Miami Health Insurance Outlook

Office of Community Health and Planning

The role of the Miami-Dade County Health Department Office of Community Health and Planning is to provide education in the community. The focus is on prevention through living a healthy lifestyle that includes eating a well-balanced healthy diet, exercise and no tobacco use.

The staff participates in community activities, including health fairs and health education workshops. At these events, the Office of Chronic Disease Prevention staff provides blood pressure screenings, nutrition education and body fat percent measurements while promoting a healthy lifestyle. They also work closely with other community partners including public schools, universities, community organizations, healthcare facilities and the Consortium for a Healthier Miami-Dade

MIAMI-DADE Hospital District Plan from Jackson Health System

Miami has a wonderful health system for those that know how to navigate it.  ECHealthInsurance.com has made this page for Miami residents who are uninsurable due to either health, wealth, or status issues.  We have listed every county health plan number, every contact for Medicaid, every primary care clinic, every free health center in Miami Dade for the poor, needy, and uninsured.

Patients who qualify for Jackson’s charity care program, which is supported by a half-cent sales tax and property-tax dollars, pay on a sliding scale.

Opened in 1918, Jackson is the main hospital in the county for the uninsured and the only to receive local tax dollars.

The hospital gave away about $471 million in medical care last year to uninsured patients. Jackson received $277 million from local taxes. The shortfall was partly offset by money Jackson makes caring for insured patients. As a result, Jackson lost about $120 million in 2004.

With 1,567 beds, Jackson Memorial Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in the country. But on any given day, patients are still stacked up in the downtown Miami hospital’s large emergency room. To help improve patients’ access to primary care, Jackson has 13 primary-care clinics across Miami-Dade County that treated an estimated 170,000 patients last year. Half the patients are uninsured.

Jackson Health System offers free or discounted care to people with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $37,000 for a family of four. Those with incomes under the poverty level pay $5 per drug, nothing for a clinic visit and nothing for routine lab tests and X-rays. Those making twice the poverty level pay $15 per drug and up to $55 for an office visit or medical tests.

But Jackson Memorial is a magnet for criticism from other hospitals who say it’s unfair that all local tax dollars go to one hospital to treat the uninsured although the uninsured go to all the hospitals in the county — albeit mostly to Jackson.

“The tax dollars should follow the patient, but in Miami-Dade there’s just not enough dollars to go around,”

But that hasn’t been enough. Jackson Health System expects to lose $25 million this year.

Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc.
3601 N. Federal Hwy.
Miami, FL 33137
305-576-6611

Camillus Health Concern, Inc.
336 NW 5th St.
Miami, FL 33128
305-577-4840 ext. 106
Health care for homeless

Citrus Health Network, Inc.
4125 West 20 Ave.
Hialeah, FL 33012-5875
Phone: 305-825-0300
Fax: 305-825-1645

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
Doris Ison South Dade Health Center
10300 S.W. 216th St.
Miami, FL 33190
305-253-5100

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
Everglades Health Center
19300 S.W. 376th St.
Florida City, FL Miami 33030
305-246-4607

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Clinica Campesina
810 W. Mowry St.
Homestead, FL 33030
305-248-4334

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
Naranja Health Center
13805 SW 264th St.
Naranja, FL Miami 33032
305-258-6813

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
South Dade Health Center
13600 SW 312th St.
Homestead, FL 33033
305-242-6069

Community Health of South Dade, Inc.
West Perrine Health Center
18255 Homestead Ave.
Perrine, FL 33157

Dr. Rafael A. Peñalver Clinic
971 NW 2nd St.
Miami, FL 33128
305-545-5180, ext. 184 or 185

Economic Opportunity Family Health Center
Flamingo Medical Center
901 East 10th Ave., Bay 39
Hialeah, FL 33010
305-887-0004

Economic Opportunity Family Health Center
James E. Scott Center
7200 NW 22nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33142
305-835-8122

Economic Opportunity Family Health Center
Jesse Trice Center for Community Health
5361 NW 22nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33142
305-637-6400

Economic Opportunity Family Health Center
Norland Family Health Center
18360 NW 7th Ave.
Miami Gardens, FL 33169
305-694-6270

Economic Opportunity Family Health Center
North Center
1220 NW 95th St.
Miami, FL 33147
305-694-6900

Helen B. Bentley Family Health Center
3090 SW 37th Ave.
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
305-447-4950

Miami Beach Community Health Center
Beverly Press Building
1221 71 Street
Miami Beach, FL 33141
305-538-8835

Miami Beach Community Health Center
Stanley C. Myers Building
710 Alton Road
Miami Beach, FL 33139
305-538-8835

