Deadline nears to apply for FEMA tornado aid

Protect the things you love the most: Get a free low insurance rate quote today:  http://www.aiins.us

RALEIGH -- Victims of the April 16 tornadoes that tore through North Carolina have until midnight

Monday to apply for federal disaster aid.
To receive grants and assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration, storm victims must apply by calling 800-621-3362 or visiting fema.gov.
Since the storms, 9,128 North Carolina victims have registered with FEMA, and the agency has doled out $15 million.

In Wake County, 2,195 people have registered, and they’ve received $1.45 million in aid. In Johnston County, 460 victims have registered and received $1.01 million.
FEMA spokesman Gene Kauffman worries that some victims are still hesitant to register. “They feel like they haven’t had much damage and they’ve got insurance,” Kauffman said. “If they’re reluctant to come forward, they should not be.”
Kauffman said victims with insurance can qualify if their policy didn’t cover all their losses. Also, registering with FEMA doesn’t affect one’s eligibility for other federal aid programs.

Coalition Issues Warning on Kids and Hot Cars

On average, 35 to 40 children across the country die from heat exposure in vehicles each year.
According to Safe Kids North Carolina, 2010 turned out to be one of the deadliest years on record for children 2 months to 6 years old with 49 hyperthermia deaths.
In the past five years, at least 10 children in North Carolina have died from hyperthermia after being trapped in hot vehicles.
Some of these deaths occur when a parent accidentally forgets a child in a car. Some occur when a parent intentionally leaves a child in a vehicle. In other cases, a child was playing in an unattended vehicle when overtaken by heat.
"Sadly, these deaths are preventable," said state Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin, state chairman of Safe Kids North Carolina. "Leaving a child unattended in a car, even for a minute, is more dangerous than many people realize."
That's why Safe Kids North Carolina has launched a new safety campaign, with the slogan "S'more dangerous than you think... Never leave your child alone in a car." Safety experts show parents, caregivers and children how easy it is to bake a s'more in a vehicle to demonstrate how quickly the inside of a car can become dangerously hot.
With its soaring temperatures, July is historically the deadliest month for cases of vehicular hyperthermia in children in the state, a news release said. However, the danger spreads from March through November due to the subtropical North Carolina climate.
Hyperthermia can occur even on days with mild 70-degree temperatures. The temperature in a closed vehicle can rise about 20 degrees in 10 minutes and nearly 30 degrees in 20 minutes. Cracking a window has little effect.
Safe Kids North Carolina offers the following safety tips:
n Never leave a child alone in a vehicle. Check to make sure all children exit the vehicle when you reach your destination.
n Lock the doors when your vehicle is parked, and store keys in a secure location. Teach children that cars are not places to play.
n Busy parents have a lot on their minds, so give yourself a reminder.
Place your purse, briefcase or other important items in the backseat next to your child's car seat so you have to look in the back before leaving the car. Also, set a reminder on your cell phone or other mobile device to remind you to drop off children when routines change.
n Make an arrangement with your child's school or day care that you will be notified if your child is not dropped off at the normal time.
n If you see a child or pet left unattended in a vehicle, call 911 immediately.
n Check vehicles and trunks first if a child goes missing.
Safe Kids North Carolina reaches out to parents, caregivers and children to prevent childhood injuries through 36 Safe Kids Coalitions working in 64 counties.

http://ping.fm/D447c

http://ping.fm/FwhE1

Divorce insurance: New casualty insurance pays out on the unhappily hitched

BY PAULA BURKES pburkes@opubco.com    7

Published: June 12, 2011

Your favorite local insurance provider. http:.//www.aiins.us  "Ai Insurance" -- auto, home, life, businesses. health, boat, and more!  

