Universal Life Insurance Policy Knowledge Base
If I cash out my universal life insurance policy will I have to pay taxes on the money? I have purchased a term life policy. My universal life policy is raising each year therefore eating up my cash value unless I pay higher rates. The term life policy rate is frozen for 10 years and is worth more than the univesal policy. I want to cash out the univerasl policy and cancel the policy.
Is my universal life insurance policy good the rest of my life? I have had a universal life insurance policy for the last 24 years, recently I was contacted by the insurance company and was told that the insurance was going to burn itself out. I have no idea what that means. But the agent that came to my house(from the same company) tried to tell me my policy was worthless and I should get a new one with premiums for at least 2 to 3 times as much per month. The original agent told me my policy would only need to be paid for 30 years and than it would be in full effect with no further payments needed for life. All of which appears to be a lie. Is there any real Good reason to have one of these policies?
Should we switch our variable universal life insurance policy to a guaranteed universal life policy? My husband and I each have variable univeral policies...our agent is suggesting we change over to guaranteed universal policies - we will save a few hundred dollars a year and add 100k onto the benefit. My husbands policy was bought in 1999, mine in 2001. We were not using the existing policies as an investment. Does it make sense to change now? (we are in our early 40's) The agent suggested that in the future insurance costs may rise, and we may not be able to afford the current policy- but the new policy rates are guaranteed to never increase. Any thoughts or advise?
Should I invest in a Roth IRa or Variable Universal Life Insurance Policy? I have a 401k/ Not married, no children, but my advisor says it is wise to invest in a variable universal life policy while I am young (the premiums are lower) so it builds cash value to aid in retirement plus I will have the death benefit for later on when I am married and have kids. Susie Orman thinks this is a bad idea and that 401ks and Roth IRAs are the way to go. Other people think differently. I am confused on what to do and wonder if people who have actually signed up for a Variable Universal Life policy have actually seen the cash value results when they have retired. My illustration shows about $600,000 cash value when I am 70- that is with a 12% return. I am wondering if I should go with this policy or use the $200/month it would cost to fund this and invest it in a Roth IRA instead or put more towards my 401k. Any serious advice would help!
Has anyone ever heard of buying a Universal Life Insurance policy in order to have retirement money? I was recently told of a practice that is supposed to work better than simply saving back money for retirement age. For example: You buy a policy for the sole intent of dumping money into it, and borrowing from it, and paying the money back with a higher rate of interest in order to "build your own bank" so that you can have retirement money. Is this a common practice? Anybody know anything about it? Thanks
what is meant by a partial surrender of a universal life insurance policy? if you take a partial surrender, does it mean you only get the cash in value? and does it terminate your policy?
One permanent universal life insurance policy has 2 death benefits, while the other has 3, what does it mean? I mean 2 and 3 death benefit options*
My Mom has a Universal Life Insurance policy with Prudential. She? has had the policy for well over twenty years. Within the last week, Prudential sent her a letter informing her the universal policy was no longer valid and she would have to sign a new policy at a new rate. This sounds like they're trying to recoup monies lost in our downward spiraling economy. Does this sound legit or are they really trying to rip off an elderly woman. A representative from Prudential talked with my mother and told her the insurance industry couldn't foresee our current economic conditions and as a result, her existing policy isn't worth the paper it's written on. Please advise. P.S. She has never missed a payment.
universal life insurance policy? Can someone point in the direction of finding a universal life insurance policy for a 74 yr female.
Information regarding cancelling a universal life insurance policy? Years ago I was advised to purchase a $1,000,000 univeral life insurance policy to cover primarily taxes for my two sons since I was widowed. My sons are now in their 30"s and my financial situation has changed and I do not need such a policy. I have 74,000 cash value with yearly premiums of $6,880.00. In evaluating my holdings and financial status I am contemplating cancelling this policy. Would this be a huge mistake? I feel that in time I may not be able to afford these premiums so what is the point to continue to feed it. Also, will there be tax consequences I might have if I decide to end this policy? Does anyone have any information or answers .....I would appreciate it. I have come to a point in my life to tap into my investments to live so is it better to liquidate my holdings (securities) or cash in my policy. I am 63 years of age.
Is Variable Universal Life Insurance right for us? My wife and I recently started variable universal life insurance policies. We are paying about $600 a month toward the policy on top of what we are each contributing to our 401k plans. We are both under 30 yrs. old, and are trying to get a good start on our retirement. Should we be investing in IRA's or something else instead? We both supported ourselves before we got married, so do we even need life insurance right now since we don't have children yet? Our advisor works for New York Life, and he's telling us that the variable universal policy is the best first step. I feel like he is just trying to maximize his commision instead of doing what's best for us. I know, we shouldn't have gone to an insurance salesman, but he was recommended by a close friend. What should we do? Combined, we make $85,000/yr. I contribute 6% to my 401k, and my wife contributes 1%. We are homeowners, not renters. Other that that, we don't have any other investments.
Do I need both term life insurance and universal life insurance? My Statefarm rep is suggesting I transfer my 5 year term insurance (which is over at the end of July) to two different life insurances - a 20 year term insurance and a universal life insurance policy - does anyone else have both? I don't see why I can't just get the universal life insurance, since I'll get money back from it later and you get nothing from the term life insurance. I don't necessarily want the universal life insurance because I may be able to get money back on it later - I just want what I'll need in case something happens to my husband or myself while our children are under 18. This may sound like a dumb question, how do I find an independent insurance agent?
Universal Life Insurance? What are the pros and cons? Are there any websites that have informative facts about what direction we should take. My husband and I are in our twenty's and have a chunk of money that we can invest in, a financial advisor has advised us to claim married and 4 on our paychecks and invest $10,000 in a Universal Life Insurance policy. I'm skeptical and would like to further check out the details. Our CPA does not want us to change our exemptions to married and 4. Please give any insight and information. Thanks
Question about purchasing term life insurance while awaiting a universal policy..? I recently applied for univeral life insurance. Can I purchase term in the meantime..? ..In other words, can I purchase term life insurance while awaiting confirmation of my universal policy - with the same insurance company (I know I will be approved for universal because of my good health). Please, informed answers only. Thanks everyone.
Can Aviva life insurance take one more premium when I surrender the policy and not provide the insurance? I decided to surrender my Aviva universal life insurance policy when I realized it was a big mistake. Each year my cost of insurance was increasing and eating away at the cash value. I called the company and told them I wanted to surrender the policy. After trying to talk me into keeping it they finally told me what to do and sent me the forms. I sent them back and received my check and noticed they took another premium out of the cash value on Aug 4th and canceled the policy on Aug 6th. The Aug 4th premium should have covered me until Sept 4th but they are telling me I have no coverage as of Aug 6th. They refuse to refund me the $137 premium taken out on Aug 4th so I have paid $137 for two days of insurance. Anyone know if they can do this? If this is legal then any insurance company can simply delay processing a surrender until after the premium due date and collect another month's premium for no coverage. Thanks in advance for any help.