Miami-Dade County Health Department
Main Complex
1350 NW 14th St.
Miami, FL 33125
Phones:
TB – 305-324-2462
Adult Immunizations - 305-324-2438
Family Planning - 305-325-2758
Laboratory - 305-324-2449
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) – 305-325-3242
Vital Records -305-324-2489

Environmental South
Neighborhood Improvement
Contact: Trevor Coke
1725 NW 167 St.
Miami, FL 33056
Phone: 305-623-3574
Fax: 305-623-3623

North Miami Center
Women, Infants & Children (WIC)
Contact: Jessica Fitzgerald
14101 NW 8th Ave.
Miami, FL 33168
Phone: 305-688-4821
Fax: 305-953-3139

Dr. Rafael A. Peñalver Clinic
971 NW 2nd St.
Miami, FL 33128
305-545-5180, press 3 for administration

Rosie Lee Wesley (South Miami)
Contact: Marilyn Perez
6601 SW 62nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33143
Phone: 305-662-4932
Fax: 305-669-6907

PET Center
Contact: Hazel Ruffin, RN
615 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Phone: 305-535-5548
Fax: 305-535-5543

Juanita Mann Center
Northside Shopping Center
Contact: Yvonne Edwards (305-835-2200)
7900 NW 27 Ave.
Miami, FL 33147
Phone: 786-466-2100
Fax: 305-694-2913

View the original article here

Auto Insurance Rates Affected Positively by Auto Theft Rates

Posted on Fri, August 28, 2009

In one of our more recent news posts we see that the Insurance Information Institute notes the falling auto theft rates trend over the past 5 years.  13% less stolen autos in 2008 could be a result of many things, but one thing for sure is that the GPS systems which track stolen cars and easily find chop shops that are stripping and selling parts are helping.  Another thing is the fact that more vehicles are coming with factory alarms and vehicle electronics are getting more sophisticated making it harder for the average Joe to use a slimjim and 3 wires to have their prize driving down the road. 

This is a perfect example of how the market and the consumers naturally affect and fix their own problems though spending their dollars and developing products.

Considering auto theft and auto insurance fraud are major negative factors that affect your rates, it's no wonder that the decline shows some drops in rates across the board.  For example, it dropped 3.3% from 2005 to 2006.  If only something so simple could be applied to health insurance we would see rates dropp across the board!  Maybe there can?!  Educating people on making choices that lead to healthier lifestyles could be a start.  But that's a whole other issue right now and nobody knows what direction health insurance will be going with the proposed changes in our government

NPR Fires Juan Williams For What?

Posted October 21st, 2010 at 3:28pm in Ongoing Priorities  Print This Post

This morning, the media world was shocked to learn that Juan Williams was fired from National Public Radio (NPR) as a result of opinions he expressed last night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor. Williams has been a long-time contributor to Fox News, where he offers unabashed center-left commentary.

The controversy is hard to figure out. During the segment in question, Williams defended Muslims from being painted with broad strokes, even though he had also felt the personal twangs of fear when on an airline with a religiously-garbed Muslim post-9/11. Many Americans may identify with this honest introspective position. Juan Williams, author of numerous civil rights books, was preaching tolerance in the face of his own self-doubts.

This whitewashing of news is typical of liberal media professionals who fear that the mere reporting of facts or a debate of views may incite some sort of American violence against a particular group. Of course, this ignores that such movements rarely exist. If anything, America was a model of tolerance following 9/11 as the nation stood together denouncing stereotypes even as they shared Juan Williams’ personal twangs of fear while boarding airlines.

If you wanted to add politics to the equation, our nation seemed to be much more tolerant in the seven post-9/11 years under President Bush, than under the following two under President Obama. Why is that?

Under President Bush, we were often and repeatedly told that this was not a war against a religion but against those that corrupted their religion. Americans understood this, accepted it, and supported the war’s prosecution. Under President Obama, we are told that religion had nothing to do with the terrorism to begin with, there is no “Global War on Terror” and we should bend over backwards to appeal to those who use religion as vehicle for hate against us. Americans do not understand this, do not accept it, and still want terrorism to be prosecuted in an honest environment.

But back to NPR. Do they have the right to fire Juan Williams? Of course. Juan has a first amendment right to say what he feels, and NPR has a business right to fire any of their employees for actions they deem harmful to their reputation. But American taxpayers also have a right to demand better business practices from an organization they help fund through tax dollars. NPR receives 16 percent of its funding from tax dollars and has a responsibility to justify that expenditure to us.

NPR has built a reputation for espousing a liberal view that goes largely unchecked. While liberals bash Fox News for having a conservative bent, they are defensive of organizations such as the New York Times or NPR who provide the “mainstream” liberal dogma on a daily basis. NPR will defend itself by pointing out that its staff register as “independents” and that political affiliation is not a factor in their news reporting, but it is impossible to ignore the reality of their liberal point of view. If NPR wants to be a liberally bent news organization, that is their prerogative, but should taxpayers support this endeavor? No.