Introduced in August by Kernersville, N.C.,-based SafeGuard Guaranty Corp., “WedLock” is a new type of casualty insurance that gives the unhappily married a payout after he or she is divorced.
Monthly premiums run from $15.99 for a payout of $1,250 to $3,198 ($15.99 times a maximum of 200 units) for $250,000 coverage.
To discourage people from signing up just before their divorce, policyholders must pay premiums on insured spouses for four years before the policy will pay out.
SafeGuard Chairman and CEO John Logan said the number of WedLock policyholders is growing monthly. “We don't share the numbers,” Logan said, “but it's more than a handful.”
Logan conceived the idea for Wedlock following his divorce 10 years ago.
“My finances went to hell in a handbag,” he said. “I thought I can't be the only schmuck this is happening to. That was my ‘aha' moment.”
Logan realizes most people, unless they've been divorced before, won't buy policies before they wed, because they don't anticipate divorcing. But policies, he said, may be bought discreetly by family, friends or an individual spouse after he or she weds and senses infidelity, substance abuse or other potential marriage-wrecking behaviors.
Edmond divorce attorney George Freedman is more than skeptical.
“They're playing on the fears of potentially getting a divorce,” said Freedman of Lester, Loving & Davies. “You'd be better off,” Freedman said, “contributing to a mutual fund for your child's education or a second honeymoon.”
With this insurance, he said, policyholders may “pay a whole lot of money on an investment that may never pay.”
Is it worth it?If the insured on a standard WedLock policy divorces after four years, a holder who pays $159.90 monthly for 10 units would have paid $7,675.20 in premiums and receive a claim payout out of $12,500. If the insured divorces after 10 years, the policyholder would have handed over $19,188 and would receive a payout of $27,500; insurers throw in $250 per unit for every year the marriage survives beyond four.
If policyholders desire a premium refund, including in divorces that occur sooner than four years, they can add a rider to their policies about $1 per unit, Logan said.
Though policies have no accrued value and only pay out after divorces are final, settlements under Oklahoma family law would be considered marital assets because marital money was used to pay the premiums, Freedman said.
Meanwhile, Patricia Goodman, Edmond certified financial planner and one of a few certified divorce financial analysts in the state, can see the need for divorce insurance.
“I've seen many divorcing spouses who aren't wage earners beg and plead for enough money to pay for divorces while they're pending,” Goodman said. “Divorce insurance could inspire the legal teams of such spouses to fully put in the effort needed versus wonder ‘Am I going to get stiffed?'”
“Why do we buy insurance for anything, if it's not to protect against devastating financial loss?”
Locally, divorces cost $5,000 to $10,000 per each divorcing spouse, Freedman said. They easily can be $20,000, $30,000 and more apiece for contested divorces involving child custody, he said.

Read more: http://newsok.com/divorce-insurance-new-casualty-insurance-pays-out-on-the-unhappily-hitched/article/3576463#ixzz1PDUUfyAk

http://ping.fm/UhcY5

NC General Assembly Strips Patients' Rights, Leaves All North Carolinians at Risk,

For low rates on auto, home, life, commercial, and health insurance, visit Ai Insurance! North Carolina's cheapest insurance provider.http://www.aiins.us 

RALEIGH, N.C., June 10, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The NC General Assembly on

Thursday approved rules that strip away patients' rights, said the NC Advocates for Justice, and leave everyone less safe.
Among its provisions, SB33 imposes a one-size-fits-all cap on damages in malpractice cases resulting in mutilation, loss of limbs, blindness and other preventable injuries.
The bill - sponsored by Sens. Tom Apodaca, Harry Brown and Bob Rucho - passed after a conference report diluted measures inserted by the NC House to somewhat protect patients' rights.  The House had moved to exempt disfigurement, death, permanent injury and loss of use of the body from the arbitrary $500,000 cap.  
The conference report kept the exemption in name only -- requiring the injured person to prove the party in the wrong acted with gross negligence, reckless indifference, malice, fraud, or intentional conduct.  For all practical purposes, most patients could not prove those things and would not fall under a cap exception.
"The bottom line is that a person who is disfigured or has lost the use of limb will not be able to recover more than an arbitrary amount for those injuries except in extremely unlikely circumstances," said Dick Taylor of the NCAJ.  "The GOP-led vote is a boon to insurance companies, an injustice to injured patients and a danger to everyone who seeks care."
The one-size-fits-all cap will benefit corporations such as insurance companies, Taylor added, some of which are openly boasting of record profits.
Unconstitutional Cap
Two conservative former NC Supreme Court justices have said the arbitrary cap would violate the sacred rights of North Carolinians. Former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., a conservative icon, called the proposed cap "unnecessary as well as unconstitutional."
Doctors, too, are troubled by the bill's lack of fairness.  In a letter to lawmakers, Dr. John Faulkner, a physician who's wife was burned in a preventable operating room fire, wrote, "No one can put a 'cap' on my wife's pain and disfigurement - so how can the legislature put a cap on what it's worth? … Why do you think it's fairer for legislators to decide, rather than juries?"
Dr. Martin Brooks, an award-winning physician with a career spanning 50 years, has advised legislators that an arbitrary cap on damages for severely injured patients "will reduce the quality of medical care given to the people of North Carolina."
For more information, please visit www.LetJuriesDecide.com.  Follow our news on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/NCLawandPolitics.
SOURCE NC Advocates for Justice

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/10/3691040/nc-general-assembly-strips-patients.html#ixzz1OyVdaOLe

Buy Young

Emily Lambert, 06.08.11, 06:00 PM EDT
Forbes Magazine dated June 27, 2011

For a good deal on a life or disability policy, shop when you're least in need.

