Tuesday, June 30, 2009

UnitedHealth Proposes $332 Billion In Lower Health Administration Costs

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- One of the nation's largest health insurers issued a report Tuesday suggesting the U.S. health sector could reduce costs by $332 billion through reduced paperwork and administrative costs.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH), a Minneapolis managed care company, released a similar study in late May outlining ways the federal government could shed $540 billion in future medical costs over 10 years. The company is seeking to demonstrate how insurers and the federal government can rein in spiraling medical costs through practical means.

The report released Tuesday includes a number of proposed ways to lower administrative costs, including a new electronic system by which physicians can submit claims to insurance companies. The new system could save $108.6 billion over ten years, according to the report.

Another proposed option would scrap "explanations of benefits," which are sent to patients after doctors' visits, in favor of health statements available online each month.

As a whole, the health insurance industry - led by the America's Health Insurance Plans trade group - has ramped up efforts to improve practices among its own ranks. The industry is attempting to fend off congressional proposals to create a government-run health insurance option to compete with private insurers, however.




We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Monday, June 29, 2009

Health Care: The Time for Action is Now

THE PROBLEM

Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation, and health care costs continue to soar. At 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable.

At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business and economic perspective small business owners in Vermont and around the country are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees rather than new business investments and new jobs.

In terms of cost, we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country – all of which have national health care programs guaranteeing coverage to all of their people. Further, despite all that we spend, our health care outcomes lag behind many other countries in such areas as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.


THE SOLUTION

In my view, the United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to every man, woman and child in a cost effective way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the for-profit private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All system.

Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With 1,300 private insurance companies and thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, our country spends an incredible 30 percent of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for much less.

In recent years, we have been paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the number of physicians. Doctors and nurses in Vermont have described to me in painful detail the amount of time and money they are forced to waste negotiating with insurance companies about how they can treat their patients.

Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages – averaging $14.2 million for the top seven companies.

A publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All Program would provide freedom of choice in terms of doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Most importantly, it would save $400 billion a year in administrative waste by eliminating the private insurers’ efforts to fight claims, issue denials and make sure that the people they cover are profit generators.

Sadly, despite being the only approach that would provide comprehensive, cost-effective health care for all, the single-payer legislation which I’ve introduced in the Senate and which others have introduced in the House will not likely be passed into law this year. The reason: the enormous power of the insurance and drug companies who, over the last 10 years, have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying and campaign contributions.
WHERE CONGRESS IS AT TODAY

While the legislation that is currently winding its way through the Senate health committee is nowhere near as effective as single-payer, it does have some positive attributes. They are:

* An effort to provide at least a minimal level of coverage for all Americans who today lack health insurance. This would be done by increasing Medicaid eligibility and providing insurance subsidies for low and moderate income people.
* A radical improvement in primary health care by providing a medical home for every American. This would be accomplished by substantially increasing the number of Federally Qualified Community Health Centers and the number of primary care doctors, nurses and dentists.
* A major increase in funding to significantly improve our efforts at disease prevention and lowering the numbers of Americans who fall ill to chronic diseases.
* An increased focus on “quality control” and trying to assess why some medical facilities provide better care at far lower costs than others.
* Efforts to expand independent living and help keep the elderly and disabled out of nursing homes if they would prefer to live at home.

In addition to the difficult issue of how health care reform is funded, the most contentious issue now being debated is whether all Americans should be entitled to the choice of a public option – a federally-run, premium-based, Medicare-type plan which would compete with private insurance companies. While most Americans think that concept makes sense, the insurance companies and drug companies are pushing back fiercely. Most Democrats in the Senate and I support the concept. All Republicans oppose it.


We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to





We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Friday, June 26, 2009

New Study Shows Uninsured Crisis Wildly Overestimated

The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) has released the results of a new study. that shows that the “widely employed estimate of 47 million uninsured Americans is a misleading representation of the problem.”

epi-uninsured

The study, authored by Drs. June and David O’Neill of Baruch College and City University of New York, shows that more than 43 percent of uninsured Americans ages 18-64 could likely afford health coverage and are actually “voluntarily uninsured.”