Universal life insurance as a savings plan?? Is that a good idea? Ameriprise Financial is sellign me 400k life insurance policy that costs 200 per month. They say its like a savings plan because I can access 90% of the 200 per month at any time. Is this a good idea or a scam??
re: Universal Life Insurance. What happens at end of insured period? Do I get my money back? I was given a Universal Health Insurance policy. It is all "paid up", meaning I do not have to put any more money into it. It says that the policy will continue in force until "Maturity". What happens at maturity if the person insured hasn't died? Is there money left in the policy?
What are my options of getting out of a variable universal life ins. policy? I have a domestic partner, we are both in out 40s and we invested in this variable univ. life policy as a way to diversify and to provide life insurance for one another. We think we have made a mistake based on our research about var life ins policies as investment vehicles. What are our options of getting out of it?
Should I buy cash value life insurance? I'm trying to set up a retirement plan with my financial advisor. i make a real good salary and don't qualify for the roth IRA or other tax exempt retirement programs. I'm maxing out my 401K. My advisor suggests to open a universal life insurance policy. He points to the tax benefits of these policies as his reasoning in choosing it. I've got good term insurance and don't really need the extra coverage, but when he compared the tax savings on the universal life policy vs things like mutual funds/stocks it seems to make sense. i guess the one thing that is missing is the rate of returns on these investments and if there is enough of a difference to make up for the extra taxation. i'm clearly not savvy with financial manners, so i hope to find an educated objective answer.
Should I continue with my Universal Life Policy? I have been paying into a Universal Life policy for 5 years. the policy has a value of 150K and I am 31 yrs. old. I currently don't need the insurance portion of the policy and am using it as an ivestment. Should I cash out and walk away from it or should I jusy continue?
Should I cancel my Universal Life policy? Here is the scenario - My completely disabled husband passed away a few months ago and I think I need to re-think my insurance. I have two teenagers and a financially comfortable relative who will be their guardian in the event that I die. Currently I have lots of insurance due to my late husband's disability and the fact that he used to be an insurance agent. I have a 20 year term, and 30 year term, a policy through work, and a Universal Life policy - totalling well over $1M. I think this is excessive now and see no need for a "lifetime" policy since my dependants will be grown and gone in a few years. Also, it is the most expensive policy and I can invest the money in other ways. Opinions?
Should I invest in a Roth IRa or Variable Universal Life Insurance Policy? I have a 401k/ Not married, no children, but my advisor says it is wise to invest in a variable universal life policy while I am young (the premiums are lower) so it builds cash value to aid in retirement plus I will have the death benefit for later on when I am married and have kids. Susie Orman thinks this is a bad idea and that 401ks and Roth IRAs are the way to go. Other people think differently. I am confused on what to do and wonder if people who have actually signed up for a Variable Universal Life policy have actually seen the cash value results when they have retired. My illustration shows about $600,000 cash value when I am 70- that is with a 12% return. I am wondering if I should go with this policy or use the $200/month it would cost to fund this and invest it in a Roth IRA instead or put more towards my 401k. Any serious advice would help!
What is State Farm Universal Life Insurance Option 1? My brother passed away about 2 weeks ago and the other day he received a letter from State Farm telling him that his policy had started (about 20 days before he was killed). I think that it is Life Insurance (the kind that our mom would be able to get money from since he was killed), but my sister keeps saying that it is Life Insurance for the car. I don't really think it makes much since because he has 2 Insurance Policies (one for the car and this one). But, she said that this Policy that I am talking about means that if someone dies while they are in the car, they will get the money. Please help!
What two adjustments are usually made to the cash value account in a universal life policy? 1. Cost of the term Insurance protection is charged and current interest earned is credited 2 current interset and insurance premiums are credited. 3 guaranteed interst is earned and premiums are credited 4 excess interest and premium are charged
Investment question about how to track your investments? I have a variable universal life insurance policy in which money is invested into im pretty sure mutual funds maybe. But the subaccounts they have are Small/Mid Cap, Small Cap-Idx, Internatil-Idx, Large Cap, Large Cap-Idx, Bond. Thats what is says. Then it lists account value, total units, unit price, ect. Basically i wanted to know how to find those accounts? Do i have to contact to get the specifics, or are those subaccounts already specific enough to find? I want to enter this into Quicken so i can track the losses and gains. Any help would be very helpful. thanks!
Should I invest in a Roth IRa or Variable Universal Life Insurance Policy? I have a 401k/ Not married, no children, but my advisor says it is wise to invest in a variable universal life policy while I am young (the premiums are lower) so it builds cash value to aid in retirement plus I will have the death benefit for later on when I am married and have kids. Susie Orman thinks this is a bad idea and that 401ks and Roth IRAs are the way to go. Other people think differently. I am confused on what to do and wonder if people who have actually signed up for a Variable Universal Life policy have actually seen the cash value results when they have retired. My illustration shows about $600,000 cash value when I am 70- that is with a 12% return. I am wondering if I should go with this policy or use the $200/month it would cost to fund this and invest it in a Roth IRA instead or put more towards my 401k. Any serious advice would help!
Help Choosing Life Insurance Policy? I am looking into life insurance policies for my husband and I, but I am not sure what kind of policy I need (term, whole, universal, etc..) I just want something to where if one of us dies, the living spouse and the children will be compensated. I also want a policy that you can borrow off of if need be. Would someone please explain the differences to me. Also, if you can recommend a good insurance company, that would be helpful too. Thanks in advance!
What questions should I ask when shopping for Life Insurance? I know the difference between term, whole, and universal policies, but what questions should I be asking to help determine which would be the best one for me?
Variable Universal Life Insurance? **Experienced Life Pros only, please** Working with a couple now, and they need Life Insurance. They need a last sourvivor policy for estate planning, so Term is out. Young couple, in their 30's. With a VUL, is there any time that a single pay contract would make sense? I can't figure it out, but since it's an option, I need to go over it for compliance reasons. Please help A.S.A.P.!!!