For great rates on affordable life insurance, contact Ai Insurance today!  Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. Ai Insurance specializes in getting you the coverage you need at a price you can afford. http://www.aiins.us


In the wake of the recession only 44% of American households have individual life insurance, a half-century low. Fewer still have disability insurance. If you're uninsured or haven't reviewed your coverage recently, here's a reason to get moving: You're the youngest now you'll ever be, and as you age the cost of coverage will only rise. "A 35-year-old male is going to pay less than a 36-year-old male," says Mark Maurer, president of brokerage Low Load Insurance Services.
Here's how to get started.


Find your family's number
Insurance agents are fond of citing multiples of annual income that people should try to replace with life insurance. But what matters is your own family's needs. "The key question is ‘Who suffers if this person's income is gone?'" says William Wixon, a certified financial planner in Maple Grove, Minn. In fact, Wixon occasionally advises his older clients to let their life insurance policies lapse.
Young parents, by contrast, generally do need life insurance. But situations differ. Two highly paid professionals might be able to raise their kids just fine on one of their salaries, while a stay-at-home spouse needs extra protection should something happen to the sole breadwinner. Estimate what your survivors would need to cover future bills, including a mortgage and the rapidly rising cost of college. Then subtract your spouse's expected earnings, plus death benefits your family would receive from group life insurance policies, Social Security and other sources.

 

Windows 8 heavily focused on mobile devices; will it affect the desktop experience?

http://ping.fm/PWhML

No, You Can't Keep Your Health Insurance

A new study by McKinsey suggests that as many as 78 million Americans could lose employer health coverage.

By Grace-Marie Turner

ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance—with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.

This disturbing finding is based on my calculations from a survey by McKinsey & Company. The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Ai Insurance of North Carolina offers the best insurance rates on auto, home, life, commercial, and health insurance. http://www.aiins.us if you ou are looking for car insurance, health insurance, commercial insurance, life insurance, or boat insurance...they can help..offices in
Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilmington.

Before the health law passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only nine million to 10 million people, or about 7% of employees who currently get health insurance at work, would switch to government-subsidized insurance. But the McKinsey survey of 1,300 employers across industries, geographies and employer sizes found "that reform will provoke a much greater response" and concludes that the health overhaul law will lead to a "radical restructuring" of job-based health coverage.

View Full Image
turner
Getty Images/Stock Illustration RF


Another McKinsey analyst, Alissa Meade, told a meeting of health-insurance executives last November that "something in the range of 80 million to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years" after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014.

Many employees who will need to seek another source of coverage will take advantage of the health-insurance subsidies for families making as much as $88,000 a year. This will drive up the cost of ObamaCare.

In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president's health law over the next decade. McKinsey's survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more.

The McKinsey study, "How US health care reform will affect employee benefits," predicts that employers will either drop coverage altogether, offer defined contributions for insurance, or offer coverage only to certain employees. The study concludes that 30% of employers overall will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance to their workers. However, among employers with a high awareness of the health-reform law, this proportion increases to more than 50%.

The employer incentives to alter or cease coverage under the health-reform law are strong. According to the study, at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. That's because they no longer would be tethered to health-insurance costs that consistently rise faster than inflation.

Employers should think twice if they believe the fine for not offering coverage will stay unchanged at $2,000 per worker. "If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes," according to the new study, authored by McKinsey consultants Shubham Singhal, Jeris Stueland and Drew Ungerman.

The case for repeal of ObamaCare grows stronger every year. The massive shift of health costs to taxpayers thanks to the disruption of employer-sponsored health insurance will add further to the burgeoning federal budget deficit. Congress can and must develop policies that allow the marketplace to evolve and not be forced into ObamaCare's regulatory straitjacket.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of "Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America" (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).

*Ai Insurance does not endorse the content provided within this blog. Content is strictly for informational purposes only.

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

Critics: Insurance Companies Benefit from NC Tort Reform Bill

RALEIGH, N.C. - Cutting costs for insurance companies is the end result of a bill that passed the North Carolina House last week, according to those who oppose the legislation. They say it would be at the expense of the public, since in the event of an auto accident or similar circumstance, the extent to which a person in North Carolina can hold someone else accountable for injuries could soon be limited..

