WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama's historic drive to overhaul US health care hit a speed bump this week amid firm opposition from fellow Democrats, and may collide with other top priorities come September.
But, the White House and some experts say, delayed reform is not defeated reform.
Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives is likely to meet Obama's challenge to vote before they leave for a month-long break in early August, erasing what he had hoped would be a momentum-fuelling win.
Republicans who oppose Obama's approach are thrilled, saying Democrats finally see the wisdom in not rushing through what would be the first in-depth overhaul and expansion of the US health care system in decades.
"Getting health care reform right is more important than rushing through some slipshod plan and calling it reform," Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday.
Other Republicans have candidly declared they hope to derail health care reform in order to hand Obama his first major political defeat -- which one Republican said might be the president's "Waterloo."
And some Democrats fret privately that, come September, health care will compete with Senate action on historic climate change legislation, efforts to toughen financial system rules, and pass annual spending bills to fund the government for the fiscal year that starts October 1.
But to hear the White House and some experts and veterans of past legislative battles tell it, the plan is far from doomed.
"I just want people to keep on working, just keep working," Obama said during a visit to the electorally crucial battleground state of Ohio on Thursday. "I want to get it done by the end of this year."
"It's daunting but doable. And nothing focuses congressional activity like a limited number of legislative days. It's just the nature of the beast," said Mike Feldman, a former top aide to Democratic then-vice president Al Gore.
"The notion of having a bill on his desk by August was never real. But if you don't set a timetable for Congress, there is no timetable, and they let it slide," said Norm Ornstein, an expert on congressional politics at the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington.
"It's complicated and it's much worse when you have to operate with a dwindling number of days and the possibility of something unexpected coming up that makes it more complicated. But it's doable," he told AFP.
Republicans and Democrats both plan to run advertisements in the home districts of swing-vote lawmakers during the recess, while congressional leaders map the next step in the pitched political battle in Washington.
Republicans point to public opinion polls showing growing unease with the Obama approach, which the party's chairman derided as "socialism" because of plans to increase the government's role in providing access to health care.
And they showcase the public's worries about the government deficit, which has ballooned to historic girth, and say voters are not prepared to sign off on another expensive Washington program.
Democrats point to deep public unhappiness with the health care status quo, support for Obama's plan from the leading American Medical Association, even as the president steps up a public relations campaign on his plan's behalf.
One critical but uncertain factor is the health of the battered US economy, according to independent political analyst Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal public affairs magazine.
"Taking the time to fix the problems in the health care and climate-change bills while waiting for enough good economic news to make people feel a bit more comfortable with new spending might not be the worst thing for Democrats to do," he wrote.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel predicted that Obama will sign legislation by the end of the year "that controls costs, expands coverage, and provides choice" -- but declined to light the path forward.
"I don't want to fast forward the movie; you're just going to have to watch the movie all the way through," he said.
-------------------
The Source
By Olivier Knox (AFP)
.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Why Obama wants mandated health insurance coverage
During then-Senator Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, he said he believed in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (remember Joe the Plumber?). Regarding health care, Obama now wants to use theft in his hope for mandated coverage by stealing from the healthy and giving to the sick.
In Obama’s speech last night, he spoke about all Americans “shouldering the burden” of health care. Who will take on this burden? The young, healthy, and uninsured will have to through mandated health insurance.
“Bringing everyone into the insurance pool – particularly young, healthy customers – spreads the risk and lowers over-all costs,” stated the Washington Post’s Ceci Connolly. Remember Obama wanting to spread the wealth? Now he wants to spread the health through burdening the young and uninsured.
Of the roughly 46 million Americans that don’t have health insurance, included in this number are illegal immigrants, young/healthy adults, and Medicare-eligible poor Americans. This number is used to justify nationalized health care, when really it is a misleading statistic.
I am 25, healthy, a non-smoker, and I don’t have health insurance. Why? Because I don’t need it and it is a waste of money for me. If I were to get health insurance, the insurance companies would make money off me because I would most likely never use my coverage. But I can’t tell Obama this, because he wants to force me to get health care, even though I don’t want or need it. What should be a personal decision for me might become a government requirement.
So how will Obama pay for nationalized health care? His health care bill will mandate coverage and force healthy and uninsured Americans to share the costs of something they don’t utilize at the benefit of sick Americans.
What happened to personal responsibility? According to Obama, the federal government knows best.
.
-------------------------
The Source
.
In Obama’s speech last night, he spoke about all Americans “shouldering the burden” of health care. Who will take on this burden? The young, healthy, and uninsured will have to through mandated health insurance.
“Bringing everyone into the insurance pool – particularly young, healthy customers – spreads the risk and lowers over-all costs,” stated the Washington Post’s Ceci Connolly. Remember Obama wanting to spread the wealth? Now he wants to spread the health through burdening the young and uninsured.
Of the roughly 46 million Americans that don’t have health insurance, included in this number are illegal immigrants, young/healthy adults, and Medicare-eligible poor Americans. This number is used to justify nationalized health care, when really it is a misleading statistic.
I am 25, healthy, a non-smoker, and I don’t have health insurance. Why? Because I don’t need it and it is a waste of money for me. If I were to get health insurance, the insurance companies would make money off me because I would most likely never use my coverage. But I can’t tell Obama this, because he wants to force me to get health care, even though I don’t want or need it. What should be a personal decision for me might become a government requirement.
So how will Obama pay for nationalized health care? His health care bill will mandate coverage and force healthy and uninsured Americans to share the costs of something they don’t utilize at the benefit of sick Americans.
What happened to personal responsibility? According to Obama, the federal government knows best.
.
-------------------------
The Source
.
Health care reform 'dos and don'ts'
By STEVE LeBLANC (AP)
-------------------------------
BOSTON — Three years into its experiment with near-universal health care, Massachusetts has some "dos and don'ts" for the nation as it grapples with the best way to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
Do require that virtually everyone have health insurance, the overriding goal in Massachusetts. Don't ignore rising costs, the single greatest threat to the law's long-term affordability.