Duckworth v. Country Life, No. 98 CH01046 would like information on this law suit, in particular the lawyer? We have just discovered my husbands Universal Life insurance policy with Country Companies will expire in 4 years because the expense is more than what he has in it. They want to raise his premium or give him a new policy. This doesn't seem fair. The policy is 26 years old, the maturity date is 09/03/2037 and our paperwork says the premium will never go up. I was on as a rider and they are also canceling my policy. I learned there was a law suit against Country Companies for this type of policy and it was settled, but the lawyers office has told me they can't do anything for me if I don't know the lawyers name who represented the insurance company. To replace my policy now it will cost $404 a quarter, where the present policy was $25 a quarter. This isn't fair. I have learned Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP were the lawyers. When I called them, I was told Cornfield & Feldman were the lawyers, who work for Pomerantz, but I need the actual lawyers name who handled the case.
Can antone honestly defend the sale of Whole, Universal, and VUL life insurance? All of the true financial experts agree that whole life, universal life and VUL policies are rip-offs. Is it only the ignorance of the public that allows these policies to continue to be sold? My opinion, which is widely accepted among true professionals (not commissioned insurance salesman) is that mutual funds/stocks/ETFs in self-directed type accounts coupled with fixed term life is the only logical choice. Please defend whole, universal and VUL if you can. antone* = anyone Nice sales pitch Kristine. "What if I told you...FREE insurance....." a line straight out of sales training 101. You never addressed the primary reason why that product is a bogus deal - high fees. The outrageous fees kill any benefit you discussed. And over 50 years, I will not lose money in mutual funds. If I do, then your insurance company will no longer be around to pay me because you would not have survived a 50 year depression. Of course, this product has a great commission so you will continue to rationalize its sale. But that is all it is is a sale.
Advice for buying life insurance and critical illness insurance? It is so confusing trying to decide what to do. I am in my late 20's and am looking for life insurance for after I retire. I suspect I will be the last one alive in my family, assuming I have no children. So it would probably be good to get Universal Insurance so I can cash in my policy if I want. Critical Illness is only offered until I am 45. I suspect if I get sick it will be when I am 50 or older. Do you have any advice? Should I start paying for insurance now while I'm young? OR should I convert my group life insurance after I retire and pay the higher premium? Or do you recommend anything else? I have house life insurace, the house will be paid for if I die before the mortgage is paid off. I have no other big debts besides funeral costs.
I am 65 and wondering which insurance I should take. Term, whole life or Universal life? I already have two policies that are already paid for. But I am looking for an additional insurance policy. The agent called me and said portable insurance from my company is not that great because the premium goes up every few years but the Universal term life the premium remains the same. I can only assume this does not have a cash value. Help, Help, Help he is coming over tomorrow.
whole life insurance question? Hey all....well I'm studying for my life insurance agent exam and I have a question. Well, if a person takes out a whole life policy, then when they die their beneficiaries won't receive the cash value along with the death benefit, right? So, why would anyone want a whole life policy instead of a universal life that pays both cash value and death benefits to the beneficiary? Well, I'm not some jerk who wants to rip people off. I wouldn't sell someone a cash value policy if they only need term. Anyway, the company that I'll be working for specializes in senior citizens. I'll just be selling Medicare supplements, long term and short term care policies, and annuities.
What are my options when canceling a VUL policy? I had a variauble universal life (VUL) insurance policy that I am going to cancel. I have already opened up a term policy to replace the death benefit of the VUL. My question is what are my options in regards to the cash buildup that I have accumulated through the VUL??? Can I collect the money? Can it be rolled over into an annuity or some sort of IRA? Will there be any penalties?
Five years ago I dropped a term life policy in favor of a universal life policy.Questions then, still have!? At the fifth year the cash value will be just a little more than I have paid in. I bought this policy at the suggestion of my financial adviso. I am retired and do not need this much insurance. My question is should I cash in the universal life and invest it in something with less or no fees and get better overall returns? Yes, I know I have already paid most of the commission and upfront fees already!
i got another quote from allstate(for life insurance)? universal life insurance for only $42 coverage of $100,000 plus $10,000 for my son with cash value. also it has a net surrender value if i ever cancel my policy.....is this cheap? i don't smoke.....good health(i just did my medical recently from different life insurance) primerica wants to charge me for $36 for 35 yrs term with $150,000 coverage ($10,000 for my son). i mean its a good deal for $6 more i have a UNIVERSAL plan....what u guys think? i am only 30yrs old.
Do financial companies really care about the client? A client asked his financial advisor "what is the best way to invest my money?" The financial advisor suggested investing in universal life policies. I thought life insurance is meant to provide financial relief to the family in case the breadwinner dies. Wouldn't it be better to open a Roth IRA instead?? To me, it seems that financial companies don't have the best interest at heart and only want to earn lots of money by selling crappy products. Look at the mortgage industry, foreclosures are at the all time high!
Should I buy long-term care insurance or buy AIG AGLAFlex proplus universal life insurance ? I am 45 years of age,my friend just bought AIG AGLAFlex proplus unversal life insurance, he said, this kind of insurance can take of money from policy to pay for you hosptial or medicen when you got critical illness or chronic illness.most of the life insurance can not do that,if I buy this kind of insurance, I don't need to buy long-term care insurance. I am healthy person and unversal life will cost me $80 per month for $100,000 coverage. I check with my friend and that what he said,AGLAFlex is different than other life insurance, you can take out large sum amount of money at once when you need for your medicare, After you recovery from sick, what ever left over that you don't use,you can keep it,this insurance can help you when you still alive,not after you pass away, I know I have helth insurance, but you never know you will have a job in the future.
Life Insurance? I was considering buying Life Insurance now because I thought it would be much cheaper than to buy it when I start to get older. I don't know anything about insurance, I know there is term life insurance then there is universal or something. I am 18 years old, I don't smoke and rareley drink. If it jhelps to know, I have never been diagnosed with any sort of disease. My grandfather did have prostate cancer, I'm not sure if that is relevant and my other grandparents both died of heart attacks in there 40s. How much do you think would it cost for, whenever I die, a 1 Million dollar life insurance policy. Thanks for all of the answers everyone, I didn't expect so many good ones. Although I feel I'm still a little confused maybe I'll consult an insurance agent, because I'm still uncertain which type of insurance is the best for me, I pretty much think that term life insurance is not good for me because even if I bought a 30 years term policy and I live past my 48th birthday I'll get nothing from it.
Any REAL suggestions on the best LIFE insurance company for me to go with? I'm 31 with three children. It's time I get a life insurance policy. I've done research but would like to hear REAL advice and suggestions from others who have life insurance. Also, what are your thoughts on Universal policies? I would like to get a policy in the amount of $350,000-$500,000. Premiums not exceeding over $90 a month if possible. ***No Googlers, Please*** If any other info is needed to give me a good answer please state so and I will add it as I see it. Thank you.