The push for political correctness over the past two years has reached a point that is threatening our civil discourse. This is especially noted when conservatives are called racist for opposing the president’s economic and domestic policies. It’s also seen in what isn’t reported, as much as what is.

This was demonstrated a few weeks ago when ABC’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour hosted a “town hall” on American’s fears of Islam. Amanpour responded to guest Anjem Choudary’s statement that “We do believe as Muslims the East and the West will one day be governed by the Sharia, indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House…the day of judgment will not come until a group of my oma [sic] conquer the White House” with an “OK.”

The obvious purpose of the town hall was to paint ”fears” of Islam as irrational, spending a great deal of the hour chastising the Reverend Franklin Graham as intolerant. But when Amanpour’s guest, Mr. Choudary, threatened America and supported terrorism, the topic was changed and his comments went unchallenged, and unreported. Certainly, ABC would fire Amanpour for dismal ratings before her casual exchange with this man who glorified radical jihad and terrorism, but there wasn’t even a mainstream debate over this banter. But even without a national debate, Americans watching that program were smart enough to see Choudary as a man corrupting a religion rather than someone representing it.

It goes without question that Juan Williams is an honest analyst and reporter. We certainly don’t agree with him on many issues, but his discourse is civil and even handed. When he sees an opportunity to reach across the ideological spectrum to support an issue, he will, as he did with The Heritage Foundation when he narrated our documentary “Let Me Rise” on the topic of school choice and the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships the Obama administration ripped out of the hands of inner-city students trying to get a better education. NPR should have embraced the ability for Juan Williams to reach across the aisle and hold these conversations, rather than once again prove that its desire is to promote a liberal narrative rather than a truthful debate.

Juan Williams is not the first and will not be the last journalist fired under the guise of political opportunity (will Mara Liasson be next?). But Williams’ firing will highlight the hypocrisy of a media outlet that tolerates hateful speech directed at conservatives (“Teab#*gers” anyone?) but shows no such tolerance for honest and thoughtful introspection, even when it comes from the left as in the case of Juan Williams. His firing will also highlight the funding that NPR receives, and hopefully cause legislators in the next Congress to consider whether that is a necessary use of our tax dollars. Are we truly without enough television and radio choices in America today that we must continue to prop up an entity such as NPR? Maybe we should thank NPR for opening this debate.

Click here to watch Juan Williams in ‘Let Me Rise’

View the original article here

Morning Bell: Renewable Electricity Standards Kill Jobs Too

Posted October 21st, 2010 at 9:28am in Energy and Environment  Print This Post

Cap and trade legislation is dead. The left abandoned the policy this summer when it became clear it was a liability. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) told Politico: “You can’t use cap and trade anymore because it is like manure on the trough. It’s defined, and people are opposed to it.” But that doesn’t mean the left has abandoned plans to hike up our nation’s energy costs in a vain attempt to save the world. All they did was pick a new a set of government mandates and repackage it as Renewable Electricity Standards (RES). Don’t be fooled. The goal (reducing emissions) and mechanism (raising energy prices) are still the same. As is the result: millions of lost jobs at a time when unemployment already is hovering around 10%.

According to a Financial Times/Harris survey conducted this month, most Americans favor an expansion of renewable energy. But that support is very weak. When asked if they would be willing to pay as little as 5% more for electricity, only 32% of Americans answered yes. On the other hand, a full 57% of Americans said they would be opposed to paying for more than a 5% increase in electricity prices for renewable energy. And that is where the left’s RES dreams hit cold hard economic reality. Here are the prices that President Barack Obama’s  Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects for various sources of electricity per megawatt hour in 2016 (in 2008 dollars):

• Conventional coal power: $78.10
• Onshore wind power: $149.30
• Offshore wind power: $191.10
• Thermal solar power: $256.60
• Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10

As you can see, the prices for alternative energy are at a minimum almost double the cost of conventional coal power. So what would happen if Congress mandated that utilities obtain growing percentages of their power from renewable sources of energy? A Heritage Foundation analysis of 22.5 % RES by 2025 found: 1) household electricity prices would jump 36%; 2) industry prices would rise by 60%; 3) national income (GDP) would be cut by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; and most importantly 4) RES would kill more than 1,000,000 jobs.

Renewables like hydro, wind, solar energy and biomass account for only 6% of our nation’s electricity generation. But when was the last time you saw a dam built? Take hydro-power out and renewables account for only 3% of our nation’s power. And this is after decades of existing generous renewable subsidies. If electricity created by wind and other renewables was cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. But renewable energy is not cost competitive, hence the need for government coercion to force the American people to buy it.