Those who designed and implemented the nation's most ambitious health care overhaul make those suggestions and more: get employers to help pay for the plan, ask taxpayers to subsidize insurance for the poor, and embrace some new regulation.
The landmark 2006 law requires every Massachusetts resident who can afford health insurance obtain it, either through their employer, a private plan, or — for low-income residents — through a new subsidized state program. Those who don't are fined.
The law allowed Kathy Riley, 59, to get a state-subsidized plan for $51 a month after losing her insurance when she cut back her hours to care for her ailing mother.
"This was absolutely perfect," the Wilmington resident said. "Otherwise I wouldn't have any insurance."
The law has been a success in getting 97 percent of residents in health plans, compared with 94 percent before it took effect. But costs to the state have been climbing, thousands have paid tax penalties for being uninsured, and some of the newly insured are struggling to find doctors.
"As we look at health care reform nationally, it's very important to look at what has worked on the ground," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a recent visit.
A key part of the state plan, and an element federal lawmakers are considering, is the "individual mandate" — the requirement that everyone who can afford health care be insured or face a penalty.
President Barack Obama, who has made universal health care his top domestic priority, said Wednesday he favors an individual mandate as long as it includes a hardship exemption. Massachusetts exempts those who can't find affordable plans.
And like Massachusetts' law, Obama said he hopes his plan will end up covering nearly everyone.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want health care, but millions of them can't afford it," Obama said. "The basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care, you should be able to get affordable health care."
The individual mandate has irked some Massachusetts residents who argue they shouldn't be fined for being uninsured. The penalty is now about $1,000 for those who are uninsured for an entire year.
But backers say the mandate distributes risk over a wider population and ensures everyone has a stake in their care.
"Clearly there are some things here that we think have worked and can work nationally," said Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which oversees the law. "One is the whole concept of shared responsibility."
That includes asking employers to contribute to their workers' coverage and asking taxpayers to help cover low-income people, he said.
But Massachusetts' plan has been dogged by rising costs.
In its first year, the budget for Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance, soared from $472 million to $628 million as the uninsured flooded into the program faster then anticipated. After leveling off, enrollment has begun creeping up again as the state's jobless numbers grow.
"We have never really been able to put the program on autopilot," said Connector Authority Board Chairman Leslie Kirwan, adding the state "clearly made the decision to go forward with access before wrestling with cost."
The law is starting to show other signs of strain.
The Connector board has been forced to make some budget cuts and a major Boston hospital has sued, claiming the state illegally reduced the amount it pays the hospital for treating a Medicaid patient to help cover the cost of the health care law.
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, faulted Massachusetts for not addressing costs early on, and said the nation should avoid the same mistake.
"The goal of health care reform at the national level shouldn't be measured in whether we can get a piece of paper in everyone's hand saying they are insured," he said.
The business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said health care costs are not out of control. In a recent report, the group said the cost of the law has been "relatively modest and well within early projections."
To control costs, Massachusetts is now weighing a change in the system it uses to pay doctors, so they would be rewarded for keeping patients healthy, not performing more tests.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, who signed the law, said one important lesson was Massachusetts' decision not to create a separate government insurance plan — an option Obama strongly favors to compete with private insurers to reduce costs.
"That's the biggest flaw in President Obama's proposal," said Romney, a former Republican presidential contender who is mulling a 2012 run.
Instead, Massachusetts created a subsidized insurance program for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level. A second, non-subsidized program lets those earning more to choose from an array of lower cost private plans.
Commonwealth Care, the subsidized plan, now covers about 181,000 adults.
Romney also said any national plan should also avoid mandating specific benefits, such as prescription drug or mental health coverage, something Massachusetts does. Romney said insurers should instead be allowed to offer a wider range of benefits in their plans.
Massachusetts's experience also shows the importance of regulating the insurance market, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who said insurers shouldn't be allowed to avoid covering the sick, while competing for the healthy.
A final lesson from Massachusetts was the decision not to nail down every last detail before forging ahead.
"This is a gargantuan task. It cannot all be thought out in one piece of legislation," Kingsdale said. "Three years into it, we're still learning."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
.
-------------------------------
BOSTON — Three years into its experiment with near-universal health care, Massachusetts has some "dos and don'ts" for the nation as it grapples with the best way to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
Do require that virtually everyone have health insurance, the overriding goal in Massachusetts. Don't ignore rising costs, the single greatest threat to the law's long-term affordability.
Those who designed and implemented the nation's most ambitious health care overhaul make those suggestions and more: get employers to help pay for the plan, ask taxpayers to subsidize insurance for the poor, and embrace some new regulation.
The landmark 2006 law requires every Massachusetts resident who can afford health insurance obtain it, either through their employer, a private plan, or — for low-income residents — through a new subsidized state program. Those who don't are fined.
The law allowed Kathy Riley, 59, to get a state-subsidized plan for $51 a month after losing her insurance when she cut back her hours to care for her ailing mother.
"This was absolutely perfect," the Wilmington resident said. "Otherwise I wouldn't have any insurance."
The law has been a success in getting 97 percent of residents in health plans, compared with 94 percent before it took effect. But costs to the state have been climbing, thousands have paid tax penalties for being uninsured, and some of the newly insured are struggling to find doctors.
"As we look at health care reform nationally, it's very important to look at what has worked on the ground," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a recent visit.
A key part of the state plan, and an element federal lawmakers are considering, is the "individual mandate" — the requirement that everyone who can afford health care be insured or face a penalty.
President Barack Obama, who has made universal health care his top domestic priority, said Wednesday he favors an individual mandate as long as it includes a hardship exemption. Massachusetts exempts those who can't find affordable plans.
And like Massachusetts' law, Obama said he hopes his plan will end up covering nearly everyone.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want health care, but millions of them can't afford it," Obama said. "The basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care, you should be able to get affordable health care."
The individual mandate has irked some Massachusetts residents who argue they shouldn't be fined for being uninsured. The penalty is now about $1,000 for those who are uninsured for an entire year.