Workable Business Opportunity? Variable Universal Life Insurance Policies (VUL) makes up over 20 percent of the Life Insurance Market. There are so many negatives to VULs. 1) Charges a ridiculously high fee every month. 2) Carries a huge surrender charge if you can't afford to maintain the policy or decides to exit the policy. 3) Average performance of about 8 percent a year. I find it is so much better to buy term life insurance for a one time fee and investing that difference somewhere else. Would you think it's great if we can convince ppl with VUL to exit their policy and switch to buying term life insurance and have us manage the money leftover? Would that be a great way to find clients or investors?
State Farm Life Insurance... 30 year term? Whole Life? Select Term? Universal? What insurance should I get? I'm in my late 20's and I'd like to make sure that if anything were to happen to me that my husband and son are left with enough to continue to stay on their feet. The 30 year term is affordable, but the life expectancy of my great grandparents, grandparents and parents, across the board is at least over 65. I'm as healthy as an ox now, but I know that diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol run in my family. I'm very active so I have no signs of any disease related to heart disease. It's a fear that I've had since I was a kid and it's the main reason why I stay active. That being said, what should I get? I already have 2 cars and condo insurances through State Farm so I'd get something like 17% off my car insurance. I'm struggling to figure out which policy to choose. I need some insight. I bought a 30 year when I was about 20 or 21, and I want to buy another policy.
Saving money and life insurance? My husband and I are shopping for life insurance, and are considering Universal Life. The reason being: the cash value claims to be safe from creditors and collections. We do want to save money that earns interest, but can't do it through a banks because of the many debts that we owe, collections can seize your bank account (they've done it to us before). Term life insurance seems like a waste because if the policy expires, we don't get the money back, and if we have to renew, the premium will definately go up. Does anyone (please?) have any advice regarding these two MAJOR financial decisions? (We have three children) Thanx a lot. Child support can seize an account too, not just the IRS....as well as the DMV for failure to pay insurance, because these are debts owed to the state. Our debt does not involve credit cards.
Do we need to deregulate the health insurance industry? Insurance companies are one of the most regulated industries on the planet. Instead of putting in place a Universal Healthcare System, should we model health insurance around the life insurance model in place today? If we deregulate the insurance industry and allowed competition across state lines, it would be affordable. You can have whole health that grows in value until you need it like whole life. You buy it young to get the cheap rates. You have term health that can be bought in 1 year, 5 year, 10 year or 20 year increments like term life. Premiums would be based upon the policy you choose and a physical exam. 1 year term health would be the cheapest and would cover the basic healthcare and the cost adjusts every year we get older. Whole health would be the most expensive and if you didn't use the entire policy when you die, the retained value passes onto your children or spouse. To me this makes sense vs. UHC. Thoughts?
What to do with cash and loans? I'm 30 years old and have the following in loans and cash. I have a very good paying job and no mortgage. I'm trying to determine what to do, save more cash or begin paying down debt. Obviously I need to maintain some cash base for issues that may come up. Cash: $6,000 in savings yield 4.25% $12,000 in stock market investments (up from $8,000 in Jan.) Loans: $10,000 left on undergraduate at 3.25% $41,000 left on graduate at 5.25% $14,000 left on car loan (3 yrs. to go) at 7% $5,000 in credit card debt 0% until September of 2008 I contribute to 401K, IRA, GE direct stock, kids college, and I have a universal variable life insurance. The life insurance policy is worth around $4,500. I have approximately $2,700 a month in expenses; this number includes the kids college fund, GE direct investment, and life insurance policy. To your point, I do have 6 months of expenses in cash. Thank you very much for your responses, it is appreciated. The credit card has a $10,000 limit.
Insurance agents and financial advisors;...? Discuss the advantages of purchasing a whole life or universal policy, as opposed to buying term and investing the difference. Please support your response, and try to remember that not everyone speaks your particular jargon, (if you know what I mean). ;-)
Multiple choice!!! HELP!? What is a life insurance policy that extends over the lifetime of the insured called? A. term B. endowment life C. whole life D. universal life
Not enough "trust but verify" or CYA done before friends marriage, now finding possible bigamy ,other lies. Man stated he had been married before, caught wife with some one else, divorced her.- turns out he was defendant.Other statements made did not compute..Caught him in big lie with me-not mentioned to my friend- so quietly did some checking .. Has assured my friend if he were to die first- does have verified heart condition, she would be "well taken care of " In the divorce decree from first wife, states husband is to maintain term life insurance policies currently in place..company paid... with the daughter of this marriage named as beneficiary on these two and on a universal life the daughter is to have upon 21st birthday.. Another marriage is on record after this decree and before marriage to my friend..no record of a divorce -at least in home state. So because of this court order , he would not have ability to re-assign insurance to my friend -correct ? Also if their marriage not legal, then of course, she would not receive an annuity as his widow ? Other lies ???? Agree, my g.dau`s beneficeries on policy that has nothing to do with my partner and our personal arrangemeents. This person`s history he brought to the marriage is developing hole`s big enough to drive a Mac thruck thru..obvious not just to me, but other friends who care for this woman too..borrowing money she is not aware of, finance matter not taken care of...lies about place of employment for 20+yrs and why "retired/disabled " now. He brought very little to this marriage;an outstanding personality and lots of charm ! As to why my concern ? She and I worked together on projects off and on 10yrs+ and over time became friends and part of each other`s family and continue to do so. FYI She has stated that she knows all is not right and that any materiael I discover, file away until she asks for the documents. Other friends are distancing themselves after a burn or emberassment by this man or possibility of being caught up in his schemes ! Not a will...divorce decree named daughter beneficiary...that is NOT the problem, but that fact is just another lie he has told.\ No, she did not marry him for insurance, had been single a number of years, by choice-but seems she maried a man who does not exist !
What do you think is a better way to invest my money? Overfund an Index Universal Life Policy or mutual funds? I am 47 and want to invest 60,000 a year for 10yrs. I figure my allocation in the mutual funds will be a mix of growth and balanced. Probably return somewhere btwn 8-9% taxable. The index life will probably do somewhere btwn 7.5-8.5%. I will be able to withdraw the insurance without any taxes as a loan as long as I don't withdraw all of it. My loan continues to earn interest and the cash will last longer. I'm leaning towards the Index Life. Anything I should be aware of. Oh yea, I received the top rating lowering the cost of insurance. I make to much to do a roth and I max out my simple plan that I offer at work.