Using data from a number of surveys to determine what percentage of uninsured Americans are actually unable to afford it, the study finds that at least 43 percent of Americans in the 18-64 year-old age group have incomes at least 2.5 times the poverty level and are “voluntarily” uninsured.

The study finds that 79 percent of people with incomes between 2.5 and 3.75 times the poverty level currently purchase private health insurance. In view of the large percentages covered at this level, the authors consider this uninsured group as having enough disposable income to purchase health insurance.

The uninsured population also varies dramatically from state to state. For example, thirty percent of Texas residents are uninsured, compared to 18 percent of New York and 13 percent of D.C. residents. Three states (Texas, Florida and California) make up a third of the uninsured population.






We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Counting Of Uninsured Americans A Difficult Task

Estimates of the total number of uninsured Americans may be based on "faulty assumptions" that are "inflating the projections," The Wall Street Journal says in its "Numbers Guy" blog. The Census Bureau estimates that the number of uninsured amounts to 45.7 million people," but may be "overcounting by millions." One problem is that "the 45.7 million figure includes undocumented immigrants, even though they aren't likely to be covered under new laws." Nonetheless, Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike use the "flawed numbers liberally," which is a "reprise of what happened 15 years ago, when the Clinton health plan foundered under differing cost estimates wielded by opponents."

"'There is a range of uncertainty in health legislation that probably exceeds that of most other issues before Congress,' says Robert D. Reischauer, who headed the Congressional Budget Office when it was analyzing the Clinton health plan." Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates that undocumented immigrants represent about 13% of the uninsured, "or nearly six million people of that 45 million number." They are difficult to count because "few raise their hands to be counted." In addition, other people are "eligible for health insurance but don't know it and many can afford it but don't want it. About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level, according to a report released Tuesday by the business-backed Employment Policies Institute. Another problem is the discrepancy between Census and state surveys: "while Census tends to shoot too high, state surveys can undershoot." The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of Sen. Edward Kennedy's bill is also potentially flawed, the Journal reports, because "the CBO was evaluating just one piece of a larger proposal" (Bialik, 6/24).

NPR examined a different key health care number. Untaxed employer-provided health benefits amount to "about $280 billion a year in taxes that the government doesn't collect. So if you were to start taxing even a small portion of it that's a lot of money" (Rovner, 6/23).

We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace, please check it out...

Follow Us On TwitterMySpace - HealthPlanHelpers

Jyot Financial & Insurance Services, Inc.

14726 Ramona Avenue #410

Chino, CA 91710

909-548-7444 T

909-548-7435 F

CA Insurance License #0D95511

Jyot Financial & Insurance Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc. Registered Representative of and securities offered through ING Financial Partners, Inc. Member SIPC.

PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to.





We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Monday, June 22, 2009

Health-Care Reform Will Test Obama's Resolve

As the legislative debate over health care intensifies on Capitol Hill, there is growing clamor for President Obama to step in. White House officials believe it's wiser to wait, but at some point the president will have to make clear what he'll accept and what he won't.
This Story

For Obama, a handful of big decisions awaits. They include cost and coverage, revenue and savings, a public option or not, and the cost vs. the desirability of bipartisan agreement. Those decisions, all inextricably linked, probably will determine whether he succeeds where other presidents have failed.

Cost and coverage suddenly became a more central issue after the Congressional Budget Office issued new estimates last week. The goal of reform advocates long has been a plan that moves the country to universal coverage. Earlier assumptions put the price tag in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years. The CBO shattered those assumptions, though their numbers were based on incomplete plans.

A preliminary estimate of the Senate Finance Committee's draft bill put the price tag of universal coverage at $1.6 trillion over 10 years. That was considerably more than anyone anticipated and forced the committee to delay work on the bill. The cost of the incomplete plan drafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was pegged at about $1 trillion over 10 years, but the CBO said that would still leave 30 million (rather than the current 46 million) people without coverage. Three House committees put forward their plan for universal coverage on Friday but, tellingly, without an estimate of its cost.
ad_icon

The new numbers make the choices more difficult. Will Obama insist on a plan that achieves the goal of universal coverage? If he doesn't, can he hold liberal Democrats and constituencies to support a measure that falls short? If he does, how will he pay for it?

