The SFC has also nixed employers’ mandates to provide insurance. On top of that, individuals will still be required to obtain insurance, but insurance companies will not be required to offer it to them. The insurance companies can’t deny or charge higher premiums due to health, but they don’t have to offer any insurance, either. What the ____??? If individuals will be required to buy health insurance, how will we get it if insurance companies won’t sell it to us?

We’ve seen what happens to Long Term Care insurance companies that offer affordable policies to the sick, high risk populace. They go under. So will health insurance companies. That’s the nature of insurance. No carrier in their right minds will offer insurance to sickies, therefore risking their ability to pay benefits to policyholders.

What is now being offered by the Senate Finance Committee is insurance reform, not health care reform.

These bills are being crafted in private, with actuarials and “industry experts” sharing their knowledge and advice with the committees. Yet, the bills have not been actuarially sound sound far, particularly the public plan versions. Perhaps that’s why the public plan is being dropped?

You can tell how bad all the plans are by the fact that PhRMA is willing to take out ads to promote them. Who is PhRMA? According to their website, PhRMA’s membership represents big drug companies. So, who are PhRMA’s members? It doesn’t say, hmmm…. Could it be that PhRMA’s members are the giganitc drug companies themselves?

PhRMA took out $500,000 worth of TV ads that will air in nine states. They are promoting health reform. That’s a bit scary, as their support for certain “health care reform” bills may sway lawmakers when it comes to reining in health care costs. Pharmaceutical companies make a 700% profit from Americans (many times more than other countries allow). Do we really want an arm of drug companies influencing our lawmakers’ minds?

Look, Americans want real health care reform – specifically, a single-payer national health plan. We aren’t getting that, because special interest groups have Republicans and centrist Democrats on a ” you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” short leash. Any bill created under these circumstances will not alleviate, or even put a dent in, our nation’s health care crises. All mainstream media is using scare tactics to sway the most gullible Americans into thinking that Universal health care is tantamount to treason, or that people will get inferior care compared to private insurance.

To that I’d like to say one thing: Think HMO’s… there are thousands of people who have had horrific experiences with their HMOs – long waits to see doctors, particularly specialists, necessary diagnostic tests and treatments being denied, increasing premiums after a health condition has been diagnosed, even cancellation of policies due to “misplaced” payments. Most people can only afford health insurance through an HMO. If they had a choice, would they rather pay increasing premiums for sub-par, possibly life threatening, health care through an HMO or would they choose to pay higher taxes for Universal care, knowing they will always have coverage?

We need Universal health care. Nothing else will work to keep our health care costs down while providing care for 100% of Americans. Private insurance for all cannot be. It’s actuarially impossible. Health insurance co-ops will offer less benefits than current private insurance – they must in order to stay viable. The only fair/egalitarian/intelligent option is a single-payer system, which is why every other industrialized country in the world has one. It’s a no brainer, but the people who make huge profits are screaming bloody murder, and of course there are some people who will listen to intensity instead of intellect.

Drug companies and private health insurance have the most to lose from a single-payer system. Drug companies stand to lose billions if caps are set on their price, while private health insurance could lose most of its current policy holders. Private health insurance would be relegated to the wealthy who can afford it. Insurance companies would have to adjust to not making so much money, but they can stay in business by selling supplemental insurance. Americans would get the health care that every other country of our status already enjoys.

Single-payer vs. private health insurance costs? Private health insurance has costs government-run health care doesn’t have, like paying for: CEOs’ and executives’ salaries and bonuses, underwriters who reject risky applicants, processors who’s jobs it is to reject claims for benefits, lobbyists to sway Capitol Hill lawmakers, a huge legal staff to battle patient lawsuits (as well as regulators), and very large advertising budgets. All of these factors create higher premiums, less people being accepted for coverage, and less benefits paid come claims time. Do we want to continue in this manner – feeding the belly of the beast – or do we want real change? (FOX news, the health insurance industry, drug companies, and health care product manufacturers shouldn’t get a vote!)