If House Bill 542 becomes law, people hurt by the actions of others will be required to reveal the amount of insurance they have while, at the same time, defendants would be able to keep their insurance coverage secret.

Raleigh attorney Chris Nichols doesn't think that's fair when, for example, someone is injured by a drunk driver.

"The North Carolina GOP wants to change the law and allow an irresponsible driver to take advantage of the benefits that responsible people have worked for and paid for."


Contact Ai Insurance for all of your insurance needs. Auto, Home, Life, Health, Commercial...they can help. Save up to 50% on your current insurance! Compare your current plan with Ai Insurance rates. Offices in Fayetteville, Wilmington, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilson. http://www.aiins.us

HB 542 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If voted out of committee, it will go to the Senate floor by June 17.

Nichols believes state lawmakers are bowing to the pressures of insurance company lobbyists.

"North Carolina has always favored the people; we're a populist state. And, if the governor signs this bill, she is reversing that trend. We become a state that caters to corporate interests only."

Those in favor of this provision and others in the bill insist they are a necessary part of tort reform for the state, to rein in the costs of legal action.
Stephanie Carroll Carson, Public News Service - NC

No, You Can't Keep Your Health Insurance

A new study by McKinsey suggests that as many as 78 million Americans could lose employer health coverage.

By Grace-Marie Turner

ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance—with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.

This disturbing finding is based on my calculations from a survey by McKinsey & Company. The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Ai Insurance of North Carolina offers the best insurance rates on auto, home, life, commercial, and health insurance. http://www.aiins.us  if you ou are looking for car insurance, health insurance, commercial insurance, life insurance, or boat insurance...they can help..offices in
Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount, Greenville, and Wilmington.

Before the health law passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only nine million to 10 million people, or about 7% of employees who currently get health insurance at work, would switch to government-subsidized insurance. But the McKinsey survey of 1,300 employers across industries, geographies and employer sizes found "that reform will provoke a much greater response" and concludes that the health overhaul law will lead to a "radical restructuring" of job-based health coverage.

View Full Image

Getty Images/Stock Illustration RF

 

Another McKinsey analyst, Alissa Meade, told a meeting of health-insurance executives last November that "something in the range of 80 million to 100 million individuals are going to change coverage categories in the two years" after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014.

Many employees who will need to seek another source of coverage will take advantage of the health-insurance subsidies for families making as much as $88,000 a year. This will drive up the cost of ObamaCare.

In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president's health law over the next decade. McKinsey's survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more.

The McKinsey study, "How US health care reform will affect employee benefits," predicts that employers will either drop coverage altogether, offer defined contributions for insurance, or offer coverage only to certain employees. The study concludes that 30% of employers overall will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance to their workers. However, among employers with a high awareness of the health-reform law, this proportion increases to more than 50%.

The employer incentives to alter or cease coverage under the health-reform law are strong. According to the study, at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries. That's because they no longer would be tethered to health-insurance costs that consistently rise faster than inflation.

Employers should think twice if they believe the fine for not offering coverage will stay unchanged at $2,000 per worker. "If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes," according to the new study, authored by McKinsey consultants Shubham Singhal, Jeris Stueland and Drew Ungerman.

The case for repeal of ObamaCare grows stronger every year. The massive shift of health costs to taxpayers thanks to the disruption of employer-sponsored health insurance will add further to the burgeoning federal budget deficit. Congress can and must develop policies that allow the marketplace to evolve and not be forced into ObamaCare's regulatory straitjacket.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of "Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America" (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).

*Ai Insurance does not endorse the content provided within this blog. Content is strictly for informational purposes only.

Single-Payer Health Care Systems, Multiple Health Care Disasters

Cheap North Carolina insurance rates. Home, Life, Car, Commercial, Health
http://www.aiins.us get a free rate quote today!

Democrats have recently seized on a novel way of reducing health care costs — threats.

The Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced that any insurance company that wants to increase premiums more than 10% will have to get approval from the government. Congress didn’t pass a law mandating this draconian policy — HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius simply decreed it.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin just signed a bill that will create a public insurance option within his borders. Advocates hope that the end result will be a “single-payer” system, in which the state pays for the health care of its residents directly.

Both Sebelius and Shumlin declared that they were only trying to rein in health costs and limit wasteful spending on insurance company profits. But cost control by fiat — whether through rate regulation or a state-run health care system — will fail not only to restrain spending but also to improve Americans’ health.