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, argued that every step in the direction of holding down the overall budgetary cost of a reform plan means additional costs to individual workers. "The president's going to have to come down between the cost to our country as well as the cost to people who go to work every day," he said.

Obama is committed to accomplishing health-care reform without increasing the deficit. Even at a cost of $1 trillion, that means cutting costs and raising revenue. One challenge will be finding real savings, but taxes present Obama with even more difficult choices. His biggest political call will be whether to accept proposals to tax a portion of health-care benefits for workers with high-end, employer-sponsored health insurance. As a candidate, Obama spent millions of dollars attacking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for proposing such taxes. Now, as president, Obama is being encouraged to accept some version of McCain's idea.

Breaking the campaign promise would come at a potentially significant cost. Organized labor opposes those taxes, which they say would hit many of their workers hard. But the Senate Finance Committee has been moving in that direction. Giving in on that provision may be the price that Obama and the Democrats pay for maintaining the support of Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee.

There are other smaller tax increases possible, but whether they would amount to enough overall revenue is questionable. Obama proposed limiting the tax deduction on charitable contributions for the wealthiest Americans. That has little support in Congress, though the administration still pushes it.

Another choice will be whether Obama supports a mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance. As a candidate he opposed the idea, arguing that he could achieve near-universal coverage with subsidies for low-income families to buy insurance. But proponents of universal coverage disagree. Another factor is that, by requiring everyone to buy insurance, the private insurers have more incentive to support a reform package because they will have the potential for tens of millions more customers. Reversing his earlier opposition to the individual mandate may be an easy call.

The issue that has drawn most attention recently is whether a health-care package should include a public insurance option. Obama strongly favors one, and liberal groups favor it even more strongly. But Republicans are unalterably opposed. To gain anything approaching bipartisan agreement, Obama may have to accept a diluted version of a public plan. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has proposed using cooperatives rather than putting the federal government in charge, and his idea has attracted sympathetic attention.

But White House officials see a public option not only as critical to holding onto liberal support but as an essential weapon in holding down the cost of private insurance plans. Without the competitive pressure of a public plan, they fear that private insurers will be less likely to constrain costs. No one knows how far Obama is prepared to go on this controversial issue.

Finally, there's the question of bipartisanship. Most Republicans appear dug in, unwilling to compromise on much at this point. But Grassley continues to work with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and his support is potentially very valuable. Without Grassley, Obama might also lose a few moderate Democrats, although the more intransigent the Republicans, the more likely even moderate Democrats may be to support their president.

Obama was critical of President George W. Bush for trying to enact major legislation with a bare Republican majority. Is he prepared to sign a bill that would restructure a sizable portion of the economy with a slender Democrats-only majority?

Obama and White House officials say they are not alarmed by the talk that the prospects for enactment of health-care reform have been set back. They also know they face six or eight weeks of legislative sausage-making that will keep the outcome in doubt. For now, the administration is giving Congress time and space to find consensus. Ultimately, the president will have to make his choices clear.


We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Friday, June 19, 2009

State legislators lobby for public health care insurance by year's end

WASHINGTON – State legislators urged Congress and the White House on Wednesday to enact comprehensive health care legislation that includes a public health insurance component by year's end.

Members of the Progressive States Network, a state government coalition, met with Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to lobby for a public insurance option. They said that would answer Americans' call to provide health care coverage for all.

"The real goal is to give everyone access to health care that is affordable," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, co-chairman of the coalition. He said citizens should have three options for health care coverage: individual, employer-offered and government-sponsored.

Just as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program are federal-state programs, so too will be a public health insurance plan, meaning state support would be essential, Coleman said.

