, with so many other things coming in and weighing us down."

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton took the better part of a year to deliver a 1,300-page health care bill to Congress and later waved his veto pen at lawmakers who might have given him half a loaf. He got nothing. Obama has shown a tendency to be more pragmatic.

Administration and congressional officials say Obama will lay out a vision and see if Congress can make the details work. The Senate has gotten an early start and is shaping up as the proving ground for legislation.

"The Obama administration has said they are going to give the Senate a very wide berth," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who for years has tried to get Democrats and Republicans working together. "There are areas in which there is going to be spirited debate. But there are four or five major areas where there's a lot of common ground."

Polls show most people support coverage for all and believe government should help guarantee it. But what looks like consensus starts to break down once thorny details such as costs and the government's influence on the doctor-patient relationship come into the picture.

Administration officials say Obama has made a down payment by expanding coverage for children of low-income working families and by providing subsidies to help people who lose their jobs keep health benefits.

As he moves forward, Obama will follow the plan laid out in his campaign.

It calls for government, employers, families and individuals to keep sharing financial responsibility for health care. The approach would overhaul the health insurance market, particularly for self-employed people and small businesses. It would set up a national insurance purchasing "exchange" through which people would be guaranteed access to private health insurance or the choice of a new public plan.

Obama sees coverage for all as a goal to be reached in steps. His plan would not require every individual to purchase insurance. The estimated cost is about $90 billion a year, to start with.

The plan might sound simple in a brief summary, but it's not. Potential dealbreakers lurk at every turn.

Many liberals can't get excited about doing battle for just a promise — not an immediate guarantee — of coverage for all.

Conservatives and insurance companies fear that a public plan offered to workers and their families could become the gateway for Canada-style government health care for all.

Employers, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies worry that the government's already pervasive influence in health care will become stifling.

The initial work has fallen to the Senate, where Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts want to present a bill by the summer.

Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and taxes. Kennedy, who is under treatment for brain cancer, leads the Senate health committee. He has pursued the goal of coverage for all his entire career and doesn't want this opportunity to slip away.

Baucus has already outlined a plan that differs in some key details from Obama's. For example, it contemplates taxing some health insurance benefits to raise money for expanded coverage. That's an idea Obama has rejected but one that certain Republicans favor.

It takes 60 votes to get a bill through the Senate, and Democrats don't have them.

In the House, the effort seems to be moving more slowly. Senior aides from leadership offices and committees are talking. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is expected to take a leading role.

Some experts believe the issue is too complicated to try to accomplish in one year and one bill.

Watching and waiting are people such as Robyn Perry, 56, of Lake Worth, Fla., who recently lost a job with health benefits. She has struggled to find coverage now that she is self-employed. Private plans are either too expensive or won't take her because she had a ministroke several years ago. A plan sponsored by local government accepted her, but won't cover her outside her county.

"Something has to be done," said Perry. "I work. I make decent money. But I still can't get coverage. I would really like to find a normal health insurance plan that would cover me wherever I get sick, not just in Palm Beach county."

Stimulus bill leaves some behind when it comes to health insurance Subsidies given only to workers who lost their jobs after September

2009-02-15T09:58:00.004-06:00

Get Short Term Health Coverage from Peak Services

By Noam N. Levey |Washington Bureau

1:12 AM CST, February 15, 2009

WASHINGTON — John Peeler, an unemployed computer technician in South Carolina, may soon get health insurance for his wife and three children. Four months after being laid off, he is one of the lucky jobless Americans who could receive thousands of dollars in government subsidies from the new stimulus plan.

Susan McKowen, a 62-year-old breast cancer survivor from Illinois, is not so fortunate. Though she, too, lost her job in the current economic crisis, she won't be getting help with health insurance under the new law.

When President Barack Obama and his allies pulled together the $787 billion bill that passed Congress on Friday, they talked of helping workers like Peeler, McKowen and others rapidly swelling the ranks of America's 46 million uninsured.

But in the scramble to pass a bill, lawmakers made changes that left out millions of middle-class Americans who have lost their jobs and are struggling to fill a prescription or pay for a visit to the doctor.

That reflected the frenzied process that shaped the legislation in which sometimes arbitrary decisions were made to speed agreements and satisfy an array of political interest groups working to influence the gargantuan bill.

During last-minute negotiating, provisions were cut that would have opened the government-run Medicaid insurance program to the unemployed, a move opposed by conservative lawmakers.

Another provision to allow older jobless workers like McKowen to keep their employer-based coverage until they qualify for Medicare was eliminated amid opposition from business groups that said that would put new burdens on employers.

Even the rules governing which workers were eligible for aid were picked on the fly, officials acknowledged. Sensitive to businesses' concerns, senior Democrats decided to give health insurance subsidies only to workers who lost their jobs after September, even though the recession began nearly a year earlier.

That means Peeler, who was laid off in November, is eligible for assistance; McKowen, laid off 13 months ago when the recession was just starting, is not.

"It's just a matter of trying to balance interests and hold the line on spending," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a centrist Democrat who helped negotiate the compromise that narrowly cleared the Senate on Friday.

Despite the cuts, the aid package is still among the largest new federal investments in health care.

It includes $87 billion to help states shore up their Medicaid programs, which cover more than 55 million poor children, families and disabled people nationwide. States reeling from the economic downturn have been cutting services for months, threatening aid to some of the country's most vulnerable residents.

The legislation also commits $19 billion to increase the use of information technology in health care, a long-delayed objective that policymakers believe is critical to lowering costs and improving quality.

The National Institutes of Health will get $10 billion more for research into cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. And lawmakers directed more than $1 billion to boost government efforts to study the comparative effectiveness of medical procedures, pharmaceuticals and devices, another step deemed critical to long-term health reform.

But the cuts in aid to workers seeking to hold on to their old employer-based medical insurance mean the bill has some holes in it when it comes to one of the most vexing health-care issues confronting Washington—the growing number of middle-class workers who are losing health coverage as companies cut their payrolls.

An estimated 3.6 million jobs have been eliminated since the recession began at the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Unlike the very poor who rely on Medicaid, most of these people had not looked to the government for health care, instead securing insurance through their employers or buying it themselves.

Now without income, some are faced with paying more than $1,000 a month to buy a new insurance policy or to keep the coverage they had at work under the federal COBRA law, which requires workers to pay the full cost of their premiums, picking up what their employers once paid.

Peeler, 39, looked at getting COBRA insurance when he was laid off in November from an apartment management firm. But he couldn't afford the premium—more than $1,300 a month.

His unemployment check of $326 a week barely covered the mortgage and the groceries, he said. And his wife, who had been looking for a job since the beginning of last year, couldn't find any full-time work.

Nor could Peeler find private insurance for his family. Every insurer he consulted refused to cover treatment for his daughter's mild psoriasis and his son's asthma, both classified as "pre-existing conditions."

"Private insurance is a joke," said Peeler, who has been working since he was 16 and never before sought public assistance.

The stimulus package that passed Congress this weekend may ease the burden for as many as 7 million people like Peeler who lose their jobs between last September and the end of this year. Under the bill, the government will pick up 65 percent of COBRA premiums for nine months.

The aid won't help McKowen, however.

She lost her job last January when the greeting card company she had worked for since the late 1970s was restructured by new owners.

McKowen signed up for COBRA coverage, which was vital, because getting a new insurance policy would have been virtually impossible with her history of cancer.

Now, she is nearing the end of the 18-month limit on COBRA, with no options. Her husband, an accountant, is self-employed and gets his insurance on the individual market.

"I just don't know where to turn," McKowen said. "I don't like pity parties. I know there are a lot of people who are far, far worse than me. ... But I need my health insurance. It's like my lifeline."

Adam Ross, a 40-year-old San Francisco attorney who lost his job in July, has another problem.

He and his partner, who was also laid off last year, are paying $820 a month under COBRA for insurance that Ross gets through his former employer, a San Diego software firm.

The two are subletting a room in a friend's house, using Ross' severance and their savings to pay for food, rent and Ross' loans from law school. They won't get federal aid because Ross lost his job last summer, too early to qualify.

"It's kind of getting down to the wire," Ross said. "I think we have a couple more months. ... We try not to think about what happens after that."

Some lawmakers wanted to make the COBRA subsidies available to people who lost their jobs before September.

But such a move would have faced resistance from employers who have long been wary of the administrative burdens of keeping former employees on their health plans. Some companies already encourage current employees and their families not to use the health plans they offer.

Business groups successfully beat back a proposal by House Democrats to allow unemployed workers over 55 to pay to keep their employer-based health insurance for up to 10 years until they qualify for Medicare.

"COBRA should not be regarded as a source of long-term coverage," National Business Group on Health President Helen Darling wrote lawmakers last month, warning that would push up health-care costs for existing employees.

Republicans, meanwhile, rebelled at another proposal by House Democrats to open up Medicaid to those who have lost their jobs, a major shift in the program now reserved primarily for the nation's poorest families.

Many conservatives worry about enlarging a government program that is already straining to care for the poor and driving away many doctors because of the government's relatively low reimbursement rates.

Senate Democrats, who needed Republican votes to pass the stimulus legislation, did not include the Medicaid expansion in their version of the bill. It was dropped in the final compromise.

That continues to worry consumer advocates, who note that many people losing their jobs are not eligible for COBRA because their employer either did not offer insurance or has gone out of business.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that about 1.2 million people would have signed up for the Medicaid expansion.

Get Life insurance on line with Peak Services...www.reachpeak.com

2009-01-31T11:18:00.002-06:00

Having Coverage for your Family... When You Need It...Takes Planning.