There simply is no upside to a RES. In fact, in some ways it is even worse than cap and trade. Heritage analyst David Kreutzer explains: “Electric power is one of the most critical inputs to a modern economy. Thus, it is no surprise that forcing the cost of electricity to rise dampens economic activity. The cost increase for electricity can be viewed as a particularly damaging energy tax, because a renewable mandate, unlike the case of a normal tax, provides no revenue to at least partially offset the higher cost. By way of comparison, the highway use tax on gasoline raises the price of gasoline, but it also generates revenues for building and maintaining roads and bridges. On the other hand, a renewable energy standard raises costs in the form of less efficient production, which provides no economic benefit.”

Quick Hits:

View the original article here

ObamaCare Unrealistic Cost Estimates Exposed by Dem Governor

   « Majority of Indies see Dems as more liberal than they are | Blog Home Page | Fannie, Freddie bailout could double in cost »
October 21, 2010 Richard BaehrThe single most compelling argument against the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, was made today in the Wall Street Journal by the Democratic Governor of Tennessee Philip Bredesen. In essence, the subsidies offered to buy health insurance in the newly created exchanges beginning in 2014, are very attractive, and the penalties for companies who do not provide health insurance are quite modest (about $2,000 per employee). As a result, many employers, a lot more than estimated by the Congressional Budget Office or by Democrats in Congress who shilled for the bill, will simply be much better off  dropping their health insurance coverage, paying the penalty, and transferring the health insurance burden to the federal government. Bredesen makes the argument  that his own state of Tennessee with 40,000 direct employees, would significantly reduce its health care costs in 2014 by doing the same thing private companies will be incentivized to do -- drop health insurance coverage for its employees, and transfer the burden to the federal government through the newly created exchanges in each state.
Rather than 30 million people newly insured through an expansion of the Medicaid program income limits and the creation of the exchanges, there will be tens of millions of additional people, formerly covered by companies or governments, who may now be shifted onto the exchanges at additional cost to the federal government. This cost has not been included in any CBO estimate, and is the ultimate budget buster (as if $1.4 trillion annual deficits were not enough).
Of course, the identical scenario will play out in the market for individual health insurance coverage. Assuming the individual mandate is judged to be constitutionally acceptable, no thinking person would buy coverage in an exchange until he or she expected to have significant  bills. At that point, this person would purchase coverage immediately, since the penalty for not buying insurance is only $750 a year, in almost all cases less than the unsubsidized portion of the insurance premium that could be purchased in an exchange.
Bredesen makes the case that the drafters of the health reform bill, all Democrats, clearly had no conception of game theory. They knew, or the lobbyists working, with them knew, what they wanted to happen -- insure lots of people, and have the federal government pay for the new coverage. The cost of the bill was "scored" by the CBO, and determined to be a net deficit reduction bill, based on new taxes, and "savings" from the Medicare program (a big part from hammering the Medicare Advantage program). The Democrats wrote 2,000 plus pages of rules and regulations to presumably make sure everything worked out as they hoped. But there are other actors in the drama, who can compare two prices: say X and 2 X, and choose the strategy that costs them only X.
There is no believable federal budget for any year beginning in 2014 that is based on the numbers in the CBO estimate. The legislation and the system it created will be an enormous budget buster. We now have this honest assessment of how the bill will work, and what that will mean for the behavior of employers from an elected Democratic official with a lot of experience in health care reform efforts in his own state.
The urgency of the repeal effort should get a boost from Governor Bredesen's common sense article. That will require Republican control of both Houses of Congress in 2013, and the defeat of Barack Obama in 2012. It is that simple.

Ed Lasky adds:
There are signals being sent that the GOP, should it assume control of the House, may refuse to fund the exchanges. Then what happens? Will employers who moved employees off plans be leaving the employees in no man's land?
Will this then become the bludgeon to be wielded against Republicans -- that they are denying medical care insurance to millions of Americans by refusing to fund the exchanges?

Richard Baehr responds:

That threat assumed Obama was stil lin office in 2013, or GOP only controlled the House.  The cutoffs next year are pretty minor stuff, in terms of what is budgeted.  But defunding some of the 159 commissions would be helpful interim step.

View the original article here

Government Intervention in Health Care Increases Costs

Posted October 21st, 2010 at 11:00am in Health Care  Print This Post

Yesterday, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) released its annual report on health insurance mandates in the states. They report that mandated benefits—i.e., medical procedures that states require insurance providers to cover—across the 50 states are on the rise, jumping from 2,133 in 2009 to 2,156 in 2010. But that’s just part of the story.

The report also shows that mandated benefits increase the cost of health insurance and by how much. This should come as no surprise. Requiring insurers to offer a higher value product comes at a higher expense.

