Affordable Health Insurance Quotes

Are Health Insurance Companies Inflating Costs, or Telling the Truth About Price Hikes?

2010-03-08T20:26:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot in the news lately about health insurance companies unjustly raising medical coverage rates.

The most obvious and publicly known example is Anthem Blue Cross, which has faced White House condemnation for projecting a 39% increase in individual health insurance premiums this year.

In response, White House Secretary of Health and Human Services has asked several major health insurance companies - including Aetna, Cigna, United Health, and Anthem - to make their rate hikes publicly known, and to justify the rate hikes on the internet.

Her concern is that perhaps too much of the money these insurance companies get every year is going to CEO salaries, advertising, and more.

But the health insurance companies have one compelling argument on their side, and it's compelling because it's true: medical costs are going up.

As it says in MassLive.com's piece on health care, Medical costs, and in particular the cost of prescription drugs, are growing well beyond the rate of inflation, and since health insurance companies absorb much of these costs their argument makes some degree of sense.

Should we just take their word on it and pay up? Nope.

But we should take a look at the price tags attached to prescription drugs and health care devices. Too often Americans are forced to choose between expensive medications and basic needs like food and paying their rent/mortgage.

And if we can't control the costs of our medicine, insurance agencies will simply go out of business trying to make up the difference.

Hopefully upcoming legislation will include a means of minimizing costs both upfront in terms of insurance, and in the long term by controlling medical costs to begin with.

Obama Puts Human Face on Individual Health Insurance Plight

2010-03-04T19:29:00.000-08:00

With health care on the table and so much opposition to his plan, President Obama is putting a human face on the situation with individual health insurance in this country.

Natoma Canfield, the Ohio woman whose letter he read to a meeting of insurance executives this week, is a cancer survivor whose individual health insurance rates will be hiked 40% this year.

She has been cancer-free for 11 years.

Her health care story is recounted at Reuters as well, though it's a painfully common one these days.

Individual health insurance is more expensive than group health insurance plans because there isn't a large group of people to spread the risk for insurance companies.

But with Anthem's much publicized premium hikes in California, it's becoming clearer to the public that individual health insurance costs must be controlled somehow, and they must be controlled sooner rather than later.

It's likely that some form of legislation will find its way to President Obama's desk soon. If so, let's all hope that Natoma's health care concerns will be met. After all, there are millions of Americans struggling with insurance right along next to her.

Health Insurance Companies Postpone Premium Hikes

2010-02-15T19:48:00.000-08:00

Following the news that Anthem Blue Cross of California intends to raise individual health insurance premiums by up to 39%, Democrats have leaned heavily on the giant among health insurance companies to justify such a radical price hike.

Thankfully for Californians, Anthem has agreed to postpone the premium hikes by two months while they prove that the higher prices are necessary.

According to Anthem they and various other health insurance companies are suffering from what the New York Times calls the health care "death spiral."

As more and more unemployed and struggling Californians are forced to drop health care, only the sickest are left making payments. This then costs health insurance companies more money, who respond by raising rates.

At some point, will no one have health insurance but Congress?

Currently health care legislation has been stalled in Congress while Republicans and Democrats duke it out. And, as they tarry over every little detail, more and more people find themselves at the mercy of an individual health insurance market that isn't invested in their well being.

Republicans Offer Ideas for Affordable Health Insurance

2010-02-10T19:25:00.000-08:00

A couple of weeks ago President Obama challenged House Republicans that in regards to affordable health insurance legislation, if they had better ideas they should fess up.

In a piece on health care legislation at the Wall Street Journal a couple of them did.

Newt Gingrich and John C. Goodman's article on how to provide Americans with affordable health insurance offers a different spin on many of the ideas already addressed by Congress.

For example controlling health-care fraud, making medical breakthroughs accessible to patients, and better informing consumers about their care were all addressed in some way or another in the bill that has been stalled in Congress since January.

The GOP just sees different ways to get to the same goal.

While this kind of hair-splitting could just mean more arguing and less work getting done, it could also mean that some bipartisan work might actually get done.

And if Americans can finally benefit from affordable health insurance, in most cases few will worry about how it finally came to pass.