But backers say the mandate distributes risk over a wider population and ensures everyone has a stake in their care.
"Clearly there are some things here that we think have worked and can work nationally," said Jon Kingsdale, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Care Connector, which oversees the law. "One is the whole concept of shared responsibility."
That includes asking employers to contribute to their workers' coverage and asking taxpayers to help cover low-income people, he said.
But Massachusetts' plan has been dogged by rising costs.
In its first year, the budget for Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance, soared from $472 million to $628 million as the uninsured flooded into the program faster then anticipated. After leveling off, enrollment has begun creeping up again as the state's jobless numbers grow.
"We have never really been able to put the program on autopilot," said Connector Authority Board Chairman Leslie Kirwan, adding the state "clearly made the decision to go forward with access before wrestling with cost."
The law is starting to show other signs of strain.
The Connector board has been forced to make some budget cuts and a major Boston hospital has sued, claiming the state illegally reduced the amount it pays the hospital for treating a Medicaid patient to help cover the cost of the health care law.
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, faulted Massachusetts for not addressing costs early on, and said the nation should avoid the same mistake.
"The goal of health care reform at the national level shouldn't be measured in whether we can get a piece of paper in everyone's hand saying they are insured," he said.
The business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said health care costs are not out of control. In a recent report, the group said the cost of the law has been "relatively modest and well within early projections."
To control costs, Massachusetts is now weighing a change in the system it uses to pay doctors, so they would be rewarded for keeping patients healthy, not performing more tests.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, who signed the law, said one important lesson was Massachusetts' decision not to create a separate government insurance plan — an option Obama strongly favors to compete with private insurers to reduce costs.
"That's the biggest flaw in President Obama's proposal," said Romney, a former Republican presidential contender who is mulling a 2012 run.
Instead, Massachusetts created a subsidized insurance program for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level. A second, non-subsidized program lets those earning more to choose from an array of lower cost private plans.
Commonwealth Care, the subsidized plan, now covers about 181,000 adults.
Romney also said any national plan should also avoid mandating specific benefits, such as prescription drug or mental health coverage, something Massachusetts does. Romney said insurers should instead be allowed to offer a wider range of benefits in their plans.
Massachusetts's experience also shows the importance of regulating the insurance market, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy, who said insurers shouldn't be allowed to avoid covering the sick, while competing for the healthy.
A final lesson from Massachusetts was the decision not to nail down every last detail before forging ahead.
"This is a gargantuan task. It cannot all be thought out in one piece of legislation," Kingsdale said. "Three years into it, we're still learning."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
.
Insurance - Health Reform’s Hidden Victims
Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
By JOHN FUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama’s health-care sales pitch depends on his ability to obfuscate who is likely to get hurt by reform. At Wednesday’s news conference, for example, he was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises.
He insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not credible.
While Democrats on Capitol Hill dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans, on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get whacked to pay for the new world of government-dominated health care.
Democrats have been brilliant in keeping knowledge about the pain and sacrifice of health reform from the very people who would bear the brunt of them. They’ve done so by convincing health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise”-style ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” “Groups were told if they did they’d give up their seat at the table,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”
Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:
• Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.
• Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.
• Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.
These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Roy Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.
• Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.
These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it.
That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”
The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.
They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues.
Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden.
[Mr. Fund is a WSJ.com columnist. ]
.......................................................................
From the: WallStreet Journal
By JOHN FUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama’s health-care sales pitch depends on his ability to obfuscate who is likely to get hurt by reform. At Wednesday’s news conference, for example, he was asked “specifically what kind of pain and sacrifice” he would ask of patients in order to achieve the cost savings he promises.
He insisted he “won’t reduce Medicare benefits” but instead would “make delivery more efficient.” The most Mr. Obama would concede is that some people will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” That is simply not credible.
While Democrats on Capitol Hill dispute claims that individuals will lose their existing coverage under their reform plans, on other issues many Democrats privately acknowledge some people will indeed get whacked to pay for the new world of government-dominated health care.
Democrats have been brilliant in keeping knowledge about the pain and sacrifice of health reform from the very people who would bear the brunt of them. They’ve done so by convincing health-care industry groups not to run the kind of “Harry and Louise”-style ads that helped sink HillaryCare in 1993.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) says the pressure not to run ads has been “intense, bordering on extortion.” “Groups were told if they did they’d give up their seat at the table,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “What they weren’t told is that they’d be at the table as lunch.”
Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:
• Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.
• Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.
• Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.
These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Roy Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.
• Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.
The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.
These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it.
That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”
The $156 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.
There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.
They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues.
Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden.
[Mr. Fund is a WSJ.com columnist. ]
.......................................................................
From the: WallStreet Journal
Why rural American needs a Public Health Insurance Plan
LYONS, NE - Today the Center for Rural Affairs released a report entitled, Why Rural America Needs a Public Health Insurance Plan Option. The report examines some of the arguments for a public health insurance plan, how the public health insurance plan would address the health care challenges that exist for rural areas, and, ultimately, why the choice of a public health insurance plan option is needed for rural America.
In much of the mainstream media the health care debate has largely been reported primarily as an urban issue. But this Center for Rural Affairs analysis demonstrates that rural people need health care reform, and the option to obtain health insurance through a public health insurance plan, as much or more than their urban counterparts.
"The current health insurance system does not work well for many rural people and rural businesses," said Jon Bailey, Director of Research and Analysis at the Center for Rural Affairs and author of the report. "They pay too much for too little coverage and too little peace of mind. Health care reform that is based on the current system does little to address the unique issues faced by many rural people -- why should rural people be satisfied with maintaining a system that does not work for millions of them without significant reforms? A public health insurance plan option is simply that - a choice that addresses many of the health insurance issues and barriers faced by rural people, families and businesses."
A full copy of the report can be viewed and downloaded at http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Public_Plan.pdf .
"Rural people have much to gain from inclusion of a public health insurance plan option in health care reform legislation, possibly more than any other group in the nation," said Bailey.
