Saturday, September 29, 2007

Welcome to our Blog

Please feel free to post any comments on Medical, Life, Retirement and Disability Insurance. Our main website is www.SteveShorr.com

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Steve,

So if you get that $2500 discount is that a tax credit or do you simply pay less premiums as you go? Does that work for small group plans such as ours? And if we get a tax credit, can that be applied to our corporate tax returns?

Nancy

Anonymous said...

Steve, What about the possible plan by Obama that would tax the premiums paid by employers to some employees?
Gwen

Anonymous said...

Hi Steve~

I don't trust his hidden agenda. He keeps promising one thing and then sneaks in another one. How does it possibly make sense that with the national debt in the trillions, taking away from social security, giving everything asked for to illegal aliens, including amnesty and not having to pay back taxes equate to getting insurance reduced by $2500 and giving those who have no insurance afforadable insurance? It doesn't. Remember: if it's too good to be true, it isn't.

Kind regards,
Kimberlie

Anonymous said...

Sorry. I'm waiting for universal health-care coverage.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I don't think that Obama's plan is good at all. Only it will cost us more in taxes and will not have the ability to have some treatments we would now have.
Steve

Anonymous said...

Steve,

You and I both know that Obama is not in charge. It really doesn't matter what his Web site says. The people in charge are the Congress and the Democratic Party controls both houses.

What I've heard from the people in Congress, such as Senator Dodd, is that they intend to tax my existing employer-provided healthcare premium and that they intend to require all people to purchase health insurance, whether they want it or not.

Considering that my employer currently pays a little more than $500 a month for my health plan and I'm in the 15 percent tax bracket, that means that I will have to pay $1000 more each year in income tax and that I will not receive one iota more service than I now receive.

Forcing people to be insured is not freedom, and it leads to a whole host of other excuses to infringe people's freedom. Members of the Democratic Party have already proposed a dollar-per-six-pack tax on soda, because they claim it is a cause of childhood obesity.



Ralph

Anonymous said...

The government already taxes tobacco because it intends to substitute its superior judgement for your own personal health choices.

Following the same logic, it will only be a matter of time before they tax fatty foods, because when the government underwrites everyone's insurance, you cost the taxpayers because of your personal health choices.

Even Stalin never told Soviet citizens what they could eat, drink or smoke.

Today, if you are cited for speeding and don't have the self-confidence to challenge the government, you get to spend a weekend in Traffic School. If you collect unemployment insurance, you have to attend lectures on how to create a resume in order to keep receiving benefits. If you go to a public health clinic and are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, you have to sit through a sexual safety lecture.

You can expect this sort of paternalism to increase with government-financed healthcare. You will have to sit through all sorts of lectures and propaganda and, "listen to the sermon before the meal," as they say on skid row.

Let's consider other ways the government has taken advantage of a little authority . . . it used to be that we had a Natural Law "right to travel," cited by many U.S. Supreme Courts. Then, with the advent of automobiles, this right became a "privilege," subject to government whim.

So, we ended up having to prove that we were capable of safely operating motor vehicles by passing a driver test and obtaining a "license" (i.e., permission) to drive.

Now, drivers' licenses are withheld for all manner of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with public safety. You didn't pay child support? The taxpayers might have to fund your kid? No driver's license!

And we have all sorts of official extortion schemes. Even the government looks the other way when granting taxpayer funds to contractors who hire illegal aliens. The Democratic Party SIX TIMES rejected a provision in the U.S. Senate that the stimulus funds used for public works projects be paid only to firms that could verify that their employees had legal work status.

The Social Security Administration readily accepts tax payments under false Social Security Numbers with full knowledge that they are false.

All males between 18 and 26 are required to register for the draft and to update addresses, illegals included.

They have more than sufficient means to figure out who is here legally and who isn't.

But they still seize cars because people who aren't permitted to acquire drivers' licenses for reasons that have nothing to do with the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle have been caught operating a motor vehicle.