Heart Disease Statistics and Health Insurance Coverage

2010-02-01T20:05:00.000-08:00

The recent news that heart disease will kill 400,000 Americans this year has shocked the nation - and the news only gets worse when you take into account how much it will cost those who suffer from the disease in terms of health insurance coverage.

Of those 400,000 who will lose their lives, heart disease studies show that half of them could be prevented with healthier lifestyle decisions like eating healthier foods and not smoking.

But for all of them, the impact on their health insurance coverage is likely to be high.

Right now heart disease costs $475 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include the cost of physicians, hospitals and treatments. Indirect costs include the loss of productivity associated with illness.

Of course, the true cost in human terms of suffering and lost lives is incalculable.

Individuals who suffer from pre-existing heart disease likely find it near impossible right now to get affordable health insurance coverage - a sad fact when you consider that these are the people who need medical care the most.

And for those who do have coverage, the costs could be financially disastrous. There are millions of under-insured Americans out there who are one illness away from bankruptcy, and heart disease is the most common life-threatening illness to strike in the United States.

Those healthy lifestyle decisions are the best way to go to minimize the impact of heart disease on your body, your life, and your wallet.

But for those who are already suffering, we can only hope that soon it will be illegal to exclude them from health coverage due to a condition that endangers their life.

Health Insurance Companies Butt Heads with Hospitals

2010-01-25T19:18:00.001-08:00

In an effort to cut medical costs health insurance companies may be going to the source: your doctor.

At least, in the case of UnitedHealthCare this appears to be the case. As today's article in the New York Times says, in light of rising costs and a new public awareness of health care, insurance companies like United health are looking to minimize time spent in hospitals.

Specifically, United health insurance is locked in a financial dispute with Continuum Health Partners, a "consortium of five New York hospitals," including Beth Israel Medical Center and St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center.

United has demanded that hospitals notify the insurance company within 24 hours after a patient's admission, or lose reimbursements by up to one half.

Continuum Health argues that this is just one way for health insurance companies to overburden hospitals with administrative tasks, and minimize their own costs by draining hospital funding.

All of this is happening at the same time that health care legislation seems to have hit a major stumbling block, with Democrats losing their filibuster-proof majority.

But even if only some tenets of the legislation are passed, it's likely that health insurance companies stand to lose a lot of money. One key term of the bill involves forcing insurance companies to cover all applicants, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.

The money they lose will need to be made up somehow, and if The Times is correct, it could be made up in their intervention between patients and their doctors.

Individual Health Insurance Faces New Obstacles

2010-01-20T20:54:00.000-08:00

Plans to significantly revise individual health insurance in America faced a potentially killing blow this week with the loss of the Democratic seat in Massachusetts.

However, as MSNBC makes clear in its article on health care legislation, the current version of the bill actually faces several hurdles that will need to be overcome if individual health insurance is ever to be affordable and available to all Americans.

The problem, according to the article, is that the twists and turns of politics have led us to a bill that doesn't much resemble the original plan President Obama put forward when he was running for the presidency.

Now, problems include funding: cutting back on Medicare and the so-called "Cadillac Tax" have not been well received.

There's also the issue of the already employed. Those who don't need individual health insurance aren't concerned with how hard it is to get, and don't want to lose the coverage they already have.

Finally, with the loss of the public plan there won't be as much incentive for health insurance companies to lower premiums.

Optimists are suggesting that even with the loss in Massachusetts some form of health care legislation will pass. However, what it will look like, and whether or not it will help anyone, remains to be seen.

Is Nebraska Health Insurance Getting an Unfair Kickback?

2010-01-13T20:01:00.000-08:00

This week's health care news comes with threats of a lawsuit, should Nebraska health insurance enjoy what appears to be a kickback written into legislation.

According to The Washington Times, South Carolina's Republican Attorney General intends to do just that in response to what he calls "The Cornhusker Kickback."

This kickback takes the form of extra padding for Nebraska health insurance in the form of Medicaid services. If it passes, Nebraska residents would be exempt from paying for expanded Medicaid services.

Why this "kickback" was written into at least one version of the health care bill, and whether or not it will pass, has not been addressed by Congressional members.