Every resident of the united states must have free,Universal healt care for life.....what do you think????? For other uses, see Sicko (disambiguation). Sicko (or SiCKO) is a 2007 movie by American filmmaker Michael Moore that investigates the American health care system, focusing on its for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industry. The film compares the non-universal and for-profit U.S. system with the universal and non-profit systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba. Sicko opened to positive reviews, but also generated criticism and controversy. Some policy specialists have praised the film while others have criticised the film for its positive portrayal of the publicly funded health systems of Canada, the United Kingdom and Cuba, and for its negative portrayal of the health care system in the United States. Sicko debuted in the U.S. on June 22, 2007, earning $4.6 million in 441 theatres and achieving the second highest opening weekend for a documentary, after Fahrenheit 9/11.[1] A pirated copy of the film was leaked onto the Internet just prior to its release. WE ARE IN THE BEST COUNTRY OF THE WORLD,IT MUST BE DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS PROBLEM!
ABC Demands ‘Answers’ on U.S. Health Insurance Ills; Ignores Canadian Problems? ABC Demands ‘Answers’ on U.S. Health Insurance Ills; Ignores Canadian Problems On Monday’s "Good Morning America," the ABC program shifted into full advocacy mode as anchor Chris Cuomo investigated the health insurance industry. A week after the network promoted Michael Moore’s new documentary "Sicko" for over 21 minutes, co-host Diane Sawyer announced that, regarding health care, the program was demanding "some answers" with a new segment. According to Sawyer, the series is "for you, for all of us." At the close of the report, the ABC anchor even pleaded with the audience for examples of nefarious health care companies: Diane Sawyer: "...If you have an insurance company policy, a question that you want to raise, you want us to tackle something that you think the insurance companies are doing, you write to us. You let us know about it. ABCNews.com. We are on the case." And while Cuomo was "on the case" of a woman who had difficulty getting her insurance company to approve a much needed eye surgery, there has been no similar look at Canadian horror stories where government run health care made one woman with breast cancer wait three months for radiation treatment. A report by the Canadian Fraser Institute found that the average wait time in that country to see a general practitioner was 17.7 weeks. One such incident found a woman waiting over three months to receive radiation therapy for breast cancer: A similar lawsuit was filed in Quebec on behalf of 10,000 women with breast cancer who were forced into long waits for radiation therapy. Anahit Cilinger was one such patient. After having a lymph node removed in October 1999, she was put on a waiting list for radiation therapy. Three months later and with no end to the waiting in sight, she traveled to her native Turkey and paid $12,000 for the treatment. Sawyer began the piece by proclaiming "a GMA commitment to take a hard look at the health insurance industry, to get some answers about those policies we keep hearing about, about what happens to sick people in a time of need." One would assume that such a commitment would include investigating long wait times and other ramifications of adopting government controlled plans. The case of Shannon Dagher, the woman featured in the GMA piece, is certainly sad. After being diagnosed with a rare eye disorder, Ms. Dagher needed a surgery to prevent blindness. Instead, her insurance company, Blue Cross, launched an investigation into her claim. (They ultimately payed for the surgery.) But while unfortunate, it’s no less real then that of Canadians who must resort to leaving the country to obtain treatment. Sawyer describe the "GMA Gets Answers" segment as a new feature, one that viewers should expect to see again. Hopefully, the ramifications of universal health care will also be discussed. Michael Moore’s appearances promoting his new health care movie, "Sicko," can be found here and here. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:39am on June 18, follows: 7:20am tease Diane Sawyer: "And we got word this woman's health insurance company was threatening to cancel her coverage when she needed it the most, so GMA went into action. She's not the only one and we're going to get some answers." 7: 30am tease Sawyer: "And coming up in this half hour, this is one of those stories that has Americans up in arms about insurance companies. You're going to meet a young woman whose doctors say that she needs surgery or she could go blind. But her insurance company threatened to cancel her coverage. Why? A controversial practice. This morning, Chris Cuomo's on the case. It's our new series 'GMA Gets Answers,' for her and for you, for all of us." 7:39am Sawyer: "Well, today we are announcing a GMA commitment to take a hard look at the health insurance industry, to get some answers about those policies we keep hearing about, about what happens to sick people in a time of need. Today, you're going to hear about something called rescission. It is a controversial practice where insurance companies retroactively cancel the policy, often after you're trying to make a claim. Chris Cuomo here again with the story of a young woman who faced a real crisis. Her sight was at risk." ABC Graphic: "GMA Gets Answers: Can Your Insurance Be Taken Away?" Cuomo: "Absolutely. Now, as background, in this country there are thousands of people purchase their own insurance. They don't get it through a union or through their work. The young woman you're about to meet has a story that could happen to any of them. According to the industry's, the insurance industry's own estimates, thousands of similar rescission investigations into policy holders occur every year. And most of them lose their coverage as a result. It's a frightening practices you might miss in the fine print of your health insurance policy. Shannon Dagher, a 22-year-old college student, says she was at the eye doctor for a check-up last November, one month after her new insurance policy kicked in when she received terrible news." Shannon Dagher (Denied Insurance): "I was diagnosed with a very rare disorder It's called pseudo tumor cerebri. It basically looks and acts like a brain tumor." Cuomo: "Now, Shannon's doctors say she needs surgery or she may go blind." Dagher: "I'm petrified of the thought of going blind. I've never been sick before in my life. And now, in the past six months, I've started to lose my peripheral vision and I'll never get that back." Cuomo: "But instead of authorizing the surgery, here insurer, Blue Cross of California stopped processing her bills. The company, whose slogan is 'Put the power of blue to work for you,' instead launched and investigation into Shannon. It threatened to cancel her coverage if she had failed to disclose accurate information about her health, like headaches on her original application. But look at Shannon's Blue Cross application. It lumps headaches with more serious conditions like epilepsy, paralysis, stroke, all in one question. She didn't have any of those serious conditions, so she checked no." Dagher: "I never lied to Blue Cross on my application. At the time when I got the insurance, I had no knowledge that anything was wrong with me." Cuomo: "Legislators around the country are paying attention to this little known practice. The state of Connecticut has just passed a law to make it harder for health insurers to pass rescind policies." Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal: "These instances are hardly isolated or random. They are part of a pattern, a prevalent practice in this industry that very simply has to be stopped." Cuomo: "Just getting an insurance company to talk about rescission is not easy. It's Chris Cuomo from ABC News. The best we could do was get Blue Cross on the phone. Why do you rescind a policy?" Voice of Shannon Troughton (Wellpoint Spokesperson): "It's an very important tool for us to address any identified issues of abuse or misrepresentation. Anyone who causes fraud in the system increases the costs of health care for all of our members." Cuomo: "We called eight other insurers. None would talk to us on camera and referred us to their trade group. Isn't this about saving money for the company?" Susan Pisano (America's Health Insurance Plans): "Health insurers pay large claims and pay millions of dollars in claims every day." Cuomo: "Isn't it a little fishy though that this rescission review process only begins after someone files a claim? Isn't that suspicious? You know, why don't you just do it when I'm applying in the first place, figure out whether I'm telling you the truth, like most industries. Here, I filed a claim because I'm sick and now you start looking at me?" Pisano: "Well, here's the way it- Here's the way it work. Here is the way it works. A policy is rescinded only if someone could have known that the condition existed, they were asked about it on the application and they didn't provide the information." Cuomo: "GMA went back to Blue Cross for clarification on Shannon Dagher's case. What really surprised us was that shortly after we asked about Shannon's policy, she learned that her investigation was complete and her policy would not be canceled. Then, Blue Cross denied Shannon's policy had ever even been considered for rescission. It said in a statement to GMA, 'Although she may have received a letter from us indicating a review was being conducted in the past, her policy was not rescinded. For you to report that this member's issues are in any way linked to rescission would be erroneous and misleading.' But Blue Cross had sent Shannon multiple letters telling her that the, quote, 'rescission review process was under way.' And while Blue Cross says it sent Shannon this letter telling her the review was complete, Shannon tells us she never got anything in the mail." Cuomo: "You're the trade group. You're speaking for them. They don't want to talk to me about it. All they say is 'Don't say she was rescinded,' but she was going through that review process. She wasn't getting her claim paid." Pisano: "The companies we represent understand full well the impact of the process of rescission. It must be terribly disruptive, especially at a time when somebody is sick." Cuomo: "Like Shannon, who recently had to drop out of college because of her sickness and hopes her insurance company will not add any more to her troubles." Dagher: "To be accused of fraud when I have no defenses, when I'm sick and when I'm relying on the coverage that they promised me and that is due to me, it really shakes my faith in humanity and the good of people." Cuomo: "But there is some good news. The company authorized the surgery. Shannon, who has a basic policy with a high deductible, did not file suit. And just recently, Blue Cross of California did authorize the surgery that surgery that may save her vision, so remember that. And a California attorney is currently settling a class action suit against Blue Cross of California. The settlement will require the insurer to prove there was intentional misrepresentation before they can cancel a problem. The insurer is denying any wrongdoing but has agreed to revise and clarify the application policy filled out by potential clients." Sawyer: "So, after we started looking into it, word came-" Cuomo: "Yes. We're not saying cause and effect, but we started looking into it. All of a sudden they started saying that's not even going on what you said was going on, but Shannon certainly thought it was." Sawyer: "Well, we want to let everyone out there know that if you have an insurance company policy, a question that you want to raise, you want us to tackle something that you think the insurance companies are doing, you write to us. You let us know about it. ABCNews.com. We are on the case."
Why are Democrats mad at Bush for giving free health care to those that need it? Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children. Democrats were outraged. “This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post. The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans. But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats be so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don’t? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn’t need a handout or even a “hand up.” The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children. This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created. The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured. But “Option 3” would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone. The memo states that: Part I Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with States given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures. Part II of this proposal involves the development of purchasing cooperative (PC) structures and the actual phase-in of all other population groups within the PC system. The memo also laid out a timeline: By January 1995, all employers were to be mandated to purchase health insurance for their employees’ children. By July 1997, all employers would have been required to purchase health plans for the employees themselves. By January 1998, self-insured adults would have been required to buy policies under the same “purchasing cooperative” structure. The state would then roll into the system children on other government programs besides Kids First, and then perhaps even “early retirees with benefits.” This grand plan never came to pass because HillaryCare failed. But although Kids First is different in many ways from SCHIP (which has no employer mandates, for example), the political strategy is the same. It fits perfectly with Democrats’ current legislative attempt to expand the program to wealthier families. It does not fit at all with the Bush administration’s new rules, announced last week. These would, under most circumstances, bar SCHIP for children in families making more than 250 percent of the poverty level (according to 2007 poverty guidelines form the Department of Health and Human Services, that’s a family of four earning $51,625 a year). The administration’s new rules seem pretty reasonable — even tame. They would make states insure 95 percent of poor children (below 200 percent of the poverty level) before diverting their federal grants on the middle class (above 250 percent). Critics note that no state has put 95 percent of its uninsured children on SCHIP, but this would suggest that states have failed their mission, not that they should start giving handouts to people who can easily insure their own children. In order to prevent non-needy families and their employers from dropping private coverage and putting children on the dole, the administration will also require non-needy children to be uninsured for a year before they are eligible for SCHIP. If the income threshold for SCHIP already sounds high for a family of four, it is more so for larger families. My father provided a pretty good life to our family of seven on his comfortable but modest university professor’s salary. He says he never even thought of going on welfare — but maybe he should have. Even Bush’s new “draconian” SCHIP rules would have allowed all five of us kids to go on government health insurance, as long as Dad was making $77,725 or less. The Democrats’ plan would have covered us all on a $93,000 salary, or even (had we lived in New York State) $124,000! (I have trouble imagining my own mother as a six-figure welfare queen.) The Democrats’ SCHIP outrage, while perhaps politically savvy (who could oppose insuring children?), has nothing to do with the real problem of those poor and uninsured. There are several ways the government could make insurance affordable — President Bush has proposed a generous health-insurance tax deduction, and others have proposed a repeal or circumvention of burdensome state0insurance mandates that massively inflate prices. But the Democrats’ expansion of SCHIP into the middle class is not a solution to any existing problem. It is welfare for those already faring well, and with an eye toward expanding government in the future.