According to Bailey, rural people are subject to myriad risk factors that lead to higher rates of being without insurance and to insurance instability. Rural workplace characteristics such as greater dependence on small business employment, more self-employment, more low-wage work, and rural health disparities and less choice in the health insurance market all lead to increased risk of being uninsured, underinsured or having less stable health insurance coverage. Rural America has higher rates of uninsured adults under 65, with 24 percent of such rural adults uninsured compared to 22 percent in urban areas. The gaps grow wider in rural areas that are not adjacent to urban areas and in more remote and smaller rural areas.
These are all issues a public health insurance plan option would address, all to the benefit of rural individuals, families and businesses.
Key Points:
· The cost of health insurance is crushing the self-employed and microbusinesses that form the bulk of the rural economy.
· The availability of affordable and quality health insurance is the primary barrier to entrepreneurship-the most effective rural development strategy-reaching its potential for rural people and rural communities.
· Individual and business mandates with the current system as the only health insurance option are unlikely to address unique rural challenges.
· Workplace characteristics more common in rural areas are risk factors for higher rates of uninsurance, underinsurance and greater dependence on the individual insurance market, conditions all subject to issues of cost, choice and level of coverage that a public health insurance plan could address.
· A public health insurance plan available as an option helps address the rural risk factors leading to rural insurance instability and would act as a backup for all of the rural factors leading to greater insurance instability.
· A public health insurance plan could lead to significantly lower costs for businesses and households. Models show public health insurance plan premiums would be 16 to 30 percent lower than private plans, and premium
savings would be up to 41 percent greater with a public health insurance plan.
"It seems folly to depend solely on the current system that does not work for large numbers of rural people," added Bailey. "The cost of health insurance also affects the dreams of potential rural entrepreneurs, delaying or killing an idea by making it too risky for one to leave employer-provided insurance at a current job, the so-called 'job lock' phenomena."
This is the fifth in a series of Center for Rural Affairs reports examining crucial health care issues in rural America. Previous reports can be found on the front page of the Center's website (www.cfra.org).
The Source: Review Messenger
In much of the mainstream media the health care debate has largely been reported primarily as an urban issue. But this Center for Rural Affairs analysis demonstrates that rural people need health care reform, and the option to obtain health insurance through a public health insurance plan, as much or more than their urban counterparts.
"The current health insurance system does not work well for many rural people and rural businesses," said Jon Bailey, Director of Research and Analysis at the Center for Rural Affairs and author of the report. "They pay too much for too little coverage and too little peace of mind. Health care reform that is based on the current system does little to address the unique issues faced by many rural people -- why should rural people be satisfied with maintaining a system that does not work for millions of them without significant reforms? A public health insurance plan option is simply that - a choice that addresses many of the health insurance issues and barriers faced by rural people, families and businesses."
A full copy of the report can be viewed and downloaded at http://files.cfra.org/pdf/Public_Plan.pdf .
"Rural people have much to gain from inclusion of a public health insurance plan option in health care reform legislation, possibly more than any other group in the nation," said Bailey.
According to Bailey, rural people are subject to myriad risk factors that lead to higher rates of being without insurance and to insurance instability. Rural workplace characteristics such as greater dependence on small business employment, more self-employment, more low-wage work, and rural health disparities and less choice in the health insurance market all lead to increased risk of being uninsured, underinsured or having less stable health insurance coverage. Rural America has higher rates of uninsured adults under 65, with 24 percent of such rural adults uninsured compared to 22 percent in urban areas. The gaps grow wider in rural areas that are not adjacent to urban areas and in more remote and smaller rural areas.
These are all issues a public health insurance plan option would address, all to the benefit of rural individuals, families and businesses.
Key Points:
· The cost of health insurance is crushing the self-employed and microbusinesses that form the bulk of the rural economy.
· The availability of affordable and quality health insurance is the primary barrier to entrepreneurship-the most effective rural development strategy-reaching its potential for rural people and rural communities.
· Individual and business mandates with the current system as the only health insurance option are unlikely to address unique rural challenges.
· Workplace characteristics more common in rural areas are risk factors for higher rates of uninsurance, underinsurance and greater dependence on the individual insurance market, conditions all subject to issues of cost, choice and level of coverage that a public health insurance plan could address.
· A public health insurance plan available as an option helps address the rural risk factors leading to rural insurance instability and would act as a backup for all of the rural factors leading to greater insurance instability.
· A public health insurance plan could lead to significantly lower costs for businesses and households. Models show public health insurance plan premiums would be 16 to 30 percent lower than private plans, and premium
savings would be up to 41 percent greater with a public health insurance plan.
"It seems folly to depend solely on the current system that does not work for large numbers of rural people," added Bailey. "The cost of health insurance also affects the dreams of potential rural entrepreneurs, delaying or killing an idea by making it too risky for one to leave employer-provided insurance at a current job, the so-called 'job lock' phenomena."
This is the fifth in a series of Center for Rural Affairs reports examining crucial health care issues in rural America. Previous reports can be found on the front page of the Center's website (www.cfra.org).
The Source: Review Messenger
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Car Insurance Claims - Guides
In the Philippines, you can't renew Vehicle registration without getting a car insurance.
The best car insurance that a car owner must have, especially if the car is still brand new or still looks and runs like brand new is a comprehensive insurance. Comprehensive insurance really unloads the burden, ease the pain and neutralize the after-effects of a car accident. It's because in a comprehensive insurance, you dont have to worry about, third party damage, own damage, lost of life or even your liability to the other party of the accident. Comprehensive insurance will pay separately for Own damage, Third Party Liabilities, etc.
But even if you have a very good car insurance, the difficulty of getting your claims might be a heavier burden than paying the actual damage of the accident, especially if you dont know how to make the claims.
The First thing to remember in insurance claim is, right after the accident, a sketch must be taken by the traffic police or traffic enforcers immediately. Without it, you can't get a good police report that will suffice to support your claims...
Read More...
.