"Conservative-leaning" opponents argue that the provision was included in order to win the vote of Senator Nelson from Nebraska.

However, Nelson himself has responded that his state is in such poor fiscal condition that help would be needed for Nebraska health insurance to keep it from bankrupting the state.

Obama Indicates Flexibility for Family Health Insurance

2010-01-11T19:45:00.000-08:00

The latest snag in health care legislation - the "excise tax" - has been seen by opponents as an assault upon family health insurance, and specifically, on the middle class.

As a result, President Obama has taken a more proactive role in the negotiations for health care, and according to The New York Times, is willing to renegotiate family health insurance plans so as to "make this work for working families."

The article sums up the dispute regarding the tax, and in particular addresses the powerful opposition that has been mounted by labor leaders and unions.

While the President reportedly views the tax as a major means of financing health care, labor leaders claim that many middle class men and women, some part of the union and some not, chose to enjoy better health insurance plans instead of raises and bonuses.

A tax on those plans, many of which are family health insurance plans, would impact the middle class disproportionately.

The unions favor a different tax upon the wealthy instead, one that is designed for couples making more than $1 million a year.

Unfortunately it isn't clear whether this alternate tax would provide as much money, but with unions threatening to withdraw their support of the Democratic President, it's likely that he'll make some type of change to appease them.

Individual Health Insurance Mandates Meet Opposition from All Sides

2010-01-04T19:51:00.000-08:00

Now that the public option seems to have been permanently nixed from health care legislation, the individual health insurance mandate is meeting with opposition on all sides of the political spectrum.

The mandate, which is present in both of the bills that have been approved so far by Congress, would require that all Americans purchase insurance, including those who don't have jobs. They would be expected to purchase individual health insurance to comply, or pay a fine.

But at what cost?

As it says in the article about health care at the LA Times, several factors in the current bill(s) may make it less expensive to pay the fine instead of coverage.

The issue is, now that there isn't a public option to provide competition, and without any type of price controls to limit the rising costs of health care, it may be cheaper to pay the $750 yearly fine than to purchase individual health insurance.

And with little information out there regarding the proposed health care cooperatives, or the subsidies that would be available to those who don't make enough to purchase their own coverage, opponents to the mandates are gaining more traction.

Medicare Option is Dropped from Health Care Legislation, Individual Health Insurance Reclaims Center Stage

2009-12-14T20:21:00.001-08:00

Medicare Option is Dropped from Health Care Legislation, Individual Health Insurance Reclaims Center Stage

Just when everyone thought the Democrats had locked-in health care legislation that most in the Senate could agree to pass, the notion of expanding Medicare creates another impasse.

As it says in the Wall Street Journal article on health care and the Senate, just last week the plan to make Medicare available as buy-ins for those individuals 55 and over was introduced as a means of keeping those people out of the market for individual health insurance.

You see, many men and women 55 and older are now suddenly unemployed and uninsured. By offering them Medicare, millions of currently uninsured could enjoy coverage.

But Senator Joe Lieberman made it clear that he wouldn't support an expansion of the already-embattled, government-run Medicare.

Democrats have agreed to press on without the measure, leaving those men and women to find coverage on the individual health insurance market in the coming years.

Still, there is hope for them on the horizon. Current legislation would make it illegal for insurers to deny someone based on pre-existing conditions. That, combined with subsidies offered to those who can't afford insurance on their own, would make individual health insurance far more affordable for the 55 and older set.

One question that still remains is this: will health care costs be controlled or capped? If so, how? These questions are particularly important if a legal mandate to get coverage is passed, since the individual health insurance market tends to be more expensive than the group coverage offered by most employers.

Will Health Insurance Plans be Taxed?

2009-12-10T19:39:00.000-08:00

Health care legislation seems to be evolving almost faster than the media can keep up, and now on the heels of one major health care shift, the notion of taxing health insurance plans may be abandoned as well.

Just this week the much-debated public option was likely abandoned in favor of a low-priced, national health insurance plan, alongside a probable revision of Medicare that will allow coverage of millions of Americans.

And now, the plan to tax so-called "cadillac" health insurance plans in order to boost revenue is under fire as well.