Who needs a private sector when we have a Clinton make our health-care choices? Who needs a private sector when we have a Clinton make our health-care choices? The new Hillary health-care plan is very different from the old 1993-1994 Hillary plan. It is far slyer, and far cleverer, far more well-packaged. The same arguments that applied to the old Hillary plan do not necessarily apply to the new plan. But the new health plan ends up in the same place as the old health plan — with the government running everything. Here are the primary problems with the new Hillary health plan: What Entitlement Crisis? As everyone should know by now, our nation faces a dramatic entitlements crisis that will play out over the next 30 years. Federal spending has been hovering in a fairly stable manner, around 20-percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), for over 50 years now, since the early 1950s. But the Federal government’s own official projections show that over the next 30 years or so, federal spending will soar to 40-percent of GDP, requiring total federal taxes as a percent of GDP to double. This is due to the exploding costs of the entitlement programs we already have, primarily Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats respond to this overwhelming crisis by proposing that we not reform any of the existing entitlements. Rather, they suggest that we endorse massive new entitlements, including for instance, National Health Insurance. Policy suggestions like this force one to wonder, are the democrats numerically illiterate? The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton’s plan starts out very simply: she will mandate under federal law that everyone in America must buy health insurance, and by this she supposedly achieves universal coverage. The catch, of course, is that once you start down the road with this mandate, you end up with government-run health care. If you are going to require people to buy health insurance, then the next question which follows is, exactly what do they have to buy to fulfill this requirement? Suppose they buy the Fraternity Plan that pays only for unlimited beer and pizza during the weekends? Have they satisfied the requirement? The serious point is if you are going to require people to buy health insurance, then you are going to have to specify exactly what health-plan people will have to buy to satisfy this requirement. So the government has gone from telling you that you need health insurance, to telling you what kind of health-insurance coverage or plan you must have. And with Hillary, we can assume that this will be no basic, minimum plan. But Hillary continues to insist that this is not government-run health care. And this, of course, is only the beginning. Special interests will swarm to get their favored coverage in the required plan. People will merrily get used to billing everything in the plan to the insurance company. And costs will rise. People will start complaining that they can’t afford paying for this costly coverage, and whining that the government must do something. The government itself will already be paying for a lot of this coverage, and budgets will therefore explode. So the government will do something to control costs. It will start rationing. It will start telling people what services and treatments they can have, and when. It will start delaying access to new innovations. It will squeeze payments to health care providers so much that the providers will start rationing what they provide. Government guidelines will start dictating to these providers that they ration care, and how to do it. After a while, people start to realize, “hey, we have government run health care.” Don’t doubt it. This is exactly what happens with every other country that tries to mandate or provide coverage through government. They realize ultimately there must be some way to control costs. There is no market in these plans to control costs. So the government must do it through the only alternative – rationing. Indeed (we will see below), Hillary’s plan already includes the machinery for this rationing. It doesn’t help that a small band of too clever conservatives have been supporting just such an individual mandate since 1993-94, when broad objections from conservatives defeated their plan. Congratulations to these folks today. Hillary Clinton has adopted their plan, just as they were forewarned. The Employer Tax Since workers would now have to buy insurance under the Hillary plan; employers would have to pay for it wherever possible. All large companies would be required to provide health coverage for their workers (a plan, again, specified by the government), or pay a tax to the government. Already paying among the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, this is just what our corporations need — another tax. Once the politicians get used to raiding this corporate cookie jar, the tax will soon be higher than the corporate income tax. When that tax burden leads to unemployment, no problem, we will just raise taxes on the rich again, and pay for more welfare. All of this will just improve the economy, the Clintons promise. The Refundable Tax Credit Where employers don’t pay for health coverage, the government will. Hillary proposes a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance that will leave workers paying no more than a specified percentage of their incomes for the coverage. Hillary’s campaign is already calling this “A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers.” The problem with this is that the bottom 40-percent of income earners do not pay any income taxes, and the middle 20-percent now pay for very little (this is the end result of all those Republican tax cuts for the rich all these years). But the tax credit is refundable, meaning that if you don’t have enough tax liability to take advantage of the credit, the government will still send you a check for the entire credit. So the tax credit here is not giving you back your own tax money. It is giving you back other people’s tax money. So this is not, in fact, a tax cut. It is a new spending program, a new entitlement program, in fact. We already have a huge program called Medicaid to pay for health coverage for people who are too poor to pay for it themselves. The federal government is now spending close to $250 billion on this program, in addition to probably another $150 billion from the states. And these costs are just projected to explode and explode again over the next 30 years. In other words, we already can’t afford the Medicaid program as it currently stands. But what Hillary is proposing with these tax credits is a massive expansion of it. And we are back to the democratic chimeras again. Unfortunately, some conservative Republicans have recently toyed around with the idea of refundable tax credits for the purchase of health insurance as well. They have rightly been trying to change tax code incentives to get workers to own their own health insurance rather than relying on employers. Realizing, however, that the tax changes would do nothing for at least half of all workers who now pay little or no income tax, they have been considering various refundable plans to expand the help to lower income workers. The fallacy here is trying to provide assistance to the poor, and to low income workers, through the tax code. This is what Medicaid is for, and lawmakers should focus on helping those with lower incomes through reforming that program. But Hillary is not done with the refundable tax credits. She would provide such credits as well to small businesses who buy health insurance for their workers, paying for as much as 50-percent of premiums for firms with fewer than 25 employees. And she would also bail out big companies, who are now being crushed by foolish past promises to pay for health insurance for their retirees, with still more tax credits. In return, corporate big shots from these companies publicly intone that indeed, it is time for national health insurance. A better solution would be to just have the government take over these already socialized companies and finish running them into the ground. Government-Run Health Care Hillary wisely calls her plan the American Health Choices Plan. Accordingly, everyone will be “free” to choose one of the health insurance options in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. But how is this not government-run health care? No company gets on the list of plans in the FEHBP without first complying with a host of federal requirements and controls. That’s alright when the government is providing insurance for its own employees. But should we be treating all workers in the economy as if they are government workers when it comes to health insurance? Is this not precisely what is meant by excessive government control? While the FEHBP embodies good policy for the federal government dealing with its own employees, excessive rhetoric from the original designers of that system (about how it is a model for all health insurance) has now brought us to the point of believing that all workers in the private economy ought to be treated as government employees when it comes to health care. Hillary will also provide, as another option, the choice of a completely government run, government financed health insurance plan. Why? And, again, how is this not government run health care? Moreover, how benign will this plan really be when she is done subsidizing it up the kazoo, and driving all the private plans out of business with her blizzard of regulatory requirements? Bye, Bye Private Insurance Hillary’s plan will also impose guaranteed issue on all private health-insurance plans. This means that insurers cannot reject anyone for their insurance, even on the grounds that the patient is already woefully sick and costly. Moreover, insurers won’t be able to charge more costly patients higher premiums. Effectively, this would necessarily end any real private insurance in America. Under these requirements, companies are no longer insuring health costs, they are simply financing health costs. Health insurers would be like fire insurers who are required to issue new policies at standard rates to those who show up to buy coverage after their homes have already caught fire. Clearly, this is unworkable. Hillary says the insurers are supposed to be in the business of spreading the risk, not cherry picking the most healthy. But when someone shows up to buy health insurance with cancer and heart disease, we are no longer talking about risks. We are talking about payout. This is not an insurance business. Rest assured, moreover, that the healthy with health insurance do not want to see the “risks” of the irredeemably unhealthy spread to them. Those without health insurance who have become uninsurable can, and should, be served through other means, such as state uninsurable risk pools that do not involve trashing the health-insurance system for everyone else. But trashing the private health-insurance market is exactly what Hillary and her allies advocate. Rationing Finally, there is the Best Practices Institute, which should be called the Ministry of Truth for health care. These folks will study all sorts of medical care, issue protocols, and standards for what is the best way to treat this or that. And don’t expect any insurers anywhere, public or private, to pay for anything other than what these folks say is the best practice. To oppose the Institute, of course, would just be to pay for waste and inefficiency. So this is the ideal mechanism for imposing the inevitably necessary rationing. New, expensive medical breakthroughs will be overlooked, or delayed. If your doctor has a brilliant insight on how to treat you, no problem. All you have to do is go to the Best Practices Institute in Washington, explain why this treatment is the right one for you, and get the regs changed. In this brave new world, life insurance will be a lot more valuable to people than health insurance. Insurers, now all under the control of government, will also impose rationing by squeezing reimbursements to health providers, with the limited funds the new system will allow them, until the providers themselves cut back. This is what the government already does with Medicaid, and increasingly with Medicare. And there is so much more. In Hillary’s three speeches and three papers on her website, she outlines dozens of new health care requirements in her new system, which will not be government run. The government is all wise and all knowing, and just needs to make sure the rickety old health-care system gets it all right, as it is dragged into the 21st century. And when Hillary gets done with those fascist drug companies, you can forget about any new breakthrough drugs coming to market in the future, running up costs. But remember, the system is not government run, and don’t let those nasty Republicans tell you otherwise.