From www.abajournal.com

ABA Journal Law News Now

Celebrities

Heath Ledger’s Daughter, 3, Settles $10M Life Insurance Legal Battle

Posted Jan 30, 2009, 03:22 pm CST
By Martha Neil

An insurance company that had refused to pay out on a $10 million life policy after actor Heath Ledger's death from a drug overdose, contending that it might have been a suicide excluded from coverage by the policy terms, has now agreed to a confidential settlement.

ReliaStar Life Insurance Company will pay an undisclosed amount to the 3-year-old daughter of the acclaimed star of The Dark Knight, who has been nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar for his role as the Joker in the Batman movie, reports the London Times. He won a posthumous Golden Globe award for his work in the movie earlier this month.

Although some speculated that Ledger's death on Jan. 22, 2008 from taking a cocktail of pain and sleeping medication might have been intentional, a New York medical examiner ruled it an an accidental overdose.

Ledger was 28 years old when he died.

"Ledger's lawyers are now seeking a closed hearing next month to establish a court guardian to represent the actor's daughter," reports the BBC.

A lawsuit filed last year in Los Angeles Superior Court had sought punitive damages and attorney fees concerning the life insurer's refusal to pay on Ledger's policy, contending that it was in bad faith, as discussed in an earlier ABAJournal.com post. The suit was later removed to federal court.

Ledger was an Australian and his estate is being probated there, in Perth.

No Matter What Your Opinion Is..We All Agree, Health Care Coverage Is Important.

2009-01-31T11:08:00.005-06:00

Getting Short Term Health Coverage is Easy, affordable and a Quick Fix to No Coverage.

From www.nytimes.com

Editorial

Help for 11 Million Children

Congress is moving rapidly to rectify the Bush administration’s shameful refusal to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip, to cover substantially more low- and middle-income children. That is especially important now when so many workers are losing their jobs and health benefits.

A changed political environment has finally made enlargement of this joint federal-state program possible. In 2007, Congress attempted unsuccessfully to expand the insurance program only to have its efforts stymied by two vetoes by then-President George Bush. But now there are more Democrats in Congress, and President Obama has enthusiastically endorsed the legislation.

Bills that have passed the House and the Senate would continue coverage for an estimated seven million children already enrolled in health insurance program and extend coverage to another four million children who are currently uninsured. (The House is expected to approve the Senate’s version next week and send it to the president for his signature.)

The primary target would remain what it has always been — children from working-poor families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private health insurance. That typically means families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four.

However, many states also enroll children with family incomes above that level, an especially important feature where medical and insurance costs are high. The pending bills would cover children up to 300 percent of poverty and allow states to seek waivers to go even higher, albeit at a reduced federal matching rate. The bills would cost the federal government about $32 billion in new money over four and a half years, primarily paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes.

Many Republicans object to expanding the program to children from higher-income families. They also are critical of a provision that allows states to eliminate a five-year waiting period for Medicaid and S-chip that is now imposed on immigrant children who are here legally. That provision makes good sense to us since the alternative might be forcing them to rely on costly emergency rooms.

President Bush opposed the expansion of S-chip as a dangerous step toward a government-run health care system. It’s hardly that.

It is a good step toward universal health coverage through a combination of public and private plans, as proposed by President Obama. And there is no question that it will help millions of uninsured children.

Until there is reform..Get Short Term Health Coverage!

2009-01-23T07:48:00.002-06:00

Obama Backs Health Care Reform

By Karen PallaritoHealthDay Reporter Tuesday, January 20, 2009; 12:00 AM
TUESDAY, Jan. 20 (HealthDay News) -- President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to expand access to health insurance and reform health care. Early indications now suggest that, despite an ailing economy -- or perhaps because of it -- he is resolved to keep his promise.
In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's swearing-in ceremony, the 44th president began setting the stage for health reform.
Many health policy leaders praised his nomination of former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle, who is also leading the Obama administration's newly created White House Office of Health Reform, is thought to have a solid grasp of health policy, having outlined his vision for reform in the 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis.
Earlier this month, Obama laid out an economic stimulus plan that positions health care as a cornerstone of financial growth and recovery. During his campaign, he identified health reform as a top priority, along with economic recovery and energy independence.
"The thing that's intriguing to me is, this seems to be a nice recognition of how big and how important health care is as part of the economy," said R. Paul Duncan, professor and chairman of the department of health services research, management and policy at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "There seems to be a notion that if we do good things in health care, they will not simply cost us, but in addition, they are likely to produce economic benefit."
A new national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that Americans would also like to see action on health reform. While economic recovery is far-and-away their top concern (73 percent), 43 percent said reforming health care reform should be a top priority, after fighting terrorism (48 percent).
Experts in health care policy are also advocating systemic change. According to a recent survey of "health care opinion leaders," conducted by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, 92 percent of experts favor or strongly favor allowing Americans who can't get insurance through employer plans or Medicaid/SCHIP to purchase insurance through a national health insurance exchange, as Obama has suggested.
"There really is an historic wind of opportunity for health reform," Kaiser Family Foundation President and Chief Executive Officer Drew Altman said at a press briefing on the Kaiser/Harvard survey results. In part, that opportunity is brought about by the public's concerns about paying for health care and health insurance amid a deep recession, he noted.
However, the survey also revealed wide divisions in public opinion, with roughly half (49 percent) saying they are not willing to pay more to expand access to health insurance and 47 percent saying they are. Such underlying tensions in public opinion could be exploited, "especially if there is a protracted debate," Altman conceded.
Under Obama's plan, medium and large employers that don't offer employee health benefits would pay a tax to help fund coverage -- a so-called "play-or-pay" mandate. He also pledged to expand eligibility under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). And he would create a plan much like the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to help individuals who don't have job-based coverage or don't quality for other public programs.
The House of Representatives, acting on one leg of that plan last week, voted to reauthorize and expand SCHIP. The measure would add 4 million children to the federal-state program over the next four and a half years. The Senate Finance committee approved a similar measure, which heads to the full Senate.
Other health reform measures Obama has proposed are aimed at reducing wasteful spending and improving health-care quality. Some of these are tucked into the $825 billion economy stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats earlier this month. The measure sets aside $20 billion to help the nation's doctors and hospitals computerize patient medical records, for example, and $3 billion for preventive care.
Another $87 billion would go to shore up state Medicaid programs that are reeling amid heightened demand for services.
"I think that is a hugely positive acknowledgement of reality, and it's a big enough number of dollars that it should ultimately help states and their Medicaid enrollees," Duncan said.
Obama's resolve, along with bipartisan leadership on health reform among key Congressional committees, has fueled hope that the new administration might make headway where previous administrations have failed.
"We are at the early rah-rah stage of health reform, and this could change still, but it has certainly added momentum to the effort so far," Altman said.
More information
For differing views on the Obama Administration's health care proposals, visit the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute.

Get Temporary Health Insurance & Save up to 70% off COBRA

2009-01-12T21:57:00.004-06:00

Study: COBRA consumes three-fourths of average unemployment benefits in Missouri

From News-Leader

Laid-off workers in the Ozarks are also likely to lose their health coverage for lack of an affordable alternative.

Family health premiums for COBRA, a program intended to provide safety-net coverage for unemployed workers, consume three-fourths of average unemployment benefits in Missouri, according to a new study by Families USA.

In nine states COBRA premiums cost more than 100 percent of unemployment benefits, the study shows.

The report by the consumer health organization focuses on the unaffordability of COBRA coverage – which allows laid-off workers to retain their employer-sponsored insurance if those laid-off workers pay the full cost of that coverage.

According to the report, on average nationally, unemployment insurance benefits are $1,278 while COBRA monthly premiums for family coverage are $1,069 — or 83.6 percent of Unemployment Insurance benefits.

In Missouri and 40 other states and the District of Columbia, COBRA family coverage premiums, on average, consume more than three-fourths of average unemployment insurance benefits.

COBRA premiums for single coverage of workers consume, on average, more than one-third of unemployment insurance income.

“COBRA health coverage is great in theory and lousy in reality,” said Ron Pollack, Families USA’s executive director. “For the vast majority of workers who are laid off, they and their families are likely to join the ranks of the uninsured.”

“The right to COBRA health coverage is a tragic ruse for millions of families whose breadwinner was laid off,” Pollack said. “Unemployed workers need either premium subsidies to help them afford COBRA benefits or temporary health safety-net coverage through Medicaid.”

The report’s data about states’ Unemployment Insurance benefits were obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Life insurance booms as public becomes cautious

2008-12-29T22:19:00.001-06:00

AS the financial services industry stumbles from one disaster to the next, one slice of the sector -- life insurance -- is growing like topsy as Australians increasingly look to protect their income and lifestyle.

The way the industry sees it, the sector will hit its straps over the next decade as the population gets older and the economic downturn triggers a new-found conservatism in younger people taking out life insurance to protect their assets.

The sector grabbed attention on August 8 when Japanese life insurance giant Dai-ichi offered the only listed life insurer, Tower, a 34 per cent premium to the then share price to replace Sir Ron Brierley's Guinness Peat Group as the cornerstone investor with a 30 per cent stake. Dai-ichi paid $3.75 a share for the stake. The stock is currently trading at $2.12.

This interest in life insurance has prompted speculation that the banks, in need of capital to restore their balance sheets, will either sell or joint-venture their life insurance businesses, which are worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion each.

The biggest life insurer is Commonwealth Bank, which has a 14.7 per cent market share, followed by National Australia Bank with 12.9 per cent and ING with 12.5 per cent.

As one investment banker said: "The big life insurance players in Australia are inside the big banks.