The argument is coming from a surprising direction: Unions have long been Obama supporters in the insurance fight, but their concern is that taxing what is known as "high value insurance plans" won't just hit CEO's but also middle class Americans.

According to the Associated Press' article on health care legislation, many of those Americans chose to forgo salary increases in order to negotiate for better health benefits. Taxing them would unfairly burden these people, and the results could be financially devastating.

The other option, which the Union supports, is a tax increase on those who make more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. Such a tax hike would go far in alleviating the debts that will be accrued in the face of the nearly $1 trillion dollar health care bill currently debated in the Senate.

Will Medicare Expansion, Cuts, Lead to More Medicare Supplemental Insurance?

2009-12-07T21:01:00.000-08:00

It's confusing, really, figuring out what is and isn't on the table for Medicare in the current health care legislation.

But according to the article at Reuters about potential Medicare law, there could be both cuts and expansions in the future.

How will this be managed? Probably via lowered services for some people.

How can people protect themselves from these lowered services? With Medicare supplemental insurance.

The article states that under the most recent proposals on the table, Medicare would be available to Americans as young as 55 and who lack affordable coverage.

But at the same time the program could be facing cuts up to $500 billion dollars. Granted many of those cuts are supposed to come out of fraud and other misappropriations, but it's hard to say exactly what will and won't be cut.

This means that while more people will have access to Medicare, those who are younger and don't have as many health complications probably won't have the best coverage.

Unless they pay a little more for it. In other words, supplemental insurance.

Supplemental insurance is often purchased by individuals who feel that Medicare won't offer enough protection for them. Supplemental insurance might cover a more extended hospital stay, for example, than is offered via Medicare, or it might offer better hospice care or physical therapy.

Supplemental insurance is already very popular for those 65 and older, and if the current health care legislation passes at the end of the year, it might become even more popular in 2010.

Loss of Cobra Leaves Unemployed in Search of Individual Health Insurance

2009-12-01T10:03:00.000-08:00

Individual health insurance has long been more costly than employer based coverage, due to a greater risk assumed by the insurance company.

However, the luxury of employer based coverage isn't protecting many workers these days, leaving the unemployed to struggle with the high costs of individual health insurance.

At the LA Times, the pending expiration of Cobra subsidies for the unemployed is predicted to leave millions without coverage.

Originally the subsidies were designed to help Americans "subsidize the often crippling cost" of purchasing individual health insurance.

However, the subsidies were only designed to last about nine months, and deadline which is about to expire. If these subsidies aren't extended, "hundreds of thousands will lose the subsidy each month" forcing them to pay 3 times what they're paying now.

And without jobs to help them cover expenses, few of them will be able to find affordable individual health insurance.

The White House wants to extend the subsidies, they just need to find the money to do so.

Hopefully upcoming legislation, and an upturn in our economy, will soon solve this problem for good.

Michigan Health Insurance and Obama's Plan

2009-11-23T20:16:00.000-08:00

The online Michigan news blog Freep.com remarks today that in preparation for the upcoming debate over the final health care bill, the Obama administration sent legislators home with new estimates on how many millions of state residents will be helped by a newer, more affordable version of Michigan health insurance.

According to the article, this translates to 1.3 million people who are uninsured, and 459,000 state residents with overpriced individual insurance policies who get "guaranteed coverage for less" on a national insurance exchange.

Michigan's health insurance market has been particularly difficult to navigate in recent years, as the economic downturn in the US has created an environment of joblessness and created a large population of uninsured state residents.

The bill itself still faces a lot of criticism - from Republicans who claim it will cost too much, to Democrats worried about cuts to Medicare.

However, whether it's Michigan health insurance, or a nationwide plan for all Americans, it appears that some form of new health care will emerge from the Senate by the end of this year. And that's good news to the 47 million Americans who currently cannot afford coverage for themselves or their families.

"Botax" for Affordable Health Insurance

2009-11-19T17:42:00.000-08:00

There have been many different arguments against the ongoing health care overhaul, many of which involve finding the means to pay for an affordable health insurance plan for everyone.

But Senate Democrats think that the "Botax" could be the answer.

According to the LA Times, The senate is thinking of adding a 5% tax on elective cosmetic procedures to finance affordable health insurance - no such tax would be applied to reconstructive surgery for those who have suffered disfigurement.