The facts suggest that most of the waste and inefficiency in our health care system is in the sectors dominated by government. The federal government loses as much as $60 billion a year in Medicare fraud alone. That’s five times more than the combined profits of the top ten health insurance companies in the Fortune 500.

And the price controls the federal government plans to impose on insurers will simply result in the disappearance of private insurance options. For evidence, take a look at what happened after Massachusetts instituted heavy-handed price controls under its state health reform law — considered by the White House to be a model for ObamaCare.

Bay State officials initially denied 235 of 274 rate increases proposed by insurers last year. So insurers temporarily stopped offering new coverage.

The state government and insurers later compromised, but the state’s attempts to set insurance rates have resulted in a serious shortage of medical care. More than half of the state’s primary care practices are closed to new patients, and wait times for specialists range from 24 to 48 days, according to a survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society.

In Vermont, things will likely turn out much worse. The Green Mountain State’s new health care law creates a five-member board appointed by the governor with the power to set prices for all aspects of the state’s medical system — from routine tests to drugs.

The funding mechanism for the whole mess has not yet been set. But the law’s framers envisioned a 14% payroll tax paid by almost all workers and employers in the state. That’s on top of the Social Security, Medicare, and other taxes that Vermont’s residents and businesses already pay.

Again, we know how this scheme will play out. Vermont is just across the border from Quebec — which features a government-funded single-payer system of its own that relies heavily on price controls.

The francophone province’s health care system was implemented in the 1960s at the behest of a commission led by Dr. Claude Castonguay, the so-called “father of Quebec Medicare.”

Forty years later, in 2008, Castonguay was asked to review Quebec’s health care system again. He concluded that Canadian health care was in crisis. “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” he said.

His prescription for Canadian health care? “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

So just as Canada is running away from single-payer after decades of experience, Vermont is embracing it.

In 2010, residents of Quebec faced a median wait time of 18.8 weeks for surgical and other therapeutic treatments. According to The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, average hospital wait times increased 96% in Canada between 1993 to 2010.

Not the sort of system most Americans would want to emulate.

Here in America, federal and state officials have promised to lower health care costs — and right quick. But forcibly regulating prices won’t do the trick. Americans — and Vermonters in particular — should hope that these experiments in health care reform are mercifully short.

Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is The Truth About Obamacare (Regnery 2010).

Is Dental Insurance A Valuable Benefit?

 
By Carol Harnett

Get the health insurance coverage you need at prices you can afford. 
http://www.aiins.us Ai Insurance
 
The cost of twice-yearly dental care may be less than the cost of a dental-benefits plan, but HR leaders may want to consider carefully before changing their employees' coverage. It's a highly valued benefit -- plus it may drive down some healthcare costs as well.