The best car insurance that a car owner must have, especially if the car is still brand new or still looks and runs like brand new is a comprehensive insurance. Comprehensive insurance really unloads the burden, ease the pain and neutralize the after-effects of a car accident. It's because in a comprehensive insurance, you dont have to worry about, third party damage, own damage, lost of life or even your liability to the other party of the accident. Comprehensive insurance will pay separately for Own damage, Third Party Liabilities, etc.
But even if you have a very good car insurance, the difficulty of getting your claims might be a heavier burden than paying the actual damage of the accident, especially if you dont know how to make the claims.
The First thing to remember in insurance claim is, right after the accident, a sketch must be taken by the traffic police or traffic enforcers immediately. Without it, you can't get a good police report that will suffice to support your claims...
Read More...
.
What if I don't want health insurance?
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
READ MORE...
.
By Becky Akers
from the July 20, 2009 edition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
READ MORE...
.
Insurance Rate Hike
Anthem wants 20-32 percent hike in insurance rates
By KATIE NELSON , 07.20.09, 06:24 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, which covers nearly one in three state residents, on Monday proposed raising some health insurance policy rates by as much as 32 percent.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and a legal representative of the state's Heathcare Advocate office both argued against the proposal during a daylong hearing before the state Department of Insurance.
Blumenthal called Anthem ( ATH - news - people )'s request "a rate increase that will be catastrophic, not only for our consumers but for our economy."
Anthem asked the Insurance Department for permission to raise rates by 20 to 32 percent - averaging 23.4 percent - beginning Oct. 1.
"A timely rate increase reflecting emerging claim experiences should help to mitigate a higher rate increase in the future," said George Siriotis, regional vice president of individual sales.
Anthem representatives argued that the company needs more money to cover rising claim costs triggered by longer hospital stays, new and expensive prescription drugs, advanced technologies and an aging population. The company said wasteful health care spending, defensive medicine, unnecessary hospital admissions and medical errors are also driving up costs.
READ MORE...
.
By KATIE NELSON , 07.20.09, 06:24 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut, which covers nearly one in three state residents, on Monday proposed raising some health insurance policy rates by as much as 32 percent.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and a legal representative of the state's Heathcare Advocate office both argued against the proposal during a daylong hearing before the state Department of Insurance.
Blumenthal called Anthem ( ATH - news - people )'s request "a rate increase that will be catastrophic, not only for our consumers but for our economy."
Anthem asked the Insurance Department for permission to raise rates by 20 to 32 percent - averaging 23.4 percent - beginning Oct. 1.
"A timely rate increase reflecting emerging claim experiences should help to mitigate a higher rate increase in the future," said George Siriotis, regional vice president of individual sales.
Anthem representatives argued that the company needs more money to cover rising claim costs triggered by longer hospital stays, new and expensive prescription drugs, advanced technologies and an aging population. The company said wasteful health care spending, defensive medicine, unnecessary hospital admissions and medical errors are also driving up costs.
READ MORE...
.
Ten Questions on the Health-Care Overhaul
By JANET ADAMY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is crunch time for health care. Lawmakers who are trying to fundamentally remake one-sixth of the U.S. economy say this might be the most complicated legislation they have undertaken.
Here are some basics that everyone can grasp -- and probably ought to, because the health bill, if it passes, will affect almost everyone.
1. What is the problem with health care, anyway? Is it as bad as they say?
The problem, as advocates for change see it, boils down to two big areas: high costs and lack of coverage. For some households and employers, the cost of care already is out of reach, and many more will struggle to afford it if costs keep escalating. Medicare is eating up a bigger share of government spending, and a growing number of bankruptcies and home foreclosures are linked to medical expense
READ MORE...
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is crunch time for health care. Lawmakers who are trying to fundamentally remake one-sixth of the U.S. economy say this might be the most complicated legislation they have undertaken.
Here are some basics that everyone can grasp -- and probably ought to, because the health bill, if it passes, will affect almost everyone.
1. What is the problem with health care, anyway? Is it as bad as they say?
The problem, as advocates for change see it, boils down to two big areas: high costs and lack of coverage. For some households and employers, the cost of care already is out of reach, and many more will struggle to afford it if costs keep escalating. Medicare is eating up a bigger share of government spending, and a growing number of bankruptcies and home foreclosures are linked to medical expense
READ MORE...
.
UPDATE 1-Sun Bancorp posts wider-than-expected Q2 loss
Reuters News
Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:39pm EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Q2 loss per shr $0.38 vs EPS $0.10 last year
* Q2 Reuters Estimates loss per shr view $0.19
* Q2 net interest income $23.8 mln vs $24.6 mln yr ago
* Q2 total operating expense up 21 pct to $27.7 mln
July 20 (Reuters) - Sun Bancorp Inc (SNBC.O) posted a wider-than-expected net loss for the second quarter, hurt by lower non-interest income and a rise in expenses.
The combined costs of repayment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program funds, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp's special deposit insurance assessment and the write down of the trust preferred security in the investment portfolio accounted for $10.3 million, pre-tax, and essentially offset the company's income, Chief Executive Thomas Geisel said in a statement.
For the quarter, Sun Bancorp reported a net loss of $8.8 million, or 38 cents a share, compared with a net income of $2.3 million, or 10 cents a share a year ago.
Analysts expected the company, which owns Sun National Bank, to post a loss of 19 cents a share, excluding items, according to Reuters Estimates.
Net interest income for the quarter was $23.8 million, compared with $24.6 million last year.
Provision for loan losses was $7 million, up from $6.5 million a year earlier.
Non-interest income fell to $1.7 million from $7.8 million in the year-ago period.
Non-interest expense for the quarter increased 21 percent to $27.7 million, mainly due to an increase in FDIC insurance of $2.4 million, Sun Bancorp said.
Shares of the Vineland, New Jersey-based company were down 5 percent at $5.25 in late afternoon trade Monday on Nasdaq. (Reporting by Brenton Cordeiro in Bangalore; Editing by Unnikrishnan Nair)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
.
Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:39pm EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Q2 loss per shr $0.38 vs EPS $0.10 last year
* Q2 Reuters Estimates loss per shr view $0.19
* Q2 net interest income $23.8 mln vs $24.6 mln yr ago
* Q2 total operating expense up 21 pct to $27.7 mln
July 20 (Reuters) - Sun Bancorp Inc (SNBC.O) posted a wider-than-expected net loss for the second quarter, hurt by lower non-interest income and a rise in expenses.
The combined costs of repayment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program funds, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp's special deposit insurance assessment and the write down of the trust preferred security in the investment portfolio accounted for $10.3 million, pre-tax, and essentially offset the company's income, Chief Executive Thomas Geisel said in a statement.
For the quarter, Sun Bancorp reported a net loss of $8.8 million, or 38 cents a share, compared with a net income of $2.3 million, or 10 cents a share a year ago.
Analysts expected the company, which owns Sun National Bank, to post a loss of 19 cents a share, excluding items, according to Reuters Estimates.
Net interest income for the quarter was $23.8 million, compared with $24.6 million last year.
Provision for loan losses was $7 million, up from $6.5 million a year earlier.
Non-interest income fell to $1.7 million from $7.8 million in the year-ago period.
Non-interest expense for the quarter increased 21 percent to $27.7 million, mainly due to an increase in FDIC insurance of $2.4 million, Sun Bancorp said.
Shares of the Vineland, New Jersey-based company were down 5 percent at $5.25 in late afternoon trade Monday on Nasdaq. (Reporting by Brenton Cordeiro in Bangalore; Editing by Unnikrishnan Nair)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
.
Monday, July 20, 2009
House Proposal Aims to Extend Insurance Coverage
Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy
House Democrats Propose to Expand Insurance Coverage
By Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
House Democrats announced a plan yesterday that would force the richest 2 million U.S. taxpayers to shoulder much of the cost of an expansion of the nation's health-care system, by imposing a surtax of as much as 5.4 percent on income above $350,000 a year.
The House proposal aims to extend insurance coverage to 37 million Americans over the next decade, covering more people through Medicaid and providing subsidies to help others meet a new federal mandate to purchase insurance. Democratic aides said the proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, and would ensure that 97 percent of Americans were enrolled in a health plan by 2015.
About half of the cost would be covered by reducing spending on federal health programs, primarily Medicare, which serves the elderly and the disabled. But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected.
The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million. Combined with the expiration next year of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, the surtax would drive the top federal tax rate to 45 percent, the highest level since lawmakers rewrote the tax code in 1986.
ad_icon
House leaders defended the plan by saying it targets those most able to pay -- the wealthiest 1.2 percent of households -- while honoring President Obama's pledge to protect the middle class from higher taxes.
Obama issued a statement praising the House plan. At a time when health-care costs are "crushing businesses and families and placing an unsustainable burden on governments," he said, "key committees in the House of Representatives have engaged in unprecedented cooperation to produce a health-care proposal that will lower costs, provide better care for patients and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the health-care industry."
But the plan has drawn sharp attacks from Republicans and is already creating friction with Democrats in the Senate.
Read More...
House Democrats Propose to Expand Insurance Coverage
By Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
House Democrats announced a plan yesterday that would force the richest 2 million U.S. taxpayers to shoulder much of the cost of an expansion of the nation's health-care system, by imposing a surtax of as much as 5.4 percent on income above $350,000 a year.
The House proposal aims to extend insurance coverage to 37 million Americans over the next decade, covering more people through Medicaid and providing subsidies to help others meet a new federal mandate to purchase insurance. Democratic aides said the proposal would cost more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, and would ensure that 97 percent of Americans were enrolled in a health plan by 2015.
About half of the cost would be covered by reducing spending on federal health programs, primarily Medicare, which serves the elderly and the disabled. But much of the rest of the money would come from a new tax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals earning more than $280,000. The taxes, which would take effect in 2011, would affect about 2.1 million taxpayers, the nonprofit Tax Policy Center projected.
The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million. Combined with the expiration next year of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, the surtax would drive the top federal tax rate to 45 percent, the highest level since lawmakers rewrote the tax code in 1986.
ad_icon
House leaders defended the plan by saying it targets those most able to pay -- the wealthiest 1.2 percent of households -- while honoring President Obama's pledge to protect the middle class from higher taxes.
Obama issued a statement praising the House plan. At a time when health-care costs are "crushing businesses and families and placing an unsustainable burden on governments," he said, "key committees in the House of Representatives have engaged in unprecedented cooperation to produce a health-care proposal that will lower costs, provide better care for patients and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the health-care industry."
But the plan has drawn sharp attacks from Republicans and is already creating friction with Democrats in the Senate.
Read More...
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Organ donors run risk of being denied health insurance
Los Angeles Times
David Lazarus
July 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not making clear the financial risk of organ donation, insurers put donors in danger of losing affordable coverage and discourage potential donors from helping someone in need.
Eight years ago, Los Angeles resident Patricia Abdullah decided to donate a kidney to an acquaintance. She calls it one of the proudest moments of her life.
Last year, Abdullah, 61, lost her job with a publishing company. With it, she lost her employer-based health insurance.
Now she wonders what will happen if she can't find another job with group coverage. If she turns to the individual insurance market, will her act of compassion as an organ donor be perceived by insurers as a "preexisting condition," resulting in higher premiums or even denial of coverage?
"My fear is that they won't accept me because of this," Abdullah said. "It's what they say about no good deed going unpunished."
This is a blurry aspect of the healthcare system. Advocates for organ donation assert that insurers can and do treat donors as having a preexisting condition, but there is little empirical evidence to back that up.
"I'm sure it happens," said Jason Kimbrough, a spokesman for the California Department of Insurance, "but it's not something we track."
.
Read More...
David Lazarus
July 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not making clear the financial risk of organ donation, insurers put donors in danger of losing affordable coverage and discourage potential donors from helping someone in need.
Eight years ago, Los Angeles resident Patricia Abdullah decided to donate a kidney to an acquaintance. She calls it one of the proudest moments of her life.