"In this environment, it doesn't matter how well the life insurance side of their business is doing.

"It is being dwarfed by the other negatives dominating the banks: exposures to collateralised debt obligations, a blowout in bad and doubtful debts, falling equity markets hurting their funds management businesses and a rising cost of debt."

Tower, which is the fourth-biggest life insurer with an 11 per cent market share, would no doubt be keen to take part in any consolidation, particularly given the deep pockets of its new shareholder Dai-ichi, which has consistently said it wants to increase its exposure to the Austalian market.

It is not hard to see why: according to financial services research house DEXX&R, the life insurance sector has been growing at least 12 per cent a year for the past few years and by 2017 it will treble to $6 billion.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian, Tower Australia boss Jim Minto said he was keen to expand Tower. He said it had a clean balance sheet and was looking for opportunities.

To this end, it recently forked out $136 million to acquire the 85 per cent of life insurance distributor InsuranceLine it did not already own.

"We have a simple business model and while global financial markets are sorting out a mess that will take years to unravel, I believe life insurance will do well," he said.

"When you are in a bull market people don't think things will go wrong for them. That has changed suddenly and now people are ... saying 'I can't afford life insurance but I have to have it'," Mr Minto said.

Besides a desire to reduce risk, other factors are making life insurance attractive. They include an ageing population, a conservative breed of young people taking out life insurance to protect their assets, and financial planners routinely offering life insurance inside super funds. It's not just financial planners feeling the need to flog something other than investment products.

As its name suggests, life insurance involves protecting your dependents against an untimely death. But these days it's just as likely to be about protecting your income against illness or other misfortunes.

Life insurance products have gained popularity among financial planners because investors have been deterred from putting their money into other wealth products closely linked to sharemarket returns.

E.L. & C. Baillieu analyst Stewart Oldfield said: "Life insurance has ditched its image of being an ex-growth product sold only by an ageing and compromised planner force to one where it has a legitimate long-term place alongside superannuation as a wealth-protection tool."

But things weren't always this easy for Mr Minto.

Like the banks, Mr Minto knows a lot about monster debt and the types of financial instruments that are currently wreaking havoc on the global credit markets.

He got his first taste of it the day he was appointed chief executive of Tower Australia back in November 2002.

"I took the job with a day's notice and had to announce a massive loss of $100 million and cut the cost base by one-third," he said.

"It was a dire situation and everybody was panicking about our survivability." At the time, Tower Australia -- then part of the New Zealand Tower Group -- had a $30 million collateralised debt obligation that needed to be thrown in the dumpster.

Serendipitously, this experience repelled Tower from further investment in these instruments.

Tower also had a number of disparate and non-performing businesses, had just posted a multi-million loss and was under the stern gaze of the insurance regulator.

"It got down to a confidence issue.

"I couldn't afford to lose my nerve.

"The regulator was investigating the company, the banks had a big team inside crawling all over us to make sure we would survive, morale in the company was really low and I had to tell staff on December 15, 10 days before Christmas, that we were making 100 people redundant straight away."

Six years on, New Zealand-born Mr Minto has turned the company from a financial basket case into the country's only pure listed life insurance company, boasting one of the best-performing share prices of the financial services sector in the past year, record profits, fat profit margins, a spectacular industry growth outlook over the next decade, and a brand new strategic partner.

Mr Minto's handling of the odious task speaks volumes about the 57-year-old Kiwi's firm but affable management style.

He invited the sacked staff to the company Christmas party to reassure them it wasn't their fault but the fault of management.

The decision was controversial and caused mayhem. "But I said to everyone, we are all in this together, the people staying are lucky and the ones that are going are going because management did stuff that was wrong.

"It ended up being a positive occasion.

"I did it because I wanted to send a message to everyone that people are important and it wasn't their fault. They were getting smashed on TV, in the newspapers and I needed to get the team believing in itself quickly.

"It was a healing day and it brought the company together."

But the straight-talking Mr Minto said it was not easy restoring Tower to its current financial position, least of all convincing the investment community that the best move for Tower was to sell most of its businesses and concentrate on life insurance. "Most analysts and fund managers thought it was a joke," he said.

"I remember one saying to me 'life insurance? You have to be joking'. At that stage there were high interest rates and high unemployment, so income protection claims had been high, and most people thought the industry was unattractive."

Mr Minto is so passionate about life insurance that some of his favourite hobbies -- sailing, home renovating, exploring Australia and golf -- have fallen by the wayside.

Plenty of challenges and opportunities remain -- none more so than taking advantage of the vulnerable position of key local rival AIG, whose parent was recently rescued by the US Federal Reserve. "We want to be the market leader in future thinking and trends in life insurance," Mr Minto said.

From "The Australian, Business with the Wall Street Journal"

Get Life insurance on line with Peak Services...www.reachpeak.com

2008-12-09T15:28:00.007-06:00

From CNNMONEY.COM

Top things to know

1. All policies fall into one of two camps.

There are term policies, or pure insurance coverage. And there are the many variants of whole life, which combine an investment product with pure term insurance and build cash value.

2. Insurance is sold, not bought.

Agents sell the vast majority of life policies written in the U.S. because the life insurance industry has a vested interest in pushing high-commission (and high-profit) whole-life policies.

3. Whole life is expensive.

Policies with an investment component cost many times more than term policies. As a result, many people who buy whole life often can't afford an adequate face value, leaving themselves underinsured.

4. Whole-life policies are built on assumptions.

The returns quoted by the agent are simply guesses - not reality. And some companies keep these guesses of future returns on the high side to attract more buyers.

5. Keep your investing and insurance strictly separate.

There are better places to invest - and without the high commissions of whole-life policies.

6. Buy enough term coverage to fill your needs.

Life insurance is no place to skimp, especially with rates at historic lows.

7. Match the term of the policy to your needs.

You want the policy to last as long as it takes for your dependents to leave the nest - or for your retirement income to kick in.

8. Buy when you're healthy.

Older people and those not in the best of health pay steeply higher rates for life insurance - so buy as early as you can, but don't buy until you have dependents.

9. Tell the truth.

There's no sense in shading the facts on your application to get a lower rate. Be assured that if a large claim is made, the insurance company will investigate before paying.

10. Use the Web to shop.

Buying life insurance has never been easier, thanks to the Internet. You can get tons of quotes - and avoid the pushy salespeople....
PEAK SERVICES No Agents No Appointments No Hassles www.reachpeak.com

Short term Health coverage can be up to 70% Cheaper than COBRA

2008-12-08T15:25:00.006-06:00

Posted From - Los Angeles Times

No job doesn't have to mean no insurance

Laid-off workers are guaranteed an opportunity to obtain coverage, if they can afford it.

By Lisa Girion
December 7, 2008

If you lose your job, you should be able to maintain your health insurance coverage -- but it will cost you.

The easiest and often the least expensive way to get health insurance if you are out of work is through a spouse. If your spouse has group benefits on the job, have him or her add you to that plan. Such group plans can't exclude people with preexisting conditions, and they are less expensive than other options because the employer is picking up the lion's share of the premium.

If that's not an option, you may be able to get coverage under COBRA. The federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act requires employers of 20 or more people to extend coverage for 18 months to workers who lose their jobs. This is also available to people whose jobs are reduced to part-time status.

The catch is that you must pay for this coverage yourself at a time when you no longer have a paycheck coming in. And it's not cheap. You must pay the entire premium, including the part your employer was paying, plus 2%.

"What I have found most difficult for folks to understand when they are faced with making a decision regarding whether to take COBRA coverage is that they have come to think that the cost of health insurance is the same as what their previous payroll deduction amount was," said Sam Smith, an insurance broker in Hollywood who is a vice president with the California Assn. of Health Underwriters. "They are quite shocked when they see the actual premium the employer pays.

"In fact, it is more the rule than the exception that a terminated employee thinks that the COBRA premium is much more expensive than the premium the employer was paying," he said. "They feel they are being penalized in some way."

Monthly premiums for COBRA and Cal-COBRA coverage vary depending on age, type of plan (health maintenance organization or preferred provider organization) and the size of your former employer. For example, HMO coverage for a 25-year-old who had worked for a small employer would cost about $250 a month, while the premium for PPO coverage for a 55-year-old could exceed $1,000 a month. Larger employers are able to drive better bargains with insurers, so premiums for employees leaving those companies tend to be a bit less and may not vary by age.

COBRA coverage cannot be denied because of a preexisting condition, and it often has richer benefits than what individuals could buy on their own. But young and healthy consumers may find cheaper coverage with an individual policy.

The state Cal-COBRA law makes extended health coverage available to people who lose their jobs at small employers (19 or fewer workers). It also adds 18 months to the federal COBRA extension, so policy holders can keep coverage going for up to three years.

If you are unemployed after three years of COBRA, you still have options. Insurers are required to sell you individual coverage -- regardless of preexisting conditions -- under another federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. You are eligible for this coverage if you had group coverage for 18 months or more and your COBRA coverage has run out.

Again, this coverage is not cheap. In fact, insurers can charge 170% of the market rate for a HIPAA policy. But if you've got preexisting conditions and no job-based coverage, it may be your only option. To be eligible for Cal-COBRA, you must apply within 62 days of losing your original COBRA coverage.

If you let your health coverage lapse for 62 days or more, your options are very limited. You may try to buy coverage in the individual market, but insurers can and do screen out consumers with preexisting conditions.

A last resort is California's high-risk pool, known as the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program. The benefits are limited and are capped at $75,000 annually. Also, the premiums are higher -- about 125% of individual market rates. Despite all this, the state's high-risk pool often has a waiting list.
For a Free Quote go to www.reachpeak.com and find out how cheap and how fast Short Term Health (aka Temporary Health Insurance) Can Be...