Lawmakers across the 50 states have determined that benefits such as the following are necessary to include in essential health coverage: in vitro fertilization (15 states), oriental medicine (three states), services provided by acupuncturists (12 states), athletic trainers (three states), and massage therapists (two states). While CAHI does not pass judgment on the necessity of any of the mandates, it is clear that not all patients need these kinds of benefits, much less want to pay for them.

Requiring insurers to offer more benefits at a higher price removes more affordable options from the market that, in many cases, better suit the needs of enrollees. According to CAHI, “Mandating benefits is like saying to someone in the market for a new car, if you can’t afford a Cadillac loaded with options, you have to walk.”

Mandates aren’t the only way government can get in the way of reducing health care costs:

States have other ways of adversely affecting the cost of health insurance. For example, several states have adopted legislation that requires health insurers selling in the individual market to accept anyone who applies, regardless of their health status, known as “guaranteed issue.” Or they limit insurers’ ability to price a policy to accurately reflect the risk an applicant brings to the pool, known as “community rating” or “modified community rating.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act overhauls the health care system through many of these same policies, in addition to mandating benefits. It is thus no wonder that the new law is already increasing the cost of insurance, as numerous employers have reported. The law will require all Americans to carry a certain level of comprehensive coverage or pay a penalty. This will eliminate the choice of more affordable options nationwide, and, as John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis explains, result in job loss or loss of employer-sponsored coverage as the minimum benefits package becomes more unaffordable.

Federally mandated benefits will also open the door to lobbying by interest groups at the state and federal levels to mandate coverage of certain services or providers, since under the new law, states will be able to mandate benefits in excess of what is required at the federal level.

Beyond mandating benefits, Obamacare requires that insurers accept all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions, which will encourage individuals to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, resulting in a greater proportion of sicker, costlier beneficiaries, which would increase premiums and discourage younger, healthier Americans from carrying coverage. Age rating will prohibit insurers from increasing premiums for higher-risk beneficiaries by no more than a 3:1 ratio to the lowest premium offered, furthering increasing costs for young, healthy Americans and discouraging their entrance into the market.

To fix the problems of access and affordability in health care, ideas for reform exist that would not have these detrimental effects and would not create, as The Washington Post describes Obamacare, “a sharp expansion of the federal government’s involvement in health care.” To learn more about patient-centered, consumer-driven ideas for reform, click here.

View the original article here

Democratic Governor Dissects ObamaCare

Tennessee Gov. Philip Bredesen in an op-ed today explains:

Our federal deficit is already at unsustainable levels, and most Americans understand that we can ill afford another entitlement program that adds substantially to it. But our recent health reform has created a situation where there are strong economic incentives for employers to drop health coverage altogether. The consequence will be to drive many more people than projected—and with them, much greater cost—into the reform’s federally subsidized system. This will happen because the subsidies that become available to people purchasing insurance through exchanges are extraordinarily attractive. …

For a person starting a business in 2014, it will be logical and responsible simply to plan from the outset never to offer health benefits. Employees, thanks to the exchanges, can easily purchase excellent, fairly priced insurance, without pre-existing condition limitations, through the exchanges. As it grows, the business can avoid a great deal of cost because the federal government will now pay much of what the business would have incurred for its share of health insurance. The small business tax credits included in health reform are limited and short-term, and the eventual penalty for not providing coverage, of $2,000 per employee, is still far less than the cost of insurance it replaces.

As more Americans flood into the public system, the cost of all those additional highly subsidized patients will skyrocket. The cost of the new entitlement will balloon, as will our deficit.

Now, this is smart analysis by a Democrat. Could not senators and congressmen have seen precisely this result? Of course they could have — conservative analysts predicted this precise phenomenon. But the rush was on to pass something — anything — and call it “historic.” The result is not only politically distasteful but fiscally untenable. The move to repeal ObamaCare will, I think, have many Democratic advocates as Bredesen’s take becomes the new conventional wisdom. Well, that and the 2010 election returns should do the trick.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 21st, 2010 at 10:31 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

How Health Insurance Plays A Role In Long Term Nursing Care

Regular health insurance plays a critical in long term care for the elderly or the disabled. Most people believe that long term care insurance replaces standard health insurance, which is a serious misconception. Standard health insurance is utilized in the care plan in conjunction with long term care insurance. Both entities play very different but essential roles in providing comprehensive care for the insured.

For example, a patient may be recovering from a consequential accident and receiving care in the privacy and convenience of his or her home rather than the impersonal, sterile environment of a nursing home. If, during this time, the patient suffers an attack of angina, or if a blood clot develops, long term care insurance will not indemnify the cost of hospitalization, emergency care, surgical intervention or nursing care in an acute hospital. The long term care attendant stabilizes the patient and summons emergency medical personnel. The patient will be transported to an acute care facility, and the necessary procedures will be initiated. However, these financial encumbrances including transportation in an ambulance to an acute hospital are indemnified by the standard health insurance policy.