A Universal, single-payer health care program doesn’t have private insurance companies’ costs, nor does a single-payer system need to make a profit for its shareholders. This is why we need true health care reform; not some watered down insurance reform that’s backed by pharmaceutical giants. Pandering to the wealthiest of the wealthy cannot give the rest of us the health care we so desperately need.

The vast majority of Americans agree that we need Universal health care, and Obama agreed with them before his presidency. So, I say to our President and the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle: Do what is right for the American people. Just this once let your conscience, not your political ambitions and pockets, lead the way.

It took 11/2 years for Pres. Johnson to come up with Medicare, which covers 80% of medical expenses for seniors and the disabled. Obama wants a plan that covers every American on his desk within the next 6 months! It would take much less time if they weren’t trying to reinvent the wheel.

Obama promised health care reform that reduces cost of care, while ensuring all Americans have their choice of quality, affordable health care. He originally wanted a single-payer program, but special interest groups have joined with Republicans and some Democrats to block the way. Now Obama is settling for compromise, and the mantra is “everyone will get access to affordable, quality health care” – or rather, everyone who is employed will have the freedom to choose their health plan – between private insurance and public insurance.

There is also talk of a “public” long term care insurance program. Sounds good, eh?

Let’s take a brief peek at what those brilliant minds on Capitol Hill have come up with so far.

* The Senate has two committees working on a plan, and the House of Representatives has 3 committees working on an joint reform bill.

So far, the Senate’s “Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee has voted “yes” on one reform package. Here are the salient points:

Individual Mandate: All Americans would be required to buy health insurance.

Employer Mandate: Most employers will be required to provide employees with coverage (private or public).

A public health insurance plan will be created, and it will be be open to those who don’t have access to an employer-provided plan. There would be Basic and Premium levels, depending upon what you can afford to pay. Premium public insurance would pay for more than the Basic public insurance.

Those who are not employed or cannot afford to pay for insurance will be subsidized or be covered by an “expanded” Medicaid. This would be the basic care plan, of course.

* The second Senate health care bill created by the Finance Committee also has individual and employer mandates, but it will create medical co-ops.

* The House’s bill has mandated insurance, and like the HELP plan, it would have a public option for folks who don’t have employer-based insurance.
The issues:

1) The public health care insurance does not cover preventative care. This is a huge mistake, as preventative care is proven to delay or even eliminate the onset of many medical conditions- particularly the chronic, degenerative conditions such as adult onset diabetes and heart disease.

If we had a single-payer, Universal health care program, prevention would be a required component for keeping medical costs down, whilst keeping Americans healthier. Preventative care should be included in our health care, so that we can enjoy healthier, longer lives…but it is not.

2) No alternative health care available. These days, increasing numbers of Americans choose natural, holistic therapies over allopathic (AMA-type medicine) and pharmaceutical drugs. Are we to be forced to pay for insurance that doesn’t cover natural treatment modalities?

3) Why not a single-payer, Universal health care plan that would cover everyone equally? France has the #1 rated health care system in the world. The U.S. comes in at #37. Why are the lawmakers running in circles trying to please special interest groups, when they truly serve the entire population by simply expanding Medicare? A single-payer system would offer the same care for every legal U.S. resident. Plus, it would have to include preventative care in order to keep costs down, and insurance companies could still “get theirs” by offering supplemental insurance – like Medigap/Medicare supplement insurance. A Universal health care system is what we need, but that’s not what we’re getting.

Long Term Care:

As far as creating a public Long Term Care option, the current proposal has been found woefully wanting. I, personally, do not believe our government/tax-payers can afford to pay for a decent “public” long term care insurance plan. The only way to provide quality long term care to all Americans is to raise taxes and lump it in with a single-payer health insurance plan. Even that may incur problems due to the sheer size of the aging populace.

For now, long term care is an area where private insurance plays an immensely important role. It should be a cornerstone of responsible financial planning for those who can afford it. At the same time, Medicaid must be fully funded for those who do not have the means to buy insurance so that we can care for our poor, disabled and elderly in a dignified manner.