Smart Gift For the Christmas Season

2008-12-05T10:42:00.005-06:00

Children's Life Insurance - Life Insurance for Kids

Parents and grandparents want the best for the little loved ones in their lives—from keeping them healthy and happy to providing for their financial future.

Children’s life insurance is a tool many families use to give their children a financial foundation that they can draw upon when they are older.

The lowest cost life insurance you can buy is the one you qualify for right now: Rates rise with age. It comes as no surprise, then, that rates for a child—as young as two weeks old—is the least expensive insurance you can buy. The low rates make whole life insurance (coverage for a whole lifetime)affordable for almost everyone. Because whole life premiums are locked in at the beginning, they will never increase with the child’s age—regardless of whatever health issues may arise.

Whole life insurance has the added advantage of accumulating cash value over time. This cash value is a financial asset that the grown child can borrow against or use as collateral. In addition, the money borrowed is not subject to income tax, whether or not the loan amount is repaid.

By the time the child turns twenty, the cash value of a whole life policy will likely be equal to or greater than the amount of the premiums paid. If you paid $10 a month for a $15,000 policy, after 20 years the policy would have a cash value of $2,400 or more. A $35,000 policy would have a cash value of about $5,700. Some life insurance programs provide for an automatic doubling of the policy’s face value when the child turns 21—without a change in the premium. In addition, you or the adult child may be able to purchase additional coverage on certain policy anniversary dates, also without increasing the premium.

The primary reason for buying any kind of life insurance is to insure against untimely death. This is not something parents or grandparents wish to think about. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to the survivors, including a child’s siblings. Funeral and burial expenses and unpaid medical bills can affect the finances of an entire family at a time when grief and stress are already at an extreme level. Life insurance is a way of protecting everyone.

from lifeinsurancewiz

Between Jobs-Get Short Term Health Insurance

2008-12-01T06:19:00.002-06:00

Tough Times

About 1,000 affected by steel plant’s shutdown

By Benita Heath | The Tribune

Published Saturday, November 29, 2008

She calls herself a single, hardworking mom who loves sports and loves to sing.

So when Susan Taylor of Ironton found out after eight months on the job at AK Steel she was facing a layoff, her first thought was automatic.

It was about her six children. This wasn’t the first union job Taylor has worked so she knew the drill. Anyone coming on board only in March wouldn’t be vested.

That meant her health insurance would run out at the end of the month.

“I have children in school and my first concern was for my kids,” she said last week when she stopped into the Steelworkers Union Hall in Ashland, Ky., for a minute. “I have a son who had an injury playing football. I wasn’t concerned for myself, but for my kids. I’ve worked jobs when I have had to struggle.”

Belt-tightening is something Taylor, a utility tech in the masonry department, has done before and done well.

“I’ve been on that side of the board before,” she said. “The Good Lord doesn’t take you places without His grace to get you places.”

A week after the election of Barack Obama, who campaigned partly on his ability to effect a change in the economic turmoil rocking the nation, AK Steel announced layoffs that continue to stun the Tri-State.

Starting last week the Ashland Works’ blast furnace, casting and coating operations were idled leaving a skeleton crew in the mill.

A week before Thanksgiving 545 steelworkers were out on the street. A couple of days ago 100 more got their notices. Add to that approximately 300 independent contractors who work in the plant and the picture becomes clear.

“You are talking about over 1,000 before it is over,” Mike Hewlett, Steelworkers Local 1865 president, said.

The reason for the shutdown flashes across the national nightly news shows with the constancy of the North Star. It’s the financial miasma the Detroit automakers find themselves lost in as the CEOs have rushed to Washington begging for help.

“We’re tied into the automobile factories,” Hewlett said in a recent interview with The Tribune. “For every auto worker job there are five or six attached to it across the nation. They should be able to give a bailout. They should probably get the autoworkers and the big CEOs and get them all together and say, ‘Gentlemen, figure out a plan to revamp the auto industry.’ That way it would be a solid plan.”

That possibility, however, was dampened when the Detroit leaders went before Congress, Hewlett contends.

“The CEOs showed up in private jets. That was an ego trip,” the union chief said. “When you put this many people on the street, you double and triple that by the family. You are getting 1,500, 2,000 not in good buying power.”

Yet as quickly as the layoffs were announced, there was the proverbial silver lining with management at AK Steel predicting the workers will get called back by the first of the year.

“They are just talking about the middle of January at this time,” Hewlett said. “It will be a process to get them back. They’ll first bring back the maintenance to start checking over the equipment and the operations people will be back behind them.”

Hewlett said that could take between a week or two, leaving the workers with the reality of at least 30 days to get through with bills, mortgage and car payments, let alone Christmas to pay for.

It’s a reality Mark Lynch of Ironton has faced down before. In fact, he knows the scenario at its worst when a plant is padlocked and the key thrown away.

Lynch, a native of Virginia, worked electronics for Motorola in Harvard, Ill., when the plant went belly up.

“Things are a little different here,” Lynch, who is also the local’s treasurer, said. “We knew (in Illinois) there was no job to go back to. They were shutting down doctors’ offices. Gas stations were closing. This is some hope we will be back. The company is very adamant. We will go back to work.”

Joe Urwin of Franklin Furnace has six years with the mill yet admits when the rumors of a layoff started floating about he got nervous.

His wife, Melanie, is expecting their second child in February, a daughter the couple plans to name Maura.

After Melanie had their son, Michael, three years ago, she went part-time in her job as a surgical tech with an ophthalmology clinic in Ashland. That changed abruptly last week.

“Hopefully we will be back in January. We will get through. It is kind of hard,” Urwin said. “My pregnant wife going back to work full time. That’s kind of hard. She was really stressed. We’re taking it one day at a time.”

Right now between sub pay, which AK Steel is contracted to pay, and state unemployment benefits, the steelworkers will get about 60 percent of their regular straight-time pay, Hewlett said.

That will be at least $250 a week, Lynch said.

But when this is the first time for some, nerves can rule.

“They’re scared to death,” Lynch said. “I can relate to that. I have been in their shoes. We’ve had people calling in here wanting to know about their COBRA (temporary health insurance plan.)”

Through quick negotiations with AK Steel, all laid off workers will have health benefits, including Susan Taylor and 118 like her who were not vested.

The company has extended their benefits along with those with more time in.

It’s his opinion that was done because the company didn’t want to lose those workers, Lynch said.

With the health issue resolved, Taylor is seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel. But her thoughts and actions still revolved around those precious six — her children.

“I don’t let them see me afraid so they’re not afraid,” she said. “I put on a great front. I never let them see me sweat.”

Peak Services offers Online Processing for Quick Coverage-Click on our link for a Free Quote!

Short Term Health can be up to 70% Cheaper than COBRA plans...find out now.

Life Insurance From Current-Argus

2008-11-25T12:14:00.003-06:00

A little bit about life insurance

Submitted to the Current-Argus

Posted: 11/24/2008 08:40:59 PM MST

Term life insurance is the original form of life insurance and is considered to be pure insurance protection because it builds no cash value. This is in contrast to permanent life insurance such as whole life, universal life and variable universal life which do build a cash value.

Term life insurance provides coverage for a limited period of time. After that period, the policy can be dropped or the insured can pay annually increasing premiums to continue the coverage. If the insured dies during the term, the death benefit will be paid to the beneficiary. Term insurance is often the most inexpensive way to purchase a substantial amount of coverage at the lowest possible premium. The premium can be fixed for a period of up to 30 years.

Because term insurance is a pure death benefit, its primary use is to provide for covering financial responsibilities of the insured. Such responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, mortgages, consumer debt, dependent care and college education for dependents, and funeral costs.

Buying term and investing the difference is a concept involving term life insurance and investment strategies that provide individuals an alternative to permanent life insurance. Generally speaking, term insurance premiums are considerably less expensive in the short term than permanent life insurance for an individual for the same benefit amount. Permanent programs are more expensive because they typically combine some form of cash accumulation with the insurance program as a single package. Consumers making use of the "buy term invest the difference" concept, separate their investments from their insurance by setting aside money every month equal to the premium that a permanent plan would require, then use a portion of this money for the term premium and place the rest in a tax-deferred investment vehicle.

A NON-tobacco using 40-year-old male, in good health, can purchase $250,000 of term insurance for a 30 year term at about $35 per month, while a 30-year-old male in the same category can buy the coverage for about $23 per month. Yet, according to LIMRA International, 44 percent of American households either don't own life insurance and believe they should, or own life insurance and think they need more coverage.

Term life insurance is the most affordable way to protect you and your family from a premature death.

Alan Jenkins.

From West Indies...Lack of insurance, a universal concern.

2008-11-24T11:49:00.006-06:00

Insurance is a safety net for the future…says Gary DaSilva

By Terresa McCall
Reporter-SKNVibes.com

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – GARY DASILVA, who has ploughed the field of insurance for some 45 years, is urging persons TO acquire proper and adequate insurance coverage as this acts as a safety net in the event of unforeseen incidents.

Speaking with SKNVibes, DaSilva declared that just about 30 percent of the St. Kitts-Nevis population is uninsured and the remaining 70 percent is without that safety net.

The former Chairman of the Insurance Association of the Caribbean explained that while other areas of insurance are important, property insurance and life insurance are two forms of investment which should be made.

Specifically referring to property insurance, DaSilva explained that it is of supreme significance, especially since owning a home is the “biggest single investment” which most persons would ever make.