Many insured persons do not understand the provisions of the long term care insurance policy. It will pay for the services of a registered nurse to design and implement, on a physician's orders, a comprehensive care plan and cover regular home visits to ensure that the patient is progressing as anticipated. If the patient is not improving or the patient's condition is not consistent with the physician's expectations, the physician is informed, and a revision of the care plan is instituted. Long term care insurance will typically pay for the services and interventions by physical, occupational, and speech therapists; the services of a certified nurse's assistant or home health care aide to provide patient hygienic care; and homemaker technician services to perform home maintenance duties such as cleaning. Nutritional support, such as the provision of meals three times daily or on a scheduled basis is usually provided. Furthermore, long term care insurance will pay for durable equipment rentals such as hospital beds, wheelchairs, walkers, portable commodes, shower stalls, and other mobility aides.

Long term care insurance will not, however, take the place of standard health insurance by indemnifying the insured for acute care received in a hospital setting, emergency room or clinic. These services require a standard health insurance policy in addition to a long term care insurance policy to provide care in the home for a disabling accident, serious injury or illness. Actually, standard health insurance should be initially purchased as a secondary choice because it picks up where long term care insurance stops.

View the original article here

How To Get Affordable Health Insurance For Income Sensitive Families

Health insurance is a requirement for families, and it is especially important for families with young children. The cost of coverage can keep some families from even investigating the possibility of securing health insurance. This can lead to higher costs down the road because preventative health care will not be performed and issues that could have been resolved rather easily will grow into more severe problems. Income sensitive families do have options available for coverage; affordable health insurance is offered through other outlets, like government programs and as a part of an employer benefits package.

The average cost for a family of four to secure private health insurance can run into the tens of thousands of dollars a year, making the monthly costs unaffordable for families that are struggling to make ends meet. These families will typically forego the coverage, skipping routine physicals and well-child checks because the costs of an office visit are outside of the range of their ability to pay. There are ways for these families to find coverage that will significantly lower the costs. For example, many employers offer insurance as part of the benefits package that anyone who works a certain number of hours a week can qualify for. There is still a cost to the employee of being on the policy, but the cost is generally much lower than it would be for the family if they were trying to get the policy on their own. Many companies can get the lower rates simply because of the number of employees they bring to the table; the insurance companies are willing to negotiate a lower rate when the company is providing a stable source of potential insured customers.

Not every employer offers insurance, however. For individuals who do not have employment or who do not work for a company with that kind of benefit, there are government insurance plans that can help. Children can be covered through a CHIP program that is provided at the state level, and others may qualify for additional government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.

The costs of healthcare coverage are rising year over year, and health insurance helps consumers absorb some of that through the network of discounts that an insurance company is given and that an individual would not receive. Securing affordable health insurance may appear to be out of reach for many income sensitive families, given the rates that are available through the major insurance carriers. There are alternate ways to obtain coverage for those families, through government programs and through employers that can bring the costs of the coverage more in line with the needs of income sensitive families.

View the original article here

Losing Cobra or Group health insurance coverage?

Are you going to be losing your cobra or group health insurance coverage?

Many people today are losing their cobra coverage as the government extensions and subsidies are finally going away. To make things worse, with the new health care reform laws, employers are cutting coverage benefits as well. Some employers are even erasing the group health plans completely.

All in all this may be a benefit to you. Individual health insurance is affordable and anyone can apply for coverage. The best part is that if you have serious pre existing conditions and cannot be approved on a health plan that you can get a guaranteed issue plan.  The plan is guaranteed to offer you health insurance coverage if you have had creditable group or cobra coverage in the past 63 days. So take a look at the health insurance quotes and see which plan is going to be best for you and your family.

Tags: cobra, group health insurance, health care reform, health insurance quotes, individual health insurance

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm and is filed under cobra, group health insurance, health care reform, health insurance quotes, individual health insurance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Medicare Premiums Increase for 2010

Posted on Tue, October 20, 2009

The feds announced yesterday Medicare Part B premiums will be increased to $110.50 monthly in 2010, an increase of 15%.

This increase effects 12 million people or 27% of those on Medicare.  The rest are not subject to the increase due to the fact that by law, Medicare premiums can't be increased more than Social Security benefits which are not being increased.

Rising medical costs are being blamed which some feel is right in line with what they've been trying to fix with healthcare reform.

Medicare is currently a hot topic in many areas.  Obama feels cutting the massive fraud that's been identified will help greatly in savings to use in support of healthcare reform and keep it budget neutral.  Some seniors worry the money savings will somehow result in issues with their coverage and treatments.  Also, more and more doctors have given consideration to no longer accepting Medicare all together.  This stems from the already low reimbersments from the government that some make up for by hiking rates to the private insurance companies.