IMHO, the public long term care insurance being considered is no match for private LTC insurance. Only people who are too sick to qualify for private long term care insurance will find this option beneficial.

And therein lies the problem..

Why?

(More on the public long term care insurance plan and the answer to this question in a later post.)

Our friends in the financial planning arena report that many who were once depending on savings and investments to cover future long term care costs are now adding long term care insurance coverage to their planning mix.  They can no longer rely on so-called safe investments to protect against the catastrophic costs of future long term care.

Many once claimed, “I’d rather invest my money than pay for Long Term Care Insurance premiums,” but reports from the front lines of financial planning now reveal a trend toward upgraded financial strategies in light of current events, meaning long term care insurance protection.

The nation is now painfully aware of possible investment pitfalls and disadvantages with so-called secure investment vehicles. It’s now clear that people cannot depend on investments alone to pay for long term care costs.  So here we are today, and it’s not looking good folks, and we think it will get much worse before it gets better.  No matter who’s in Washington, it will take years, possibly decades, to pay down these trillions in debt and get back to a balanced budget.

The US government website states, “Anybody can need long term care at any time in their life.  Currently, 40% of people receiving long term care services are working age adults, between the ages of 18 and 64.2  Automobile and sporting accidents; disabling events such as strokes, brain tumors, and spinal cord injuries; and disabling illnesses such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease are examples of injuries and ailments that can happen to anyone at any age.”

“As people age and our average life span increases, the chances of needing long term care increase. After age 65, an American has more than a 70% chance of needing some form of long term care. In general, the longer you live, the higher your odds of needing long term care. How can you prudently plan and prepare for your future security? In particular, how can you safely prepare to handle long term care?”

“It won’t happen to me,” proclaim those in denial, and this is an understandable reaction And you can  cling to denial, but statistics don’t lie – More than 70% of Americans will need long term care at some point in their lives.

“I’ll wait it out,” say some, believing that their net worth may increase soon, so those folks are willing to wait and learn.  However, experts are projecting that it may take 5-10 years to recover from our 2008 losses losses.  Will your health hold out that long, and will you still be able to qualify for coverage? It’s a gamble, for sure.

“My kids will take care of me,” say others, but experience proves that although family home care is certainly a loving, noble gesture, it rarely works for long in reality.  Familial home care can be expensive, not to mention incredibly stressful.  In our home, where we live with crippling Multiple Sclerosis, we’ve paid thousands for medical devices and personal care items alone in the first half of 2008.

I get no respite. While well-meaning people advise me to get help, we cannot afford it.  In the recent past, I had a minor nervous breakdown from the constant stress, which is why I haven’t blogged lately.  Long term caregiving is challenging at best.  Caring people want to avoid inflicting such hardship and stress on their families.

Then there are those souls who decide, “OK, Now it’s time to get some LTC insurance.”  Hey, good thinking!  If you can afford it, and you know you can keep paying premiums even if the economy worsens, this is definitely the time to insure.  Do it while you’re still healthy, because you won’t be accepted once you show signs of possibly needing care.  These signs are called “pre-existing conditions” in insurance lingo, and these disqualifying signs can show up exactly when least expected, and least wanted, making you unable to enroll.

So, what to do next?

Current events compel us to re-think our financial plans and to take long term care risk off the table while we are still able. For those with resources, Long Term Care insurance is a wise choice in our troubled economy.

Technorati Tags: long term care insurance, Long Term Care

This error misleads readers into massively underestimating actual, real-world, care costs.

For instance, see these top paragraphs from the article at http://www.onwallstreet.com/asset/article/617621/news/retirees-need-85k-healthcare-fidelity.html?pg=&topicName=news

——-

Retirees Need $85K for Healthcare: Fidelity
By Alexander Spanos

Retirees may need more money than previously expected in order to cover all their healthcare costs, according to a supplemental study released Thursday by Fidelity Investments.