Last year, Abdullah, 61, lost her job with a publishing company. With it, she lost her employer-based health insurance.
Now she wonders what will happen if she can't find another job with group coverage. If she turns to the individual insurance market, will her act of compassion as an organ donor be perceived by insurers as a "preexisting condition," resulting in higher premiums or even denial of coverage?
"My fear is that they won't accept me because of this," Abdullah said. "It's what they say about no good deed going unpunished."
This is a blurry aspect of the healthcare system. Advocates for organ donation assert that insurers can and do treat donors as having a preexisting condition, but there is little empirical evidence to back that up.
"I'm sure it happens," said Jason Kimbrough, a spokesman for the California Department of Insurance, "but it's not something we track."
.
Read More...
China H1 insurance premiums up 6 pct yr/yr - paper
SHANGHAI, July 15 (Reuters) - China's insurance premiums in the first half of the year grew 6.4 percent on the year to 597.6 billion yuan ($87.47 billion), the official China Securities Journal said on Wednesday, quoting a senior regulatory official.
Chen Wenhui, assistant chairman at the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, said life insurance premiums in the first half of the year rose 3.4 percent from a year earlier to 440.0 billion yuan, while asset insurance premiums gained 15.8 percent to 157.6 billion yuan.
China Pacific Insurance Group Co (601601.SS), the country's third-biggest life insurer, said in a statement that premiums of its life insurance subsidiary reached 35.2 billion yuan in the first half of the year, while premiums from its asset insurance subsidiary were 18.6 billion yuan. ($1=6.832 Yuan) (Reporting by Rujun Shen and Eric Burroughs; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
THE SOURCE : Reuters
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52pm EDT
.
Chen Wenhui, assistant chairman at the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, said life insurance premiums in the first half of the year rose 3.4 percent from a year earlier to 440.0 billion yuan, while asset insurance premiums gained 15.8 percent to 157.6 billion yuan.
China Pacific Insurance Group Co (601601.SS), the country's third-biggest life insurer, said in a statement that premiums of its life insurance subsidiary reached 35.2 billion yuan in the first half of the year, while premiums from its asset insurance subsidiary were 18.6 billion yuan. ($1=6.832 Yuan) (Reporting by Rujun Shen and Eric Burroughs; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner)
THE SOURCE : Reuters
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52pm EDT
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Mich. Democrats take aim at insurance denials
By DAVID EGGERT | Associated Press Writer
5:37 PM CDT, July 13, 2009
ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, Mich. - Insurance companies would face millions of dollars in fines, damages and attorney fees for denying or delaying valid claims under legislation a state House committee is preparing to debate.
Supporters of the bills, including several Democratic lawmakers, upset policyholders and an industry whistle-blower, met with reporters Monday to announce the legislation, which the Democratic-led House Insurance Committee is expected to approve by week's end. They say Michigan is one of four states without serious financial penalties when a court rules an insurer has not fairly settled a claim.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration supports the proposed legislation, but it would likely stall in the Republican-led state Senate, which strongly supports the state's influential insurance industry.
Jo Anne Katzman, a former Allstate Insurance Co. adjuster who handled homeowner claims, told reporters at a brain injury rehabilitation center outside Lansing that employees at the company's branch in Farmington Hills were routinely told to deny claims or, if the Michigan office had spent too much in one month, delay writing checks to policyholders until the following month.
Katzman said employees were encouraged to send claims to a special investigations unit, which she said stops making payments to policyholders living elsewhere while their home is being repaired.
Workers who followed the policies were rewarded with desk refrigerators and clothing, she said.
"We were actually told that our jobs depended on it, that this office was in danger of closing if we kept our claim numbers as high as they had been in Michigan," Katzman said.
Read More...
.
5:37 PM CDT, July 13, 2009
ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, Mich. - Insurance companies would face millions of dollars in fines, damages and attorney fees for denying or delaying valid claims under legislation a state House committee is preparing to debate.
Supporters of the bills, including several Democratic lawmakers, upset policyholders and an industry whistle-blower, met with reporters Monday to announce the legislation, which the Democratic-led House Insurance Committee is expected to approve by week's end. They say Michigan is one of four states without serious financial penalties when a court rules an insurer has not fairly settled a claim.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration supports the proposed legislation, but it would likely stall in the Republican-led state Senate, which strongly supports the state's influential insurance industry.
Jo Anne Katzman, a former Allstate Insurance Co. adjuster who handled homeowner claims, told reporters at a brain injury rehabilitation center outside Lansing that employees at the company's branch in Farmington Hills were routinely told to deny claims or, if the Michigan office had spent too much in one month, delay writing checks to policyholders until the following month.
Katzman said employees were encouraged to send claims to a special investigations unit, which she said stops making payments to policyholders living elsewhere while their home is being repaired.
Workers who followed the policies were rewarded with desk refrigerators and clothing, she said.
"We were actually told that our jobs depended on it, that this office was in danger of closing if we kept our claim numbers as high as they had been in Michigan," Katzman said.
Read More...
.
Bills target insurance firms that drag feet on legit claims
BY CHRIS CHRISTOFF • FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU CHIEF • July 14, 2009
Insurance companies that drag out or deny legitimate claims are the targets of hearings this week led by House Democrats, who said Monday that those companies should be fined up to $1 million and their executives charged with crimes.
The Democrats' 12-bill package would allow the state insurance commissioner to levy a fine of up to $1 million. It would create civil penalties up to triple the cost of the original claim and 5-year felonies for insurance company executives who encourage wrongful denial of claims.
Insurance industry spokespeople criticized the proposal as politically motivated, unnecessary and likely to drive up insurance costs with frivolous lawsuits.
Lori Conarton, spokeswoman for the Michigan Insurance Institute, said only a small percentage of claims filed in the state are disputed. She said insurance company employees work hard to help customers recoup their losses.
Read More....
.
Insurance companies that drag out or deny legitimate claims are the targets of hearings this week led by House Democrats, who said Monday that those companies should be fined up to $1 million and their executives charged with crimes.