As a small business owner, I wear many hats. One of my responsibilities includes making decisions about my benefits.
In theory, this should be an easy task for me. But, since I now pay the entire premium instead of receiving contributions from my employer, I find myself being more thoughtful about how I structure my benefits package.
Medical insurance was a no-brainer, as was setting up my retirement plan and making certain I provided for my survivors via a life insurance policy. Given my background working in and around rehabilitation medicine and disability insurance, I knew that updating my disability-insurance coverage was critical.
I found myself pausing, however, when I looked at dental insurance. You see, in the back alleys of the benefits world, experts often quietly discuss dental coverage as an overpriced benefit.
I started my analysis by looking at my plan design, my dental-coverage utilization and how much I paid in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
My last group plan was a standard benefits design. After a $100 deductible, it paid 100 percent, 80 percent and 50 percent, respectively, for preventive, basic and major dental services. There was a maximum annual benefit of $1,500 and a lifetime plan maximum of $1,000 for orthodontic services. The insurance company had also negotiated discounts with the providers in its network.
The plan allowed me to seek preventive care twice every 12 months as long as I separated my appointments by 150 days. My annual premium was $600.
But, here's where my analysis got interesting. Historically, I sought preventive care twice a year like clockwork. My dentist and I worked out an intervention plan that included x-rays once a year.
When I reviewed my billing history, I noticed that the discount the dental carrier provided was only a few dollars less than my dentist's regular charges. And, when I looked at the total charges for the year, they were, on average, about $400.
Simple math led me to the conclusion that I "lost" approximately $300 annually.
Maybe my dental experience was atypical. But, it turns out that I'm not unusual. According to the American Dental Association, most people who seek treatment incur annual costs just below $300.
As a person who knows my way around insurance, I considered the risk I was insuring against. While I have never experienced a dental emergency, I was protecting myself, in theory, against unplanned dental issues.
But, if I ever had a dental emergency or needed major dental services, how much would my dental coverage help me? The answer: up to $1,500 per year.
Costhelper.com estimates that root canals and dental crowns range from $350 to $3,000 per tooth depending upon complexity, materials, location and the dentist's training and experience. Insurance would certainly help offset those expenses.
I would have to hope, of course, that my dentist's treatment and charges lined up with what my dental coverage established as "usual, customary and reasonable."
I decided to turn to my dentist, Robert Antmann, DDS, regarding his experience with dental care and insurance. Convery Dental, of which he is an owner, has been established for 99 years, so he has access to an unusual depth of history and perspective.
Dental insurance began sometime in the 1960s, Dr. Antmann says, and the benefit, at that time, had an annual maximum of about $1,000. The majority of his patients today have an annual maximum benefit of $1000 to $1,500. Not much has changed in 50 years.
Dr. Antmann's experience is not unusual, according to other sources -- which also project that the typical annual maximum, which was $1,500 in the 1970s, should have increased, via inflation, to $10,000.
So, there are some questions about the botton-line value of dental insurance. Why would employers offer it? A few reasons.
Most employee-benefits surveys find that dental insurance is the third most employee-requested benefit after medical and retirement benefits. The theory among industry experts is that employees believe this coverage is a tangible benefit they could potentially use every year -- unlike disability or long-term-care insurance.
A 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that 63 percent of adults with dental insurance visited dentists regularly, compared to 40 percent of adults without coverage.
That may not be true, however, for the 12 percent of adults who have high dental anxiety. HR executives should consider a unique finding of the JADA study: Those employees with dental anxiety who have dental insurance were significantly less likely to visit dentists regularly than uninsured adults.
Overall, employed adults lose more than 164 million hours of work each year due to dental disease or dentist visits, according to the U.S. Surgeon General's 2011 report on Oral Health in America. The theory put forward by the National Association of Dental Plans is that employees without dental insurance are more likely to lose work due to untreated dental problems.
Dental treatment may also affect medical care, according to a recent longitudinal study by CIGNA (full disclosure: a client of mine), which sought to determine whether periodontal treatment affects the cost of medical care in diabetics. (Experts suggest there is a relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease -- and that both conditions may worsen if either is not properly care for.)
The results of the study indicate that ongoing periodontal treatment of diabetics lowered medical costs in 2008 by an average of almost $2,500. The effect was more pronounced in men than women ($3,200 vs. $735, respectively).
For HR leaders, the issue of whether dental insurance is a benefit that has kept up with the times may be a moot point. Dental coverage is a benefit that employees desire.
Added to that perceived value is the potential impact dental care may have on the healthcare costs of employees who are diabetic and, potentially, pregnant.
And, you can consider, too, that dental insurance is expanding its reach and services.
Gary Ballman, staff vice president at Anthem-owned Wellpoint Dental, says new enhancements in group dental insurance include international emergency treatment as well as dental analytics, which score providers by utilization and long-term economic value.
The American Dental Association offers some benefit-plan design alternatives to consider, such as a direct reimbursement plan, which may give your employees more coverage flexibility and maintain dental-benefit costs.
As for me, I've elected to forgo dental coverage this year. But, I'll keep my eye on how dental benefits evolve.

Windows 8 heavily focused on mobile devices; will it affect the desktop experience?

We all know that Windows 8 will be designed to run on tablets and according to some recent reports, the next version of Windows will put a heavy focus on mobile devices. Windows 8 will supposedly feature a welcome/unlock screen similar to the one found in Windows Phone 7, a new Ribbon UI for Windows Explorer and a document reader that uses a new packaged application model that “closely resembles Windows Phone 7 application packages.” These new features suggest that the operating system will be headed towards a more mobile-friendly interface than the previous versions of Windows. While this may be a good sign for users who want Windows on their mobile devices, it makes one wonder if the desktop version of the operating system will be streamlined similarly as well. After all, the desktop version of the Windows 7 is what makes it a great operating system and optimizing a desktop OS for the tablet/smartphone could have pretty drastic results.

Ai Insurance http://www.aiins.us recently made available a mobile (web-based) app to it's web users this weekend. Shortcuts includes "get a quote, locations, find an agent, and of course the Facebook link out. Try it out on your Droid or iPhone.