Why do you think they do that? On the one hand, they look the other way. On the other, they take advantage of people and seize their property.

Maybe it's because the government is a sort of criminal enterprise preying on people? After all, police departments make a lot of money from seized vehicles.

Seeing how they are in so many other fields of endeavor, do you seriously believe for an instant that they would be any different with health care?

I don't.

Socialists always have a better plan, because they are arrogant and think they know more than everybody else. If they are charitable, they call those who disagree with them "misinformed."

I distrust anyone who says "the market" needs to be regulated, or that "the market" doesn't function properly. "The market" is just shorthand for you and me. All of our myriad personal decisions comprise "the market."

Anyone who attacks "the market," essentially is saying, "You're stupid and I'm smart and you will follow my dictate because I know better."

Anonymous said...

Steve, I didn't get a chance to look this up on the Obama website, but I can tell you that every time the democrats come up with a health plan it has terrible fatal errors. They can't possibly work. It is like nobody on their planning team has ever spoken with an insurance expert.
Fatal flaw: No deductible or co pay. There has to be a reason not to go to the doctor or there will be over utilization and bankrupting costs to the plan.

Jim

Anonymous said...

Steve
I have a question When Obama's Plan will begin???
Thank you for the new INFO.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

Here is the webpage everyone is commenting on

http://www.steveshorr.com/obamas_health_care_plan.htm

Steve

Anonymous said...

Steve, the depth of your information on health converge is very impressive.

On the medical care debate, the point that sticks in my head is the history of health care moving from mostly non-profit organization to profit organizations. When the young congressional aid moved from Wash. DC to be the chief executive of Blue Cross is a classic example. And many non-profits stopped operating (Catholic nuns could not get young new members and they became so old they could not operate hospitals etc.)

At the same time special investors moved into the health care field and moved the administrative cost from 15%/20% to over 40%. It looked to me like Enron stuff. Most of the increase in administrative cost went into executive incomes.

The debate seems to be trying to keep the argument away from that point and tries to focus every ones eyes on such things as the electronic or digital tools etc. Even the politicals that are attacking the health care industry have only been introduced to the parts away from the administrative cost so they argue on points about which the industry is willing to give.

The report is that the health care industry is spending a fortune on lobbying and contributions to congressmen. I spent a good part of my voting life as an active Republican. Some thing happened about the time of Nixon. Up to the time of Goldwater the parties major principals were honor and integrity. Then the major principal became to win. Very few of the really bright officials are still in the party. Even Newt Gingrich is getting old (as am I).
Economic history shows that when we have stable governments every one benefits. Now we have Republicans and Democrats that are not willing to provide us with a stable government. Even the honest Republicans (Libertarians) are putting forth the idea to break the country into 50 separate countries (one for each state). The closest governments to the view of the far right are the governments in Africa with military rule and business allowed to do as it wishes.


We should all know the Republicans in the southern states are the old Dixiecrats (George Wallace) and they took over the party.


Jack

Anonymous said...

Here're two links to start.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml



Interestingly, Senator Dodd was on television one week ago saying that Congress would have to tax employer-provided health care benefits as income. (I watched the interview.)

Apparently, Dodd must have received a lot of negative calls, because he came out on the 14th and declared that taxing benefits was a bad idea, and now the Internet is repleat with stories that repeat this new tune (along with mention that he is in a tough re-election fight).

I wonder if he'll change his tune yet again after he's re-elected, again supporting taxes on healthcare benefits?

Anonymous said...

I am curious, how did you come up with $2500? Very interesting!

Anonymous said...

Congressional Budget Office
June 15, 2009
Letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
From CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of the major provisions related to health insurance coverage that are contained in title I of draft legislation called the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was released by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on June 9, 2009. Among other things, that draft legislation would establish insurance exchanges (called “gateways”) through which individuals and families could purchase coverage and would provide federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of that coverage for some enrollees.

Effects on Insurance Coverage.

According to the preliminary analysis, once the proposal was fully implemented, the number of people who are uninsured would decline to about 36 million or 37 million, representing about 13 percent of the nonelderly population.