The Democrats' 12-bill package would allow the state insurance commissioner to levy a fine of up to $1 million. It would create civil penalties up to triple the cost of the original claim and 5-year felonies for insurance company executives who encourage wrongful denial of claims.
Insurance industry spokespeople criticized the proposal as politically motivated, unnecessary and likely to drive up insurance costs with frivolous lawsuits.
Lori Conarton, spokeswoman for the Michigan Insurance Institute, said only a small percentage of claims filed in the state are disputed. She said insurance company employees work hard to help customers recoup their losses.
Read More....
.
Affordable health insurance for small businesses
Source: BOSTON.COM
Posted July 14, 2009 09:15 AM
By State Senator Scott Brown
Guest Columnist
Posted July 14, 2009 09:15 AM
By State Senator Scott Brown
Guest Columnist
Small businesses operating in the Commonwealth today face a very real problem with regard to obtaining affordable health insurance coverage in that they are strictly prohibited by law from banning together to take advantage of group purchasing. Better rates and buying clout in the marketplace can be achieved through strength in numbers in much the same way that cities and towns were granted permission a few years ago. This method is considerably cheaper and gives them more bargaining power, which would allow them to compete with larger companies for the best rates. In order, for small business to negotiate as a group, a state law must be changed and I am in support of this venture.
House Bill 3452, An Act Relative to Small Business Health Insurance, filed by Representative Steven Walsh (D-Lynn) would allow small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to organize nonprofit groups for the purpose of purchasing insurance for their employees, similar to the Group Insurance Commission, which allows towns and cities to purchase insurance collectively, but leaves out small businesses. This would give small businesses the advantage of negotiating for group premiums which would allow them to obtain the best possible rates on health insurance. The overwhelming majority of Massachusetts businesses, about 87 percent, have fewer than 20 employees. This means that there are about 724,000 workers who do not have access to the most affordable health insurance and this figure does not take into account businesses which would still meet the bill’s criteria of less than 50 workers.
A 1991 law previously allowed businesses to buy health insurance from trade associations and gave those associations some privileges in regulating and limiting health coverage; however, this only applied to larger businesses while others were left to pay significantly higher premiums. The new bill is a significant improvement because it contains no exemptions and gives the state insurance commissioner the authority to regulate and oversee the new small-business health plan, rather than the trade associations.
The law was repealed in 1996 and a modified version of it was rejected in 2005. After the law was amended, trade associations and chambers of commerce were relegated to being tools for businesses to more easily find health insurance providers, without providing any discount or other benefits. A small business would receive the same insurance rate whether or not they purchase their health insurance plans through these organizations.
When looking at who may have been left out, or may not have been a winner, in the state’s health reform law, it is evident that it was small businesses. If we are committed to providing the residents of the Commonwealth with affordable access to health insurance, then it is senseless to allow a law to remain on the books that prohibits over 700,000 workers access to cheaper health insurance. The passage of this bill would give small business owners, who make up the majority of Massachusetts businesses, the ability to compete with large corporations and would provide discounted health insurance to a substantial amount of workers and their families.
.
House Bill 3452, An Act Relative to Small Business Health Insurance, filed by Representative Steven Walsh (D-Lynn) would allow small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to organize nonprofit groups for the purpose of purchasing insurance for their employees, similar to the Group Insurance Commission, which allows towns and cities to purchase insurance collectively, but leaves out small businesses. This would give small businesses the advantage of negotiating for group premiums which would allow them to obtain the best possible rates on health insurance. The overwhelming majority of Massachusetts businesses, about 87 percent, have fewer than 20 employees. This means that there are about 724,000 workers who do not have access to the most affordable health insurance and this figure does not take into account businesses which would still meet the bill’s criteria of less than 50 workers.
A 1991 law previously allowed businesses to buy health insurance from trade associations and gave those associations some privileges in regulating and limiting health coverage; however, this only applied to larger businesses while others were left to pay significantly higher premiums. The new bill is a significant improvement because it contains no exemptions and gives the state insurance commissioner the authority to regulate and oversee the new small-business health plan, rather than the trade associations.
The law was repealed in 1996 and a modified version of it was rejected in 2005. After the law was amended, trade associations and chambers of commerce were relegated to being tools for businesses to more easily find health insurance providers, without providing any discount or other benefits. A small business would receive the same insurance rate whether or not they purchase their health insurance plans through these organizations.
When looking at who may have been left out, or may not have been a winner, in the state’s health reform law, it is evident that it was small businesses. If we are committed to providing the residents of the Commonwealth with affordable access to health insurance, then it is senseless to allow a law to remain on the books that prohibits over 700,000 workers access to cheaper health insurance. The passage of this bill would give small business owners, who make up the majority of Massachusetts businesses, the ability to compete with large corporations and would provide discounted health insurance to a substantial amount of workers and their families.
.
State Senator Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) represents the Norfolk, Bristol, and Middlesex District, which includes Needham and precincts B, F and G of Wellesley along with several other communities.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Would You Be Able To Collect A Lost Life Insurance?
If you are a beneficiary of a life insurance of a relative who died, and the insurance policy is lost and you dont know with which insurance company, what will you do? How about if you found the policy after a long time, would you still be able to collect it? Well, the answer really depends.
If the insurance policy is paid for up to the time of death, well yes, you can collect the insurance. There even some insurance wherein you can still collect a reduced benefit even if at some point of time the payment was stopped. The best thing to do if you have an insurance is to inform the beneficiaries about the insurance. Or be sure to leave a copy or a note about the insurance in some place wherein your love ones will immediately find out if in case you will die or whatever...
Read more...
If the insurance policy is paid for up to the time of death, well yes, you can collect the insurance. There even some insurance wherein you can still collect a reduced benefit even if at some point of time the payment was stopped. The best thing to do if you have an insurance is to inform the beneficiaries about the insurance. Or be sure to leave a copy or a note about the insurance in some place wherein your love ones will immediately find out if in case you will die or whatever...
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