“In terms of general insurance and property insurance in particular in this country, we have a lot of persons owning their own homes. In a number of cases, owing your own home is the biggest single investment a lot of us would ever make and, with the frequency of hurricanes, storms, earthquakes and so forth, I think it’s very important that you protect that investment through purchasing insurance.”

Every young man, woman and couple, DaSilva stressed, should acquire some form of life insurance as a means of protection, particularly in cases where the breadwinner of the family is deceased.

“Take for instance, a situation where there are a husband, wife and children to be educated. It is already difficult with two salaries, and if the breadwinner is taken away you would want those children to remain in the same good neighbourhood with proper upbringing and so forth. If you don’t have those funds to fill in the gaps to ensure that the mortgage is continued and to ensure that those children’s education is taken care of, here is where I have seen life insurance coming into play.”

Although motor insurance is mandatory in the Federation of St. Christopher and Nevis, DaSilva noted that the amount of coverage one possesses must be adequate so as to provide for sufficient compensation to casualties of an accident.

“I know it’s compulsory by law but, certainly, each and every one of us must ensure that we are adequately covered by insurance. Let us take for example, passenger busses…if they are not at all covered, you understand that if there is an accident, people can be maimed for life with no benefit at all. So, how do you go about feeling comfortable about yourself when you know that you may have been the cause of an accident and then you see someone who is being pushed around in a wheelchair because of your negligence, or even death to the breadwinner of a family for that matter? A lot of things can go wrong from that. If you take the breadwinner away, that can lead to delinquent children.”

St. Kitts and Nevis is one of the countries in which health insurance is not obligatory. DaSilva, who feels that this should not be, expressed to this media house his wish is that “there could be a system in this country where every single person is compelled to have health insurance, or that it would become compulsory.”

“You must understand what financial disaster can take place to any family because of the high cost of health care today. I assume some families really try their best to save money and that sort of thing; however, when it comes to health, that costs running and running and you are still in the hospital and the surgical bills are coming in. You can’t even get better because you are worrying about where the money is going to come from.”

Ailing Health-Care System

2008-11-23T21:39:00.002-06:00

5 Myths About Our Ailing Health-Care System

By Shannon Brownlee and Ezekiel Emanuel

Sunday, November 23, 2008; Page B03

With Congress ready to spend $700 billion to prop up the U.S. economy, enacting health-care reform may seem about as likely as the Dow hitting 10,000 again before the end of the year. But it may be more doable than you think, provided we dispel a few myths about how health care works and how much reform Americans are willing to stomach.

1. America has the best health care in the world.

Let's bury this one once and for all. The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed countries on virtually every health statistic you can name. Life expectancy at birth? We rank near the bottom of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, just ahead of Cuba and way behind Japan, France, Italy, Sweden and Canada, countries whose governments (gasp!) pay for the lion's share of health care. Infant mortality in the United States is 6.8 per 1,000 births, more than twice as high as in Japan, Norway and Sweden and worse than in Poland and Hungary. We're doing a better job than most on reducing smoking rates, but our obesity epidemic is out of control, our death rate from prostate cancer is only slightly lower than the United Kingdom's, and in at least one study, American heart attack patients did no better than Swedish patients, even though the Americans got twice as many high-tech treatments.

Moreover, the quality of health care is different in different parts of the country. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have issued a list of 26 measures of quality, such as making sure that heart-attack patients being discharged from the hospital get a prescription for a beta blocker or aspirin to help reduce the risk of a second attack. It turns out that quality is all over the map, and it isn't necessarily better in the places we might expect, such as academic medical centers. Worse still, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), there appears to be no connection between how much Medicare and other payers spend on patients in different parts of the country and the quality of the care the patients receive. You are no more likely to get that beta blocker or aspirin in Los Angeles than in Portland, even though Medicare spends twice as much per beneficiary in Los Angeles.

2. Somebody else is paying for your health insurance.

Nope. Even when your employer offers coverage, he isn't reaching into his own pocket to cover you and your fellow employees; he's reaching into your pocket, paying you lower wages than he would if he didn't have to pay for your health insurance.

Rising health-care costs are partly to blame for stagnant wages. Over the past five years, health insurance premiums have risen 5.5 times faster on average than inflation, 2.3 times faster than business income and four times faster than workers' earnings. Four times. That's why wages have been nearly flat since the 1980s, even as U.S. productivity has been going up. In effect, about half the money you should be earning for being more productive is being sucked up by ever more expensive health-insurance premiums.

If you pay taxes, you're also paying for the health care provided through state and federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration and the military. All told, the average family of four is coughing up $29,000 a year for health care through taxes, lower wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

3. We would save a lot if we could cut the administrative waste of private insurance.

The idea that we could wring billions of dollars in savings this way is seductive, but it wouldn't really accomplish that much. For one thing, some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it's also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals.

Let's just say that we could wave a magic wand and cut private insurers' overhead by half, to what the Canadian government spends on administering its health-care system -- 15 percent. How much would we save? Not as much as you may think. Private insurers pay a little more than a third of what we spend on health care, which means that we'd cut a little more than 5 percent from our total budget, or about $124 billion. That's not peanuts, but it's not even enough to cover everybody who's currently uninsured.

More to the point, we only get to save it once. That's because administrative waste isn't what's driving health-care costs up faster than inflation. Most of the relentless rise can be attributed to the expansion of hospitals and other health-care sectors and the rapid adoption of expensive new technologies -- new drugs, devices, tests and procedures. Unfortunately, only a fraction of all that new stuff offers dramatically better outcomes. If we're worried about costs, we have to ask whether a $55,000 drug that prolongs the lives of lung cancer patients for an average of a few weeks is really worth it. Unless we find a cure for our addiction to the new but not necessarily improved, our national medical bill will continue to skyrocket, regardless of how efficient insurance companies become.

4. Health-care reform is going to cost a bundle.

Only if you think that covering the uninsured is our only priority. Yes, making health care available to all citizens is the right thing to do. But it isn't the only thing to do. We also have to fix the spectacularly wasteful and expensive way doctors and hospitals deliver care.

Our physicians are working within a truly dysfunctional, often chaotic system that prevents them from caring for us properly. Between 50,000 and 100,000 patients die each year from preventable medical errors. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 1.7 million Americans acquire an infection while in the hospital and nearly 100,000 of them die from it. Laboratory imaging tests are routinely repeated because the originals can't be found. Patients with such chronic illnesses as heart failure and diabetes land in the hospital because their physicians fail to monitor their condition. When patients have multiple doctors, there's often nobody keeping track of the different medications, tests and treatments each one prescribes.

Our doctors and hospitals are failing to provide us with care we need while delivering a staggering amount that we don't need. Current estimates suggest that as much as 20 to 30 percent of what we spend, or about $500 billion, goes toward useless, potentially harmful care.

There are two bright spots. One: We can improve the quality of care and cut costs without rationing. There are models out there for how to do it right -- the Mayo Clinic, the Geisinger Clinic in Pennsylvania, the Cleveland Clinic and California's Kaiser Permanente are just a few of the organized group practices that are doing a better job for less. Their doctors are better than average at using the best medical evidence available. They're more likely to be using electronic medical records, which can help keep track of patients who have multiple physicians and need complex care. And they're less likely to provide unnecessary care.

Two: Even moderate reform of the delivery system would improve care and save money. The Lewin Group's analysis shows that a bill proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, calling for a more comprehensive overhaul of the health-care system than either McCain's plan or Obama's could actually insure everyone and save $1.4 trillion over 10 years. More reform is cheaper.

5. Americans aren't ready for a major overhaul of the health-care system.

We may be readier than you think. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 7 percent of Americans rate our health-care system excellent. Nearly 40 percent consider it poor. A whopping 70 percent believe it needs major changes, if not a complete overhaul.

Now is not the time to think small, to cover a few million Americans and leave the bigger job of controlling costs and improving quality for another day. We can't afford not to reform the delivery system as soon as possible. At 17 percent of gross domestic product, health care is the biggest single sector of the economy, and it's consuming a larger and larger proportion every year. According to CBO projections, health care will account for 25 percent of GDP by 2025 and 49 percent by 2082. That's simply unsustainable. Any plan that reforms health care has to do more than simply cover the uninsured. The nation's health and wealth depend on it.

brownlee@newamerica.net

Shannon Brownlee, a visiting scholar at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, is the author of "Overtreated." Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and author of "Healthcare, Guaranteed," is chairman of the center's Department of Bioethics. The views expressed here are the authors' own.

Associated Press - Pitch for health coverage mandate

2008-11-19T14:34:00.001-06:00

Insurers make pitch for health coverage mandate

By KEVIN FREKING – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The health insurance industry said Wednesday it will support a national health care overhaul that requires them to accept all customers, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, but in return it wants lawmakers to mandate that everyone buy coverage.

Lawmakers have signaled their intent to craft health care legislation early next year, and the insurance industry's support would make passage easier. That legislation is expected to closely track the proposals of president-elect Barack Obama. However, Obama separated himself from his Democratic challengers by opposing an individual mandate for adults to buy health insurance.

More lawmakers may agree to a mandate if it means the insurance industry will back those efforts. They'll remember it was the industry's opposition 15 years ago that helped scuttle former President Clinton's health plan.

The board of directors for America's Health Insurance Plans agreed to the trade-off Monday night. The board endorsed the proposal after a series of hearings in various states.

"We hope this will be a contribution to help members of Congress fashion their proposal," said Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive officer of the trade group. "We're going to provide all the technical background that we have assembled, all the experience we've assembled at the state level, and we're going to work very hard with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We want to make sure that whatever reforms are advanced, no one falls through the cracks."