For long-term care—such as extended stays in nursing homes— the study found that a 65-year-old couple would need to spend $85,000 on average. This $85,000 is in addition to the estimated $225,000 in savings retirees would also need for various healthcare needs, according to previous study Fidelity released in March.

“If you plan adequately and you have the ability to pay for assistance in whatever form that might be, it makes it easier on everybody if you can do that,” said Kathleen Kelly, executive director of the Family Caregiver Alliance.

This is the first year that Fidelity has conducted a study of this kind and the overall goal is to motivate people to start planning and thinking about their long-term care needs. It’s a subject that can make many people uncomfortable, especially with the threat of rising costs.

“A lot of people shy away from thinking about it,” said Joan Bloom, senior vice president for Fidelity’s life insurance group.

According to a federal estimate, the number of Americans using long-term care services, whether that may be at home, in assisted living, or a nursing home, is expected to increase from the 13 million in 2000 to approximately 27 million by 2050.

Acting sooner rather than later is also crucial, so Bloom recommends that people consider purchasing long-term care insurance while they are still in their 50s, since policies tend to cost more the later they are purchased in life…(more)

This full article can be viewed at:
http://www.mmexecutive.com/news/183178-1.html or at http://www.onwallstreet.com/asset/article/617621/news/retirees-need-85k-healthcare-fidelity.html?pg=&topicName=news

——–

PrepSmart.com suggests that you discuss your personal planning with the free advisory service of the Long Term Care Insurance Buyer’s Advocate Program by completing this simple request form.

Technorati Tags: long-term care insurance

A recent AARP survey examined the public’s perceptions of long-term care costs, including stays in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities as well as in-home visits by a skilled nurse. While six out of 10 Americans claim to be familiar with the costs, only 8 percent correctly estimated the national average cost of a month in a nursing home and just 23 percent knew the cost of assisted-living facilities.

What’s even more shocking is the New York Times discovery that most people  believe that government Medicare will cover their care – Again dead wrong.

“It’s a train wreck waiting to happen,” predicts wheelchair-bound Clayborne Cotton of PrepSmart.com’s Long Term Care Insurance Buyer’s Advocate Alliance, “Sadly, without insurance folks can lose their life savings and burden their families with 24-hour care tasks. They just don’t know the serious risk they’re taking without coverage. Period. It’s such a shame…”

You can research your options through an objective expert at http://prepsmart.com/form/advisory.html 

Just how much of the $100 your physician charges for each 30 minutes goes into her pocket? After paying the bills, she gets less than half. This breakdown, according to Robert Lowes, senior editor at Medical Economics:

$3.50 for malpractice insurance

$3.50 for equipment, repairs, and maintenance

$6 for supplies, including gowns, tongue depressors, and copy paper

$7 for rent and utilities

$11 for office expenses, such as telephones, accounting fees, advertising, medical journals, licenses, and taxes

$28 for secretary, office manager, and medical assistant salaries and benefits

$41 Amount that goes into the doctor’s paycheck

Over the course of a year, this adds up to around $155,000, the annual salary of the average family physician. This number rose just 3.3% between 2002 and 2006, while expenses increased nearly 25% over the same period.

Technorati Tags: Medical

But when to buy this insurance?

One strategy has been to wait until retirement, but that may be a bad plan, according to new research from the American Association for Long Term Care Insurance.

Looking at records of major insurance companies and 250,000 consumers, it’s been found that 22.9 percent of those age 60 to 69 get turned down for a policy.

This is often due to an inexperienced insurance agent who failed to proper field underwriting prior to submitting the application.

You’ll have a much better chance of success if you apply in your 50s, as only 14 percent are rejected. Of course, you’ll be paying for the policy for more years, but the premiums will be lower.

And you’ll be protected for longer.

Technorati Tags: Long term care insurance

“First of all, it is important to take your time and make the very best choice for you and your family,” says Darras, who has counseled clients on disability and long term care insurance issues for more than 20 years.

Most folks don’t start considering Long-Term Care until they are approaching age 60, but they don’t yet know that earlier may be better, because a key ingredient in the decision to purchase is your family’s health history.