"The investor with the federal government in health coverage for people are state governments," Coleman said. "That's the reason [state support] makes a difference: because those costs are borne by state taxpayers for insuring those with limited income."

Coleman argued that a public-insurance component would help the country achieve universal health care, meaning no one would be forced to go without health insurance because of cost, without going to a system such as in Canada, where government is the only insurer.

Insurers and some Republicans have expressed fear that a government option would ultimately crowd private insurers out of the market.

Harkin, a member of the Senate health committee, said a public insurance plan would set a benchmark for coverage and reduce prices in the private market.

"There are powerful forces at work to keep us from having a public plan," Harkin said.

The Progressive States Network gave Harkin a letter signed by more than 700 state legislators from 47 states that outlines key priorities for an overhaul. Twenty-three state representatives and one state senator from Texas signed the letter.

Coleman will also be part of the newly formed State Legislators for Health Reform, whose members will work to advance health care reform by hosting public events, write opinion pieces and organize constituent support.

We are on Twitter, FaceBook & MySpace,
please check it out...


Follow Us On Twitter
MySpace - HealthPlanHelpers




Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc



PLEASE NOTE: The information being provided is strictly as a courtesy. When you link to any of the web sites provided here, you are leaving this web site. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at these web sites. Nor is the company liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, web sites, information and programs made available through this web site. When you access one of these web sites, you are leaving our web site and assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web sites you are linking to

Grim Reaping

Investors love a sure thing, and in this life, it doesn't get more certain than death. So it's no surprise that in recent years the market for investing in life settlements—buying a stake in someone else's insurance and collecting the reward when they die—has grown tenfold to nearly $20 billion. Life settlements can offer legitimate value to investors and policyholders, but the industry remains largely unregulated. And just like the overcooked mortgage securities market, they've launched a flood of fraudulent policies—this time on people's lives.

A life settlement occurs when someone decides to sell his life insurance policy; perhaps he can no longer afford the premiums or the beneficiary has passed away. Through a broker, he sells the policy for a percentage of the death benefit. The policy is then passed on to investors who pay the premiums until the policy matures and collect the death benefit as a return on their investment. A life settlement typically pays more to the policyholder than surrendering the insurance back to the company that issued it.

More than a dozen multimillion-dollar life-settlement scams have come under investigation in states across the country since the start of 2008. "Life settlements serve a useful purpose by enhancing the value and liquidity of life insurance policies," said Fred Joseph, president of the North American Securities Administrators Association. "But they also pose significant risks. Thousands of investors, many of them senior citizens, have been victimized through fraud and abuse in life settlements."

Like any investment, life settlements attract capital by promising high returns. But the business also creates a sense of empathy among many of the individual investors. Often the senior investors empathize with the policyholders. "My parents don't have a lot of faith in government, and they certainly don't trust Wall Street," says the son of life-settlement investor Albert Scartz. "But they are growing older. They're feeling their own mortality and, I think, in an odd way, that gave them confidence in this investment."

The industry for selling life insurance first sprang up during the AIDS epidemic of the late 1980s. "Companies loved AIDS because it was a predictable death sentence," says Gloria Wolk, a life-settlement expert who learned about the practice while volunteering at AIDS services clinics. The shorter and more certain the life expectancy, the higher the returns promised to investors and the greater the lump sum offered to patients. It was a grim mix of free-market capitalism and human mortality. "But I saw the industry make a huge difference in the lives of terminally ill patients and their families," says Wolk.

The turning point came in 1996, when new anti-viral drugs destroyed the market for AIDS policies. But by 1999, the industry had reformed, offering its services to seniors instead of the terminally ill. Since then, the sector has experienced rapid growth. In 2002, it was valued at $2 billion. Now that number is closer to $20 billion. "When you look at the age of the population in the United States and the amount of life insurance in force ($15 trillion), you realize that the life-settlement market, as it stands right now, is just the tip of the iceberg," says Zohar Elhanani, COO of Legacy Benefits.