Obama's health plan calls for a health insurance exchange, a sort of government-run shopping center where customers could go to select from private plans or a plan administered by the federal government. Any insurer that wants to participate in that exchange must accept all customers regardless of pre-existing health conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease.

Insurers will want to participate in the exchange because government subsidies will make it easier for millions of people to buy coverage from them. But the insurers say that experience in the states shows the coverage guarantee often made it harder for people to find coverage. That's because insurers raised premiums to meet the expense of covering all applicants with chronic health conditions.

"They ended up making the problem much worse," Ignagni said of the state efforts. "The data is clear about the need to have everyone part of the system."

Analysts say Massachusetts is an example where the coverage guarantee has worked well, but it's also a state that requires everyone to buy health coverage or suffer a tax penalty.

Some key Democratic lawmakers have already expressed support for an individual mandate. The concept was a centerpiece of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan. It was also part of the blueprint offered last week by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Fixing The Insurance Market from NationalJournal.com

2008-11-17T16:29:00.002-06:00

Monday, November 17, 2008

Fixing The Insurance Market: Solutions For A Serious Problem

How should policy makers fix the current insurance market for individuals? What is the best policy approach, and what has to happen to avoid a Republican or industry attack that could kill health care reform efforts?

While there is agreement that the market for buying health insurance as an individual doesn't work well, and that the system needs serious improvement before more people can be added, proposals for how to do it vary significantly.

Republicans generally want to give insurers new freedoms to offer a variety of health plans, even plans with catastrophic benefits, and to allow people to buy insurance in any state they wish. The idea is to create competition among health insurers to lower costs.

Democrats, however, want to crack down on insurers. President-elect Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., have both proposed prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions and poor health status. Insurers have indicated that they could live with this only if every person has insurance.

-- Marilyn Werber Serafini, NationalJournal.com

Get Life Insurance While You Can..Waiting Can Be Costly!

2008-11-02T17:09:00.000-06:00

The life insurance process can be timely, the more coverage you seek the longer the underwriting process can be. Some companies allow coverage with out a medical exam, only asking a few simple questions to bind coverage. The amount you pay or the premium, is based on your age and current health. Smokers always pay more premium. Should your health get better down the road, you can always look for a better rate based on your current health status. All things considered, you don't know when your time is up....get coverage immediately for peace of mind. When you get better health or researched the best policy for you..just change. In the mean time you have coverage for your family should something unexpected happen.

How much coverage you need is based on what you are trying to replace or what you were planning on doing. Do you plan on putting children through college? Do you want to pay off the mortgage? Do you want your salary replaced for 10 or 20 years or more? Ultimately, you can't get enough coverage. a good place to start is by finding out the maximum amount of coverage you qualify for and seeing if it fits your budget. if you need to, work backwards from there.

Good things to know.....

The healthier you are, the better the rates
It's true - healthy people get better rates on life insurance. You will be asked to pay a higher rate for anything that shortens your life expectancy (e.g., if you smoke, take medications regularly, are overweight, have a bad driving record).

Buy sooner rather than later
If you've been putting off purchasing life insurance because you don't want to pay the premiums, you may be doing yourself a disservice in the long run. The younger you are when you purchase life insurance, the lower your premiums will be.

Don't rely solely on the life insurance offered by your employer
Many employers offer their employees some sort of group life insurance. But this amount of coverage is usually not enough to adequately meet your life insurance needs. In addition, group life insurance policies are not portable, meaning that if you leave your job, you can't take your life insurance coverage with you.

Buying more is sometimes cheaper
Life insurance usually costs less per thousand dollars once you get into higher coverage amounts (e.g., $250,000). If the numbers work out, you may be able to pay a lower premium while increasing your coverage.

More than anything else..get coverage while you can!

Peak Services - Helping you Reach your Peak

Online Insurance Superstore
No Medical Exam! just a few simple health questions..No nurses, No needles, No Hassles

Free Quotes and coverage in seconds!

Guest Post via Gannett News Service

2008-10-31T12:27:00.000-05:00

McCain, Obama agree it's time to get tough with drug industry

By Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON - The presidential candidates may have very different overall proposals to changing the nation's health care system, but Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama both talk tough about taking on the pharmaceutical industry.

Both say they would lower drug prices by increasing competition from generic drugs, allow importation of prescription drugs from other countries, and try to cut the price the government pays for drugs for senior citizens, although they would do so in different ways.

"We know one thing," said Jack Calfee, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "We're going to have an administration that's hostile to the industry."

Obama frequently promises on the campaign trail to "take on the drug and insurance companies and hold them accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause."

After McCain criticized drug companies during a GOP primary debate for blocking importation of prescription drugs from Canada, one of his fellow GOP contenders admonished McCain not to turn drug companies "into the bad guys."

McCain shot back: "Well, they are."

"This is an area where (McCain and Obama) tend to be in more agreement," said Jennifer Tolbert, a principal policy analyst at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which has compared the candidates' health care proposals. "But it's key that both candidates see prescription drugs as an area that needs to be focused on as part of a strategy to reduce overall health care costs."

Guest Article via Washington Times

2008-10-29T15:32:00.002-05:00

Next president must put health in health care

By Sheldon Whitehouse and Newt Gingrich, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In the race for president, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have put the issue of health care back in the spotlight.

This may seem off message, given the turmoil in the financial markets, but they are right to return to it. Lest we forget, health care is one-sixth of our economy - more than $2 trillion every year - and it is badly broken.

Like millions of our fellow Americans, we are deeply frustrated with our health care system. We remain alarmed watching it consume 16 percent of our GDP and growing, watching our infant mortality and obesity rates climb to levels of international embarrassment, knowing 100,000 Americans are killed each year by avoidable medical errors, seeing health care costs crush American businesses and debilitate our competitiveness abroad, watching an estimated 50 million Americans suffer without insurance coverage, and hearing of so many American families going into medical bankruptcy.

We also see catastrophic implications looming for our federal budget. Medicare and Medicaid consume 4 percent of our current GDP and will hit nearly 20 percent by 2082. For Medicare, the federal government is on the hook for an estimated $34 trillion or more in 2082 - and we have done nothing to meet this liability. We are on an unsustainable path.

2009 must be the year that Congress and the president, whoever he may be, pursue meaningful and thorough health reform.

So far, the debate has been dominated by talk of financing, access and coverage. Health reform means much more than just expanding insurance coverage. To be sure, every American deserves health insurance, but they also deserve cost-effective, high-quality care. Right now, simply having health coverage is no guarantee of quality care.

That is why any legislative efforts in 2009 must put the health back in health reform.

First and foremost, we must make a serious investment in health information technology (IT). Health care is the last and largest segment of our economy that still refuses to embrace technology from the 20th century, let alone the 21st century.

Health IT should be what railroad tracks were for transportation 150 years ago: basic infrastructure. A modernized, interconnected health system that electronically links patients, physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, public health agencies, payers and key emergency responders would allow all to share accurate, patient-protected information, and that will undoubtedly save lives and save money.

The Congress and the new president must call for the creation of this nationwide, electronic health system by December 2012 - the end of the next president's first term.

That is bold, but there are models of presidential leadership to follow. For example, 52 years ago, President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act, which authorized the construction of more than 40,000 miles of interstate highways and appropriated $25 billion over 10 years. This was a vast sum of money, considering that total federal spending in 1956 was $70 billion, making it one of the nation's highest priorities. But who can argue the investment did not pay dividends far beyond the initial cost? So, too, would an electronic health system today.

Second, health IT will allow us to capture data and then determine which treatments work and which do not. Today, only about 10 percent of all health care is based on evidence. That means that 90 percent of the care we receive is, basically, informed opinion. We need a rigorous, clear system to measure the costs, benefits and value of a given procedure, technology or drug.

A comparative effectiveness institute also can collect and understand the best practices of the country's best providers of care. There are innovators out there, such as Intermountain Healthcare in Utah and Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, that deliver the best possible care at the lowest cost.

A comparative effectiveness institute, particularly one energized by local centers of innovation at the state and regional level, could not only educate other providers on how to improve, but also inform policymakers on how to design policy that promotes these best practices.

Lastly, we must change the way we pay for care. Right now, we pay for all the wrong things. We do not pay doctors to coordinate care, to deliver care with electronic health records, to focus on prevention or to teach healthy behavior. We pay family doctors the least of all specialties, even though these physicians are often in the best position to provide low-cost, coordinated care.

On the other hand, we pay doctors more the sicker their patients are, more for each additional service they deliver and more for each additional test they perform.

There is no magic here: We simply need to pay more for what we want more of, and less for what we want less of. These priorities are absolutely essential. We will never cover the uninsured or resolve the looming budgetary nightmare without them.

That is why lawmakers from both parties must focus on health-based health reform next year. The American people deserve nothing less.

* Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, is the founder of the Center for Health Transformation. Sheldon Whitehouse is a Democratic senator from Rhode Island.

Guest Article via The News-Sentinel

2008-10-13T17:41:00.001-05:00

Here is an article of importance...as always READ WISELY

By Jennifer L. Boen

of The News-Sentinel

This is the fifth in a weekly series of stories leading up to the presidential election examining the candidates' positions on various issues that affect northeast Indiana residents.

While 46 million uninsured Americans worry about what to do if they get seriously ill, health care providers, employers and Americans in general stand at the bedside of the ailing health care system, bandaging wounds, checking the pulse, exhausted from doing CPR.

“The health care system isn't just sick. It's critically ill,” said Dr. Barney Maynard. The Evansville physician just completed his eighth year on the American Medical Association's Legislative Council, which reviews all health care legislation for the 250,000-member organization.