Another big worry with Medicare is the fact that it keeps going over budget.  If the government is having problems predicting the costs of Medicare, how can they predict healthcare costs on a much larger scale with healthcare reform?  Experts expect baby boomers to hit Medicare hard over the next few years as more become eligible for coverage.  Without a doubt this will increase costs, but what will happen?  Will the budget just be greatly increased?  Will there be restrictions?  Will payouts or coverage be reduced?

Regardless of your position, it's easy to understand the reason behind concerns seniors are having.  Medicare and Medicare supplement insurance are held in high regards by those covered and nobody wants that to change.

View the original article here

Health Reform and A Health Insurance Broker

Washington

In Florida where we have such a high percentage of immigration, both legal and the other kind we need some kind of change.  As a health insurance broker with a conscience I have had to stomach seeing people turned down by health coverage based on things in and out of their control.  Most families of 5 do not have an extra $1000 per month to spend on health insurance.  So what do they do?  They are insured by the government who subsidizes rich hospitals to pay for the care of the uninsured.  Any economist knows that we cannot survive with health costs rising at this rate.  Indeed it will be tough to survive with health rates stagnating, but with inflation just around the corner and it being the only solution to our financial problems we are going to have to inflate our way out of recession which will make health insurance even more expensive.  Instead of proposing a bill or plan that will be stifling to business and the taxpayer, we should first focus on lowering costs which will organically end up covering more people than another government agency.  In other words don’t paint the house until you know its not going to collapse.  As someone who profits from the health insurance economy I would be happy to sacrifice at least 1/8 of my revenue to accomplish this as it would also get me cheaper insurance.  Everyone needs to agree to get a haircut and in Florida where insurance is more expensive than most of the country we better do something instead of taxing cigarettes.

The drive to overhaul healthcare gets under way in earnest next week when Congress returns from recess, and how far the legislation advances turns on its price tag – and whether lawmakers can make good on promises to cover most Americans.

Senate Democrats declared a modest victory Thursday by reining in a deal-breaking $1 trillion-plus cost estimate. A new draft of reform legislation by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee winnows the 10-year tab to $611 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The key to cost savings is a new provision for the “shared responsibility of employers.” It requires companies that do not offer health insurance to employees to pay an annual fee to government to offset costs of providing a publicly run insurance plan: $750 per full-time worker and $375 per part-time worker, exempting firms with fewer than 25 employees.

The new plan marks “a significant [cost] reduction from earlier estimates,” said Sens. Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts and Christopher Dodd (D) of Connecticut, chairman and acting chairman, in a letter to panel members. “In addition,” they wrote, “our bill, combined with the work being done by our colleagues in the Finance Committee, will dramatically reduce the number of uninsured – fully 97 percent of Americans will have coverage, a major achievement.”

First cost estimate a show-stopper

A CBO estimate last month set the cost of a previous HELP proposal at $1 trillion over 10 years and found that two-thirds of some 47 million uninsured Americans would still be without health coverage. That report, although characterized as partial and incomplete, sandbagged momentum on the bill and fueled opposition ad campaigns.

Hailing the new Senate proposal, President Obama said in a statement Thursday: “When merged with the Senate Finance Committee’s companion pieces, the Senate will be prepared to vote for health reform legislation that does not add to the deficit, reduces healthcare costs and covers 97% of Americans.”

But what about the cost of expanding Medicaid?

Critics caution that the lower cost estimate is still smoke and mirrors because it does not include the costs of expanding Medicaid to families earning up to 150 percent of the poverty level – about $33,075 for a family of four. That’s the level needed to get to the president’s target of 97 percent coverage.

“They’re being a little disingenuous with that $600 billion price tag, because without scoring the expansion of Medicaid, you don’t get close to universal coverage,” says Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank. “If you include that, you’re probably back to $1.2 trillion.”

Most businesses unhappy, but Wal-Mart’s on board

Most business groups oppose the so-called “pay-or-play” requirement for businesses, but on Wednesday retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. boosted momentum for the Senate plan by backing the employer shared responsibility provision.

“Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution,” said Wal-Mart chief Mike Duke in a letter to Mr. Obama on Tuesday.

“The earlier version [of the Senate plan] assumed that substantial numbers of employers would drop coverage,” says Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Under this later version of the bill, CBO has found that the HELP Committee has significantly solved that problem. By virtue of having that requirement, many fewer employers are expected to drop coverage. They avert billions of costs and subsidies.”

Obama on Chavez’s Nuclear Program:”Act Responsibly, Mr. Chavez”

Posted October 20th, 2010 at 4:21pm in American Leadership  Print This Post

When asked about his reaction to the signing of a Russian deal that promises to deliver two nuclear power plants to oil-rich Venezuela, President Obama answered:

We have no incentive nor interest in increasing friction between Venezuela and the US, but we do think Venezuela needs to act responsibly.  Our attitude is that Venezuela has rights to peacefully develop nuclear power,” he [Obama] said, “adding that as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty it must also meet its obligations not to weaponize those systems.