What would the ramifications of Universal Health Care in the US be? Here are my thoughts... We already have government run health care (medicare) and it does not work well... as a matter of fact, most people have to suppliment it with a private policy. Who thinks it's a good idea to have the government approve or dissaprove what you made need for your well being? What happens whenthe costs exceed the budget... you didn't need that finger anyhow... you have nine others, right? Are any advances going to be made in the medical field? Who will pay for that research? Will we lose specialists because they will not want to go through extended schooling only to be told what they will make with accordance to what the government wants to pay? Is it fair that while I do everything I can to keep healthy I need to fit the bill for some alcoholic who smokes and needs expensive medical treatment? Yes, I think that like life insurance or auto insurance, the better YOU are, the less it should cost. Health care should be the same. What do you think? For you "one liner" answers like "it's only for the rich" or "everyone will be treated like a human being". Try to answer what the ramifications would be.... I stated examples. One line Pie in the Sky answers don;t solve anything. Fact is, most Americans do have health coverage and for those that don;t there are free clinics and unrefused ER attention. There is tons of government aid in these fields as well. SO show me how American's aren't treated like human beings when compared to billions of people in the world, many of whom can't even get the most simple of vaccinations. And what else should the "rich" pay for to better YOUR life? I pay for my own health care with 4 kids and a stay at home mom. YES, it's possible... because I know it is more important to my family than a play station, ipod, designer clothes, a certain car and so on. Those in "poverty" in this country still have these things. When they are ready to prioritize their values, then lets talk.
Hillary vs. Rudy on health care, is Hillary crazy? Hillary vs. Rudy on health care, is Hillary crazy Today’s health-care debate previews the fall 2008 election, if today’s presidential frontrunners win their respective party nominations. Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R., N.Y.) are promoting reforms that contrast like midnight and high noon. As Clinton cheers, Congress moves to reauthorize the State Child Health Insurance Program. Launched modestly in 1997, SCHIP was targeted at kids whose families were too prosperous for Medicaid, but too poor for private coverage. Like nearly every federal scheme, SCHIP is metastasizing. Clinton, her Democratic comrades, and some weak-kneed Republican appeasers are widening SCHIP into a self-contradictory contraption, complete with a tax hike and a fiscal blunderbuss. “It is one of our most important national priorities to cover all Americans, and that should start now with all of our children,” Clinton said July 16. Of course, it depends on what the meaning of the word “children” is. Washington already lets 14 states cover 670,000 “boys” and “girls,” up to age 25, some of whom have been drinking legally for four years and voting for seven. Ninety-two percent of Minnesota’s SCHIP budget insures adults. Clinton’s proposal, like the House Democrats’ bill, would cover children in families up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL), double today’s target. Thus, a family of four making $82,600 could receive federal-government medicine. Meanwhile — the Heritage Foundation’s Rea Hederman estimates — 70,000 “American families are both poor and high-income — simultaneously.” They qualify for SCHIP and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Madder still, 77 percent of children between double and triple FPL and 89 percent between 300 and 400 percent of FPL already have private health insurance, notes Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon. Nonetheless, the Democratic House Wednesday night approved $47 billion for SCHIP through 2012, 88 percent above its current $25 billion, five-year budget. Senate Democrats would fund this extravaganza via a 156 percent cigarette-tax hike — from 39 cents to $1 per pack. Heritage forecasts that 22 million new smokers would have to light up by 2017 to keep SCHIP afloat. So, SCHIP promises to improve children’s health while exploiting adult tobacco addiction. And if those smokers never materialize, future Congresses simply will invoice smoke-free taxpayers. “The Left is pretty blatant about this being their vehicle to move to universal coverage,” one health-policy expert told me. “Make kids think you get health insurance from the government, and in less than a generation, you’re there.” While Democrats and some lily-livered Republicans ceaselessly invoke “the children” to impose government medicine, Giuliani does the reverse. His just-unveiled health plan rejects public entitlements and tax hikes and embraces private property and tax incentives to extend health coverage overall — beyond just kids. “America’s health-care system is being dragged down by decades of government-imposed mandates and wasteful, unaccountable bureaucracy,” Giuliani told New Hampshire voters Tuesday. “To reform, we must empower all Americans by increasing health-care choices and affordability, while bringing accountability to the system.” Giuliani specifically would grant uninsured families $15,000 tax exemptions, and singles $7,500, to help them buy private coverage that they, not their bosses, would own, control, and transport throughout their careers — much like car, home, and life insurance. Funds remaining after insurance purchases could be deposited tax-free into Health Savings Accounts for routine medical expenses. He also would let Americans acquire health plans across state lines, as they now do with non-medical insurance. For instance, unmarried New Yorkers, who now must buy such unneeded mandatory benefits as in-vitro fertilization, would be free to secure no-frills plans from insurers in, say, mandate-light Ohio. Giuliani also would curb malpractice costs by capping lawsuit damages and requiring frivolous plaintiffs to cover victorious doctors’ legal bills. “If a person gets injured, he should be compensated, but he shouldn’t get the brass ring or win the lottery,” Giuliani explained. Unlike President Bush, whose happy talk fuels Leftist disdain, Giuliani describes Democrats’ ideas with bracing candor. He calls their health proposals “heavily influenced by Marxism.” “We’ve got to solve our health-care problems with American principles, not the principles of socialism,” Giuliani says. “I know Democrats will say this is unfair, I know they’ll squeal…But I am a realist. I face reality, which is: If you take more people and have government cover them, it’s called socialized medicine.”
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