Just as the overheated market for securities backed by people's homes created a wave of subprime mortgages, the market on people's lives has created a boom in fraudulent insurance policies known as stranger-originated life insurance. STOLI is illegal. It begins with a life insurance agent, who, in many cases, is now also a life-settlement broker. The agent convinces seniors to take out large policies by offering meals, trips, and cash. The agent or life-settlement firm agrees to pay the premiums. Ownership is then quickly and quietly transferred, often to a trust, where it can be sold on the open market.

In the retirement communities of West Palm Beach, Fla., the practice of flipping life insurance for cash is common. "I think I first heard about it from friends on the golf course, maybe four or five years ago," says Wally, a retired doctor from New York. "A few years later a friend said her son was in the business and could be trusted." Wally passed that time as well, but he still gets offers. "Around here it's a very common thing, an easy way to make some money." Many seniors are unaware that participating in STOLI is illegal and may endanger their ability to collect on real insurance in the future.

A recent industry study found that more than 50 percent of life settlements were on policies less than four years old, and many were on policies two to three years old. "STOLI has to be the reason for the vast majority of this activity," says James Avery, president of Individual Life for Prudential. "And that is a major concern." Avery says the policies, which are big losers for the insurance companies, drive up prices and threaten insurance companies' ability to cover valid policies.

As regulators struggle to deal with the expanding life-settlement industry, the distinction between the worlds of insurance and investment becomes problematic. Circuit courts around the country have ruled both ways on the question. On the flip side, state insurance departments have seen their efforts to learn more about the industry challenged on the grounds that policies bought in one state and sold in another are exempt from local authority.

Some states have passed new legislation requiring brokers to register and expanding access to companies' books. But up-to-date legislation has yet to pass in New York, California, Florida, and Illinois—four states that, according to recent industry data, account for more than half of all life-settlement transactions. "In public, the life-settlement industry has come out against obvious problems like STOLI," says Mary Beth Senkewicz, deputy of insurance regulation in Florida. "But behind closed doors they are fighting against increased regulation tooth and nail."

Industry participants believe they are being unfairly targeted. "It's interesting, because STOLI is basically nonexistent," says Robert Stark, a life-settlement broker and president of Melville Capital in New York. Stark, a former mortgage broker, deals only with institutional, accredited investors. "These guys do incredible amounts of due diligence. If I tried to pass off STOLI policies to them, I wouldn't have any customers."

Stark represents the latest iteration of the industry, which is trying to clean up its practices and attract institutional capital. But many participants remain from the Wild West days. "There is an element in our industry that doesn't want to see any regulation," says Doug Head, president of the Life Settlement Association. "The players that deal with institutional investors want to see more regulation, but not everybody does business that way." Life Partners of Texas, one of the oldest and most profitable firms in the business, deals with individual investors and has won several court cases arguing that life-settlement investments are not securities.

Congress is taking note. Last month, Sen. Herb Kohl chaired a special committee meeting on the dangers of life settlements. He has contacted the IRS and SEC to discuss the gaps that may be left by state-by-state legislation, and the SEC has agreed to look into the registration and regulation of life-settlement providers and brokers.

Meanwhile, life settlements continue to be sold to individual investors. The recent activity by the Senate, coupled with the general climate surrounding exotic investments, seems to have jarred the SEC into action. But until concrete steps are taken, it will be difficult for investors and policyholders to know if they are making legal, well-informed decisions. And every new fraud scandal only scares off the kind of institutional investors the business needs most. Major firms in the life-settlement market may resist regulation, but they're digging their own grave.

Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc.

AMA backs alternatives to health-care reform, remains opposed to government-run system

Doctors group open to insurance exchanges like those used by government workers, members of Congress

In an effort to avoid stonewalling President Barack Obama's health-care plan, the American Medical Association voted Wednesday to support new "alternatives" to reforming the health-care system, including those funded by the federal government.

The AMA's 543-member policymaking body stripped "public option" from an earlier resolution, but doctors endorsed a plan to cover the uninsured by supporting "health system reform alternatives."