For all the many rebuffs delivered by President Hugo Chávez, including the current impasse over the selection of the next U.S. ambassador to Caracas, President Obama remains determined to minimize the potential threat Venezuela poses to U.S. interests and security in the Western Hemisphere. Obama blithely dismisses experienced critics who have raised red flags regarding Chávez’s nuclear ambitions and the growing challenge of the Venezuela-Iran-Russia connection.

Technically, the President is right when he says that the U.S. will not stand against peaceful, civilian nuclear programs. But there is a major catch.

The fundamental problem with Obama’s statement and his enormous lack of judgment is the underlying assumption that Venezuela, under President Chávez, will act responsibly. In fact, Chávez has a long and notorious record of acting in exactly the opposite fashion, at home and abroad. Chávez is a secretive, ambitious leader filled with autocratic pretensions and a consuming hatred of the United States. Whether it is supporting international terrorism and the misdeeds of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), harboring Basque terrorists, meddling in the internal politics of Honduras, or standing toe-to-toe with the Castro brothers, Chávez battles unceasingly against U.S. interests. His mismanagement of Venezuela’s economy and oil wealth has left his country badly polarized, battling recession and inflation, bleeding productivity, and drifting abysmally into Marxism-Leninism.

As if to emphasize the point, the President’s ill-timed comment coincides with Chávez’s arrival in Tehran for his annual pilgrimage to the land of the Ayatollahs. Embracing his dearest friend Mahmoud Admadinejad, Chávez proclaimed: “Venezuela will remain alongside Iran under any circumstances.” Iran’s sanctions evasion will be high on their agenda during the visit, as will Iranian-Venezuelan nuclear and military cooperation and further Iranian penetration into the Americas. They will certainly seek to parse the meaning of Obama’s readiness to accept a Venezuelan nuclear program.

In this vital foreign policy issue, the White House is acting like a distracted teacher who winks at the class bully and issues a mild word of warning while fully expecting him to continue his pattern of misbehavior. Of one thing we can be certain: this is not the final word on Chávez’s budding and dangerous nuclear ambitions.

View the original article here

Side Effects: Obamacare Hurts Low-Income Workers

Posted October 21st, 2010 at 1:00pm in Health Care  Print This Post

With a struggling economy and stagnant unemployment rate, the last thing the United States needs is any public policy that will hurt job growth. Unfortunately, Obamacare’s new federally mandated, essential benefits package will diminish new job opportunities, especially for low-income workers.

This is expected to occur because the new law requires employers to offer health care coverage or pay a penalty. And they can’t offer basic health plans. Instead, all job-based health plans must include what the government determines to be “essential benefits.” Since benefits that employers provide to their work force mark a dollar-for-dollar reduction in cash wages, more benefits in these government-mandated plans will mean less available income for salaries or new jobs. Inevitably, this provision will further drive up the health care costs for businesses, forcing them to hold back on new hiring and investments.

The effect is particularly harmful for low-income workers. In an analysis of the Obamacare provision, John Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Anlaysis, writes that, “In four years’ time, the minimum cost of labor will be a $7.25 cash minimum wage and a $5.89 health minimum wage (family), for a total of $13.14 an hour or about $27,331 a year. (I think you can see already that no one is going to want to hire low-wage workers with families.)”

Typically, private sector employers pay their work force based on the value of their labor. Forcing businesses to pay more for labor than its actual worth will likely squeeze many more jobs out of the market.

Even worse, employers who provide low-income jobs may consider another option: Dropping health coverage altogether and paying the penalty. Businesses with more than 50 employees will face a $2,000 penalty per employee for failing to comply with the government-mandated coverage. This amounts to about $1 an hour for a full-time worker.

Businesses could drop coverage for low-income workers—who will likely qualify for Medicaid or subsidies in the new federal health insurance exchanges—pay the penalty, and still come out ahead.

The cost burden of this decision will fall on the American taxpayer, which Goodman warns would ramp up pressure to increase the fine, which would further depress businesses’ income. Companies already are saying the new rule is making them rethink growth in lower income areas. “It’s pretty dire,” Jamie Richardson, spokesman for White Castle, told NPR. The fast-food chain reported in May that the Obamacare provision would require the company to pay $3,000 in penalties per employee (whose share of health care premiums exceeds 9.5 percent in income).

Heritage analyst Robert Book writes that Obamacare “discourages companies from hiring those who need jobs the most.” This vicious cycle not only hurts businesses and workers, but also the economy at large.

This post was co-authored by Derek Pyburn.