Budgetary Impact of Insurance Coverage Provisions.

On a preliminary basis, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the major provisions in title I of the Affordable Health Choices Act affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019. That estimate primarily reflects the subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges, which would amount to nearly $1.3 trillion in that period.

Those costs would be partly offset by receipts or savings from three sources: increases in tax revenues stemming from the decline in employment-based coverage; payments of penalties by uninsured individuals; and reductions in outlays for Medicaid and CHIP (relative to current-law projections).

It is important to note, however, that those figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for reasons outlined (in the letter). Moreover, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals — which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level — would have both on the federal budget and on the exxtent of insurance coverage.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Anonymous said...

The Washington Post
June 18, 2009
Senate Finance Committee
Health Care Reform: Draft Proposal
Posted by Ezra Klein

Excerpts

Benefit Options - Actuarial value
Bronze = 65%
Silver = 73%
Gold = 81%
Platinum = 90%

Tax credit for individuals and families
Up to 300% federal poverty level (FPL)

Medicaid
Children and pregnant women - up to 133% FPL
Parents and childless adults - up to 100% FPL

Individual requirement - fine for non-compliance
Exempt from fine if lowest premium exceeds 15% of income
Exempt from fine if below 100% poverty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/health_care_reform_draft_proposal_061809.pdf


Comment: The Senate Finance Committee members were informed by the
Congressional Budget Office that the impact their preliminary reform
proposal would have on the federal budget would be much greater than a
bipartisan consensus would permit. Before moving further forward with
the legislative process, the committee is considering changes to
reduce the amount of funds that would have to be budgeted. The draft
proposal cited above is not a definitive recommendation but merely
presents ideas for discussion.

Nevertheless, the process should alarm us. The committee members
continue to steadfastly refuse to look at financing options that would
be effective in providing affordable health care for everyone. They
begin with the insistence that reform be built on the obsolete
infrastructure of private health plans, even though they have just
proven once again that this archaic model no longer works.

Look what happens when they try to cram reform into this model. They
expect an individual or a family with an income of 300% of the federal
poverty level to pay 15% of their income for the premium alone, and
for that they receive a plan that covers only 65% of the actuarial
value of their health care services. They would require Americans to
pay to private insurers a premium that they can't afford, to purchase
an underinsurance product that would fail to prevent financial
hardship should they need health care, and to fine them should they
fail to comply.

So they say, wait, this isn't final. Let's work with these numbers so
that we can find products with adequate benefits and affordable
premiums that do not further burden our federal budget with excess
subsidies. As long as our legislators rely on an infrastructure of
private health plans, that game will never end. Those numbers do not
exist.

There is a way we can do it. We can establish separately a single,
equitably-funded, universal risk pool which would be affordable for
everyone. We could then use those funds in a much more efficient,
single health care purchasing system that would ensure that everyone
receives the care that they need.

But you've heard this before. And so have the members of Congress. Yet
they continue to craft policies that impair the health care finances
and health care access of far too many of us merely to ensure the
viability of the obsolete, dysfunctional insurance industry. Talk
about perverse priorities!

If you haven't yet co-signed Sen. Bernie Sanders' Petition to
Congress, please do so now, and ask others to do so as well:

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809

Anonymous said...

http://alankatz.wordpress.com/

Anonymous said...

Hi:

You wanted something on current health care bill before Congress:

Congressional Budget Office
June 15, 2009
Letter to Sen. Edward Kennedy, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
From CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of the major provisions related to health insurance coverage that are contained in title I of draft legislation called the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was released by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) on June 9, 2009. Among other things, that draft legislation would establish insurance exchanges (called “gateways”) through which individuals and families could purchase coverage and would provide federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of that coverage for some enrollees.

Effects on Insurance Coverage.

According to the preliminary analysis, once the proposal was fully implemented, the number of people who are uninsured would decline to about 36 million or 37 million, representing about 13 percent of the nonelderly population.