“Many advisors who sell Long-Term Care coverage agree that people who have family health histories of cancer, heart attacks and a myriad of other deadly diseases, would be well advised to consider purchasing Long-Term Care at an earlier age. In these circumstances, age is far less a determinant than critical health issues,” says Darras.

Purchasing coverage to protect you when you get old is very personal. Yet 65% of nursing home residents are under age 65, and buyers should consider shopping earlier in life.  Plus earlier enrollment makes your premiums less expensive.

“Do plenty of research, pick your LTC carrier wisely,” says Darras. Use the free Buyer’s Advocate counseling service. “Understand as we age, our health history may prevent us from qualifying for Long-Term care, so consider your options early on.”

Darras advises that it is important to read and understand the language in your policy and know the definition of skilled care, intermediate care and custodial care. Your choice of policies should include those that pay for all three categories including care given… in the comfort of your own home….

“Your Long-Term Care decisions should prevent you from outliving your retirement nest egg and becoming a burden to those you love, no matter what your age.” says Darras.

According to HealthBlawg, they’re trying, but there’s one tiny problem – the Average Joe (and Josephine) can’t afford the high price of health insurance. What makes Senator Moore think that mandatory Long Term Care insurance will be any different?

It won’t be. Speaking as one of those millions of Americans who can no longer afford any insurance, I can guarantee you that mandatory LTCi will not work. It’s a pipe dream of state officials who see a massive wave of aging Baby Boomers coming their way. They’re concerned for their state coffers and they should be. However, you can’t get blood out of turnips, folks. So stop trying. You’re just freaking people out.

How can any state government think that every resident can afford pay for insurance? That’s insane. There are millions of Americans who make just enough to keep a roof over their heads, yet not enough to cover health care, let alone LTC insurance. There must be another answer.

I do have a few suggestions about what should be made mandatory:

1) Create a Trust similar to Social Security. It should be funded according to income levels, not age. Anyone below a certain income level would be exempt. Corporations should not be exempt, since legally they are considered “persons”. I bet Halliburton alone could fund a Long Term Care Trust with the profit it’s made so far off the Iraqi war. They over-charged the U.S. government for years, which came out of taxpayers pockets, so why shouldn’t they give the money back? Just a thought…

2) The entire amount of Long Term Care insurance premiums should be tax deductible. As it stands now, the amount of premium that can be claimed as a deduction depends upon a person’s age. Why? Make the entire yearly LTC insurance premium deductible, no matter if it’s tax-qualified or non-tax-qualified and no matter what age a person is, then private policies will be more affordable. Affordability means more people will own insurance coverage.

3) Make sure that our entire health care system puts an emphasis on preventative medicine, instead of simply treating symptoms and “managing” health issues, like adult diabetes, with prescription drugs. Protect our access to herbs, vitamins, etc. Make it mandatory that all insurance – public or private – pay for alternative and preventative therapies. This will keep our population healthier longer, therefore reducing the need for premature long term care.

4) Pass a federal law that makes it mandatory for all newly constructed buildings, as well as all buildings that are rented, to be fully wheelchair accessible. This includes wide hallways and doorways and truly accessible bathrooms. You say I’m going too far? I’m not. If, as I believe, Americans will soon need some form of public long term care funding, then it makes sense to make sure that long term care costs are minimized. Long Term Care facilities are very expensive. It’s sensible to have people “age in place”, yet retrofitting homes is costly and disruptive. Plus, you can only get financial assistance for retrofitting if you own a home. What about the millions of renters? It’s incredibly difficult to find houses or apartments that are accessible. As a country, we need to think ahead and build accordingly. Let’s make sure that home care is a viable option for as many people as possible. This will save our country billions of dollars in the long run.

See how simple? Now, if we just can get everyone to agree we’ll be on our way!

Technorati Tags: Long Term Care insurance, LTCi, Baby Boomers, Social Security, premiums, deduction, coverage, diabetes, prescription drugs, long term care, home care