The AMA's action at its annual meeting in Chicago keeps the door open to one Obama administration idea being discussed in Congress to use so-called insurance exchanges similar to the federal health program used by government workers and members of Congress. Obama addressed the doctors on Monday, seeking their support for his plan. The AMA remains adamantly opposed to an expansion of a government-run system like Medicare, which they see as headed to insolvency.

The AMA worried Congress might parse the words "public option" and translate any resolution approved by the group to mean they supported a Medicare-like plan or a single-payer form of health insurance.

Obama drew standing ovations from delegates Monday when he discussed his yet-to-be-defined public option, which he called an insurance exchange that would preserve patients' choice of doctors and work like private plans that cover federal employees. Obama insisted the public insurance option he envisions isn't a "Trojan horse" for a government-run system.

Throughout the five-day meeting, which ended Wednesday, AMA delegates were adamantly opposed to a single-payer approach to insuring all Americans, because that approach would dramatically reduce the role of private insurance companies. A major concern with a government-run system is that it could lead to price controls.

Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc.

Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'

A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.

The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.

The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.
ad_icon

Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."

Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.

The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.

Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.

The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.

The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.

It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.


Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc.

Health Care Ad Wars Heat Up: Democrats Targeted By Progressives

The ad wars are ramping up in the health care debate, with two progressive groups targeting Republicans and wavering Democrats, including eight members of the Senate Finance Committee -- the most critical players in crafting reform.

On Friday, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) -- the nation's largest health care campaign - launched a $1.1 million television ad campaign pushing a public health insurance option. The spot, titled "What If," is targeting senators in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington and will run for ten days. Among the lawmakers being targeted include Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Kent Conrad (D.N.D.) -- all of whom have been difficult-to-pin down on a public option for health insurance coverage.

WATCH:


"What if we stripped away the 13 billion dollar insurance company profits?" the script reads. "The 119 million dollar CEO bonuses? The endless denials. The soaring co-pays and premiums? You'd have health care between you and your doctor -- that's the president's plan. Keep the coverage you have now. Or choose from a range of plans. Including a public health insurance option to lower costs and keep insurance companies honest."

HCAN wasn't the only one going after Democrats. MoveOn.org put out a radio ad on Friday targeting Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for backtracking on her commitment to a public option, and the ad pointed to her campaign donations as a reason why.

"[Landrieu] did receive $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry -- the same industry that's now spending millions to stop the president's plan," the spot says.

In addition, on Friday, the pro-Obama Americans United for Change put out a heavy-on-the-mockery web ad, taking Republicans to task for mimicking right-wing talking points that denounce health care reform as socialism.

"It's the same tired old phrases they've been using since they opposed Medicare decades ago," said an AUC official.

WATCH:


Taken together, the spots are a small strike in what promises to be a very expensive battle on health care. The MoveOn and HCAN ads are of note, not simply because there is real money behind them, but because they target Democratic senators in addition to Republicans. Certainly, nobody expected that health care reform would pass smoothly. But for progressives to be targeting Democrats this early (and repeatedly) is a reflection of the precariousness of the debate surrounding a public plan.


Registered Representative and securities offered through ING Financial Partners Member SIPC

14726 Ramona Ave. # 410, Chino, CA 91710

Jyot Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. is not a subsidiary of nor controlled by ING Financial Partners, Inc.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Health Plan Helpers

Welcomes you to our new online blog. You can also checkout our other older more active blog at jyotjournal.blogspot.com

Company Information

Jyot Financial and Insurance Services is a business-to-consumer insurance agency that delivers Web-based, insurance information to individuals, families and small businesses who are in need of insurance information. Jyot Financial and Insurance Services integrated suite of online services facilitates a comprehensive search and review of leading insurance companies.

Jyot Financial and Insurance Services is not owned by any insurance company, therefore we provide objective information to consumers and small business owners, helping them make informed decisions about their insurance needs. Our service is available to all California residents.



Jyot Financial and Insurance Services
14726 Ramona Ave. # 410
Chino, CA 91710

Phone
909-548-7444

Fax
909-548-7435

License Number # 0D9551