Says Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain: “Americans deserve leadership for real health care reform that provides access to high-quality medical care and ends spiraling costs. But the road to reform does not lead through Washington and a hugely expensive, bureaucratic, government-controlled system.”

Says Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama: “Increasingly our health care system gets in the way of (health care providers') sound medical judgment. Increasing, uncompensated care loads, administrative rules and insurers' coverage decisions inappropriately influence the practice of medicine. Washington sends dictates but no help.”

Their comments, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), echo the moans heard across the country. A year ago, health care reform was the No.1 presidential platform issue. Although it's been overshadowed in recent weeks by the economy, the Kaiser Family Foundation says it remains the No.2 issue on the minds of American voters.

What is the diagnosis? Where is the cure? Who will perform rehab? And who will pay the bill?

Crumbling cornerstone

Employer-based insurance has been the cornerstone of America's health system for decades. But considering 80 percent of the uninsured have jobs - they may work part time, are self-employed, have no group insurance option or cannot afford it - cracks in the cornerstone have turned to crevasses that cannot be bridged by more and more people.

“Fifteen years ago, the AMA's (American Medical Association's) mandate was employer-based health care. That has evolved over the last decade way away from that,” said Maynard. “Trying to keep a private practice, listening to patients every day in the office and at the hospital - something's got to give.”

Loss of employer-based insurance for 33-year-old Gabrielle Kenna, a Fort Wayne school social worker, has torn her lifeline to health into fragile threads. When her full-time job was cut to part time, she lost benefits that covered the $67,000-a-year intravenous drug Remicade she needs to ease debilitating symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis.

When she was insured, the medication cost $12,000 annually under the rate negotiated by her insurance company. She and her family are now scraping together the $570 monthly COBRA premium. COBRA is the federal measure that allows employees to pay the full cost of insurance for a time after they lose employer-based coverage.

But COBRA will end. “Then what?” Edith Kenna, Gabrielle's mother, said. “Without this medicine, my daughter's in a wheelchair.” She advocates for a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type system.

Neither McCain nor Obama seeks a single-payer system or coverage for everyone, although Obama would mandate all children be insured. Both candidates' health plans include employer-based insurance as an option. Among other similarities of the two plans: increased funding for and use of health care information technology; attaching quality to provider reimbursement; and more emphasis on prevention and wellness.

But their plans' divergence goes to the core of the question moderator Tom Brokaw asked during last week's debate in Nashville, Tenn.: Is health care a privilege, a right or a responsibility? The candidates' answers reflect fundamental differences.

McCain's plan

McCain said health care is a responsibility. He advocates for a system less dependent on employer-based insurance and that puts greater decision-making on employees. Employers would no longer receive tax breaks on their premium contributions. Individuals and families would receive a tax credit of $2,500 and $5,000, respectively, that must be used to buy insurance through their employer or a private plan in a wide-open market that allows consumers to shop for plans across state lines. More options and greater competition will drive down costs, McCain says. The tax credit would be taxable income.

“An essential benefit of this reform is that it will help to change the whole dynamic of the current health care system by putting individuals and families back in charge and forcing insurance companies to respond with better service at lower cost,” McCain said in written comments to NEJM.

Many policy analysts are concerned that McCain's plan will disincentivize employers to offer insurance.

“Under the McCain plan, employers would see the removal of the tax treatment of employer payments for coverage as a green light to stop paying for coverage, since it will be the employees who will pay the premiums and get the tax credit,” said Harvard economist Katherine Swartz during a late September roundtable discussion sponsored by the health policy journal Health Affairs. Other analysts say premium costs will rise faster than the tax credits.

McCain plans to “fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid,” through elimination of fraud and program improvement, his senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told The Wall Street Journal in an article published Sept. 28.

Obama's plan

Obama's plan moves closer to universal coverage in that his mixture of private/public options would be accessible to everyone. Participants could remain on their employer's plan or choose a new national health plan that would provide “the same coverage that is offered to members of Congress and their families,” Obama said in NEJM.

Small businesses, the self-employed or others without employer-based options or who do not qualify for Medicaid would have an option of the national plan or a private plan approved by a National Health Insurance Exchange, with federal subsidies helping pay premiums. Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) eligibility would be expanded.

Critics say the additional subsidies, along with expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP, plus heavy regulation on the insurance industry, will drive up the cost of insurance and increase taxes. The vagueness of how much taxes will go up is troubling to some.

“It is the spending gap, the 2 1/2 percentage-point growth faster than the rest of the economy that we have in health care, have had for the last 45 years, combined with the aging baby boomers, that we can't sustain,” said Gail Wilensky, a a senior fellow at the nonprofit Project HOPE, which provides health services around the world. Her comments were made at the roundtable.

Obama's funding would come from ending tax cuts for people with incomes over $250,000 and from eliminating the higher subsidies paid to Medicare Advantage plans. He would also negotiate Medicare drug costs. Both candidates also count on savings by reducing chronic diseases through education toward healthier lifestyles and a greater focus on prevention.

But Dr. Deborah McMahan, Allen County commissioner of health, says assumptions can lead to flawed decisions.

“People know the right things to do - exercise, eat right, don't smoke.” Although she champions wellness and prevention programs, she said, “People don't want to pay for health care when they're sick, let alone when they're well. People don't value health. What they value is the absence of disease.”

Why is Life Insurance Important for Children?

2008-10-05T11:02:00.001-05:00

Life Insurance can often be an uncomfortable conversation.

The conversation about life insurance for a child can lead to a flood of emotions. That is the very reason it is so important to provide for this in your financial plans.

As we get older insurance premiums get higher. The reasons are simple; we are closer to using the benefit and our health deteriorates. The younger we are the lower the premiums. We are farther from the benefit and our health is at its best.

Now, we hear about unfortunate stories all the time and we never expect things to happen in our lives. Planning for unforeseen or unexpected events is what insurance is all about. Putting a life insurance policy in place for an infant or child, guards against the unforeseen or unexpected events that may happen in our child's life.

When a child has an illness or an accident early in life, sometimes, it may lead to expiring too early. Having a life insurance policy in place to take care of final expenses is a benefit and can certainly be considered prudent. But, it's of little consequence and this isn't necessarily the main reason you would want to have this coverage in place.

When a child has an illness or an unexpected illness the majority of the time, with today's medical advancements and health care, they live a full and happy life. They get jobs, get married and have children. However, sometimes these unforeseen events can make them very expensive to insure or just plain uninsurable.

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. They offer policies based on the likelihood of paying the benefit. When a policy is applied for, a health questionnaire starts off the process of deciding insurability. All questionnaires start by asking about your medical history. If you have a history that includes; cancer, diabetes, accidents with severe trauma, etc. The cost of insurance may be much higher or coverage may not be available at all.

If an unforeseen event makes insurance unavailable or an extreme financial burden, having coverage in place proves to be a very wise decision. Then again, that is what insurance is for, protecting against the worst case scenarios in life.

When children are young and healthy, the premiums are at their lowest. On a whole life policy, the premiums are also locked or level through out the policy. They will never change or go up, no matter what happens. Putting a policy in place for a healthy child isn't costly or a burden to your financial plans and when they become an adult you can turn over to them the obligation of paying the premiums.

Can you imagine having a family to provide for and not being able to get coverage for a life insurance policy?

Can you imagine this being the case for a family member and you had the foresight to put coverage in place?

Life Insurance for children is inexpensive and easy to set up.

IT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST GIFTS YOU CAN GIVE!

Peak Services "Helping You Reach Your Peak"

The Life & Health OnLine Insurance SuperStore

No Medical Exams, No Nurses, No Needles, No Appointments, No Red Tape, No Hassles

Are There Any Benefits? - Why Quit Smoking?

2008-10-04T11:04:00.002-05:00

There are enough reasons to quit out there for anyone. Take your pick.

Better health

Better breath

More cash in your pocket

Higher self esteem

No running out every time you run out

Living longer for yourself and your family

Having to take smoking breaks all the time

You won't stink, your car won't stink, your house won't stink, your dog etc.

The list can go on forever and ultimately there is only one thing that will make you finally quit.

YOU WILL HAVE TO WANT TO STOP!!

If you are thinking about stopping, don't let anybody sway you against it. Know that it's going to be a bumpy ride but, the paybacks are far greater than you had imagined and the feeling of renewed health is inexplicable. So it doesn't matter how horrible the experience or how long it will finally take to shake the habit for good. Because when you finally make up your mind to quit, when you finally get to the point where enough is enough, you will do what it takes to get to the other side. And the benefits of the other side are great.

The benefits of not smoking come to you all the time. The mental and physical changes happened so slowly when you start smoking but come back much quicker. You are going to feel stronger and smarter. You'll look back all of a sudden and realize the fantastic pleasure of not being controlled by this habit. The health benefits and your life expectancy should be the main reasons to stop. But the dollar and cents benefits are some of the extras that add up real quick.

At a pack a day, you can save over $2000 a year and most smokers spend more than that. This in itself is a nice benefit but the savings are realized in many different parts of your life.

One big area is the cost of insurance. Smokers pay more for auto and home owners insurance. Smokers get into more auto accidents and have more home fires, so they pay higher rates. The statistics show it and insurance companies charge more to smokers. Stop smoking and you will see your rates go down.

When it comes to Life and Health insurance, the savings becomes even more apparent.

Smoking shortens your life and weakens your health. The best rates are offered to people, who never started smoking, but once you have stopped smoking and stopped smoking for a year or more, your rates will get better. You will begin to save thousands and thousands of dollars by not smoking. Over the years you will save a fortune.