Budgetary Impact of Insurance Coverage Provisions.

On a preliminary basis, CBO and the JCT staff estimate that the major provisions in title I of the Affordable Health Choices Act affecting health insurance coverage would result in a net increase in federal deficits of about $1.0 trillion for fiscal years 2010 through 2019. That estimate primarily reflects the subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges, which would amount to nearly $1.3 trillion in that period.

Those costs would be partly offset by receipts or savings from three sources: increases in tax revenues stemming from the decline in employment-based coverage; payments of penalties by uninsured individuals; and reductions in outlays for Medicaid and CHIP (relative to current-law projections).

It is important to note, however, that those figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for reasons outlined (in the letter). Moreover, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals — which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level — would have both on the federal budget and on the exxtent of insurance coverage.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

Anonymous said...

Obama - Health Care Stories

http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare

Anonymous said...

***More on medical necessity of tummy tuck.
http://www.anthem.com/ca/medicalpolicies/policies/mp_pw_a053328.htm

Abdominoplasty: a procedure involving the removal of excess abdominal skin and fat with or without tightening lax anterior abdominal wall muscles and with or without repositioning or reconstruction of the navel

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/abdominal-panniculectomy-indianapolis-dr-barry-eppley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://exploreplasticsurgery.com/category/abdominal-panniculectomy/&usg=__0W89pilsaEtLbd6XTVDcAmwNRzg=&h=1632&w=1332&sz=611&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=Hseq1ev6igDU6M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsite:exploreplasticsurgery.com%2BThe%2Bpanniculus%2Bhangs%2Bbelow%2Bthe%2Blevel%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bpubis%2B(which%2Bis%2Bdocumented%2Bin%2Bphotographs)%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

http://everydaynurses.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/morbid_ob_pre_lat.jpg

[]


****Please include my email in your response.
Is your Tummy Tuck medically necessary?
http://www.steveshorr.com/medical_necessity.htm
I am not a doctor, I have no idea if a tummy tuck would help prevent diabetes, stroke, etc. try researching at www.WebMD.com


http://www.webmd.com/skin-beauty/guide/cosmetic-procedures-tummy-tuck
A tummy tuck should be the last resort for people who have exhausted all other measures, and the procedure should not be used as an alternative to weight loss.
Are you still planning to lose a lot of weight? Then you do not want to consider a tummy tuck.



Does Insurance Cover a Tummy Tuck?


Be warned: Insurance carriers generally do not cover elective, cosmetic surgery. But, your carrier may cover a certain percentage if you have a hernia that will be corrected through the procedure, or your anterior muscles are abnormally spread.
It's extremely important that you begin communicating with your insurance company early on, and that you discuss your insurance concerns with your surgeon. In most cases, your surgeon will write a letter to your insurance carrier, making the case for medical necessity, if it applies to you.
It's also very important to realize that insurance may only cover certain portions of the surgery, so make sure you get details. With any cosmetic surgery, this may affect future insurance coverage for you and your premiums may increase.
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0070-health-issues/ind-health-insurance-underwriting-ab-356.cfm


Arizona..Humana Gold Choice pffs.....Tummy tuck....


***What State are you in? What plan do you have now? What procedure?



I have had back surgery...I gain my weight mostly in the stomach...would insurance cover this procedure as it would take a great deal of strain off my back...I had L4 and L5 fused with titanium...It is difficult to exercise and extremely hard to do abdomen exercises...
What is your opinion...I also have metabolic syndrome...Now would taking the access fat away help?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New York Viaticals said...

Hi Steve,

This is an interesting post, i always try to search your posts before going to someone else.... love your posts...
Thanks for sharing..

Anonymous said...

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!

Steve Shorr said...

Check our website on HIPAA for when your COBRA expires

http://www.steveshorr.com/HIPAA.Rates.htm

Steve Shorr said...

View our comments and links on the NEW Health Plan

http://www.steveshorr.com/obamas_health_care_plan.htm