By not smoking, you also won't be paying for the medications that smokers need versus non-smokers. You won't pay the higher premiums that smokers pay for health and life insurance. So in addition to the money saved by not buying cigarettes, you will save on insurance premiums too.

I am gratified most by my renewed health and sense of longevity, but the extra money and savings are great to add to the list of benefits of quitting smoking!

Good Luck and Good Health!

Peak services "Helping You Reach Your Peak"

www.reachpeak.com

Your Credit Affects How Much You Pay For Insurance

2008-10-01T11:55:00.000-05:00

Believe it or not, your credit affects a lot of different areas of your life. It obviously affects what kind of interest rate you will pay on a loan or if you can get credit at all. It may affect your ability to get a job and even how much you pay for insurance!

Years ago, insurance actuaries came across some startling figures; people with bad credit are more likely to have insurance claims and people with good credit were less likely to have claims. Pretty basic stuff...if you have decent credit you will be paying less for your property and casualty insurance (auto, home, specialty insurance, etc) and sometimes life and health insurance.

There are various factors that play into how an insurance company rates a driver or home owner. The type of car, driving record, address and age of drivers are all factors in deciding an auto insurance rate. The quality of a consumers credit standing is also a very accurate indicator when rating a prospective insured. These days saving money is as important as ever and getting your credit as strong and healthy as possible will help in all the different areas that credit is considered, like insurance.

There are some basic steps to getting a handle on your credit rating and making it as solid as possible. The sooner you start the better off you are, because with a lot of things in life, it takes a while to see changes.

First thing you should do is get a copy of all three of your credit bureaus, Experian, Transunion and Equifax. It's very easy to get a free copy by writing and requesting one from each credit bureau, you can find these addresses by doing a web search. I recommend using a service that, for a monthly fee, will give you unlimited access to all three bureaus. They will also have a wealth of information on how to dispute bad references, upgrade your credit scores, will notify you about any changes to your credit who is looking at your credit and loads of other information that consumers should know. Then you can see changes, positive or negative, immediately and act accordingly. The more you know about credit in general and about your own credit file, the better off you are.

When you first look at your credit profiles, make sure the addresses and basic personal information are correct. Start making a check list of things that are inaccurate and need to be updated. Next, go over each credit reference and make sure they are being listed and reported properly. The quickest way to improve your credit is to have incorrect information reported correctly. Things to look for are; late payments, accounts that aren't yours, wrong credit limits and balances, closed accounts that are reported open, accounts that are open that aren't being reported at all, older bad references that shouldn't be reported any longer and paid debts that are reported as unpaid. All these things can be updated quickly and can make a positive difference to your credit report.

It takes credit bureaus time to investigate disputes and the more information you can give them the faster it will go. Contacting the creditor directly will also save time; they want to report accurate information for their customers and will update anything they have wrong. Sometimes, even when the bad information is correct, you can contact the creditor and ask them to update the information more favorably. Creditors may simply want to keep you and people you know as customers and will make positive changes when they can, it never hurts to contact them and ask.

Keeping your credit balances well under their limits will also keep your rating strong, it is understood that balances below 35% of their credit limit are best. Don't apply for credit often, multiple credit inquiries can count against you. If you have unpaid or charged off credit accounts, make sure you pay these off, this will count against you more than late payments, being over your credit limit and multiple inquiries.

Credit can be used when underwriting all types of insurance (life, health, auto, home, etc), but not all companies rely on credit Companies that don't rely on credit when underwriting are assuming the credit is bad and charge a higher premium to begin with.

If you are looking to save money and get the lowest rates, stay on top of your credit Keep it accurate and strong and this will save you money and help you avoid credit surprises.

Good Luck! and Good Health!

Peak Services "Helping You Reach Your Peak"

The Life & Health OnLine Insurance SuperStore

No Medical Exams, No Nurses, No Needles, No Appointments, No Red Tape, No Hassles

http://www.reachpeak.com

Visit our website and receive a FREE Rx / Prescription Drug Card and you can save up to 50% off your family's prescriptions.

No Obligation Free!!

What If Health Insurance is Unavailable? Health & Dental Discount Plans May Be the Answer!

2008-09-30T13:06:00.003-05:00

What if Health Insurance is Unavailable? Health & Dental Discount Plans May Be the ANSWER!

-I can't afford it.
-I'm uninsurable.
-I need to go to the doctor today.
-I have existing conditions that aren't covered.
-My insurance doesn't cover enough of my medical bills.

There is good news for people who don't have health insurance to cover themselves or their family. Too many times the availability of health insurance has left Americans with the over whelming cost of medical and dental bills. The good news is there are now products that can help aid in the high cost of medical and dental bills. These products are known as Health and Dental Discount Plans or Medical Discount Plans.

Health and dental discount plans open the door to provider networks so that you can obtain "wholesale" prices for doctors, dentists, hospitals and other provider services. This means members of these plans enjoy the same "wholesale" rates for their doctor and hospital provider services, along with contract pricing on prescription, dental, vision and hearing services.

A Health and Dental discount plan is ideal for people who are uninsurable and are looking for savings. They are also great for people who can not afford the high cost of health insurance or medical insurance. If you have medical coverage, but it doesn't cover all of the costs, these discount plans are a great compliment to your existing coverage.

They offer savings on prescriptions, vision and dental costs. Giving you well rounded savings for all health costs you and your family incur. Most everyone in your household is covered under these medical savings / discount plans. Spouses, natural born children, stepchildren, children for whom you have assumed legal or financial responsibility and parents who reside in your household, everyone can be covered under one membership. These medical savings plans can really be a savings bonanza for your finances.

A good medical discount program will have nationwide discounts with hundreds of thousands physicians and hospitals participating. Thousands and thousands of dentists, vision experts, pharmacies, chiropractors and hearing experts are included as providers.

These plans can have special perks and mailers that include a wide variety of specials like emergency travel and vitamin samples. You should look for a program that includes Accident and Life Insurance included. Again, these plans will add a great amount of benefits for one cost and can include everyone in the household, making them a great addition to your financial plans.

One thing to keep in mind, Medical Discount plans are not insurance. You do not have to qualify, there is guaranteed acceptance with no underwriting questions! You simply will be showing your ID card at the time of your appointment or purchase and receive the reduced rate when you pay. Very simple and a great savings.

Convenience is another option to look for; a good program should be easy to enroll in online or by phone. You should be able to have your monthly fee deducted from a credit card or debit card and receive your membership kit and ID cards in a timely manner.

There are many good programs available and we recommend and offer a fantastic product called BENICARD. It includes all of the benefits we have discussed above and is available on our website for quick access. Just look for the Benicard banner on our Peak Services website where we are always "Helping You Reach Your Peak". Complete explanations of benefits are available at our website and a quick, safe, easy application process will get you on your way to medical savings in minutes.

So if you or a family member needs to find additional ways to save on the high cost of medical and health costs look to medical savings or discount plans as a great supplement to your financial picture. These plans also make a great gift for that someone who struggles with paying for the high cost of coverage.

As always Good Luck and Good Health!

Peak Services "Helping You Reach Your Peak"

The Life & Health OnLine Insurance SuperStore

No Medical Exams, No Nurses, No Needles, No Appointments, No Red Tape, No Hassles

http://www.reachpeak.com

Visit our website and receive a FREE Rx / Prescription Drug Card and you can save up to 50% off your family's prescriptions.

No Obligation Free!!

Get Life Insurance While You Can!

2008-09-29T12:39:00.008-05:00

Buy life insurance while you can. Too many people think about life insurance when it is too late. Illness or current health status are the leading reasons for being denied life insurance coverage. The number one reason for getting life insurance is seeing a loved one or friend leave behind a family with out coverage.
The life insurance process can be timely, the more coverage you seek the longer the underwriting process can be. Some companies allow coverage with out a medical exam, only asking a few simple questions to bind coverage. The amount you pay or the premium, is based on your age and current health. Smokers always pay more premium. Should your health get better down the road, you can always look for a better rate based on your current health status. All things considered, you don't know when your time is up....get coverage immediately for peace of mind. When you get better health or researched the best policy for you..just change. In the mean time you have coverage for your family should something unexpected happen.
How much coverage you need is based on what you are trying to replace or what you were planning on doing. Do you plan on putting children through college? Do you want to pay off the mortgage? Do you want your salary replaced for 10 or 20 years or more? Ultimately, you can't get enough coverage. a good place to start is by finding out the maximum amount of coverage you qualify for and seeing if it fits your budget. if you need to, work backwards from there.
Good things to know.....
The healthier you are, the better the rates
It's true - healthy people get better rates on life insurance. You will be asked to pay a higher rate for anything that shortens your life expectancy (e.g., if you smoke, take medications regularly, are overweight, have a bad driving record).
Buy sooner rather than later
If you've been putting off purchasing life insurance because you don't want to pay the premiums, you may be doing yourself a disservice in the long run. The younger you are when you purchase life insurance, the lower your premiums will be.
Don't rely solely on the life insurance offered by your employer
Many employers offer their employees some sort of group life insurance. But this amount of coverage is usually not enough to adequately meet your life insurance needs. In addition, group life insurance policies are not portable, meaning that if you leave your job, you can't take your life insurance coverage with you.
Buying more is sometimes cheaper
Life insurance usually costs less per thousand dollars once you get into higher coverage amounts (e.g., $250,000). If the numbers work out, you may be able to pay a lower premium while increasing your coverage.
More than anything else..get coverage while you can!
Peak Services - Helping you Reach your Peak
Online Insurance Superstore
No Medical Exam! just a few simple health questions..No nurses, No needles, No Hassles

Free Quotes and coverage in seconds!