Opponents argue that it's really not fair. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by insurance, nor does it contribute to the current health care crisis.

It's just an easy way to make another $54 billion dollars for the country.

It's also another easy means of taxing the wealthier citizens of our country, since it takes a "fair amount" of disposable income to pay for cosmetic surgery.

There will certainly be some lobbying against the botax in coming months, since cosmetic surgeons could lose money based on patients getting fewer procedures.

However, when weighed against an affordable health insurance plan for those who need it the most, it doesn't seem that the cosmetic surgery industry has a lot of room to maneuver.

Trauma Patients Dying for Affordable Health Insurance

2009-11-16T20:08:00.000-08:00

In recent years it's become clear that the lack of affordable health insurance is bad for the health of those Americans who can't get coverage. Study after study has found that they're more likely to die of preventable diseases like heart disease, and certain cancers.

However, now it seems that even trauma patients are suffering from the lack of insurance.

A study conducted for the Archives of Surgery, and cited in the LA Times, finds that patients who don't have access to affordable health insurance are far more likely to die from car accidents and other traumatic injuries than those who have coverage.

Far more likely meaning as much as 80% more likely in some cases.

This finding surprised a lot of people, since it's been illegal to deny medical treatment to anyone brought into an emergency room since 1986.

Some theories to explain the findings include the likelihood that the uninsured are more likely to be suffering from underlying illnesses that make recovery from trauma more difficult.

Or, that those without coverage are less likely to receive more expensive yet lifesaving treatments like MRIs and CAT scans.

Finally, one factor could include the type of injury. Those who suffer from gunshots and knife wounds are more likely to be lower income individuals, who are similarly unlikely to have health coverage.

However, while these findings themselves surprised the medical community, the fact that the lack of affordable health insurance is bad for people isn't surprising at all - we've all known that for awhile. It's only now that we're seeing how that lack is impacting those who can't get coverage.

Savings Billions on Health Care? Try Making Individual Health Insurance Affordable.

2009-11-12T19:40:00.000-08:00

The title of CBS News' article is "How to Save Billions on Health Care Now." And while the points made in the article are good ones, it doesn't address the very real fact that the lack of affordable individual health insurance is costing us a great deal more than unnecessary surgeries.

It makes sense that, as it says in the article, 30% to 40% of elective procedures are unnecessary, often performed at the bequest of those individuals who are hoping to extend their lives.

However, out of the $2.5 trillion a year that we pay in health care costs each year, billions of it could be reduced by simply making individual health insurance more affordable.

How so? Since 1986 it has been illegal for hospitals to refuse treatment to the uninsured. However, in order to offset the costs of treating them, hospitals routinely overcharge for medical procedures performed on those who do have health coverage.

And those costs are passed on through the premiums paid for group health insurance and individual health insurance. If you have either of these, you are already helping to subsidize the health care of the uninsured.

However, as most economists agree, if individual health insurance were both affordable and legally required, the costs accrued by treating the uninsured would decrease dramatically, saving us all billions a year.

Now, if we could only combine low-cost and yet effective health coverage with a reduction in unnecessary treatments, we might actually save $2.5 trillion a year, and be healthier for it too.

Affordable Health Insurance Key to Diabetes Treatment

2009-11-09T19:10:00.000-08:00

CNN's Health.com reveals to us that nearly 24 million Americans have diabetes, with another 57 million likely to get it in their lifetime.

But what they don't reveal is how affordable health insurance could play a part in lowering those numbers.

In their segment titled "8 common diabetes questions answered" they address a common concern among those at risk for this life threatening disease: how will I know if I have diabetes?

The answer is deceptively simple - you ask a doctor.

But what do you do if the lack of affordable health insurance in America makes that an impossibility? Of the 47 million uninsured Americans, how many of them will die from diabetes complications because they couldn't afford coverage?

Diabetes and its treatments cost us billions of dollars a year, but by making affordable health insurance available to citizens, those costs, and diabetes-related deaths, could be drastically reduced.

Health Coverage Legislation: How Will it Impact Medicare Supplemental Insurance?

2009-11-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

With health coverage legislation in the news every day, many seniors are stuck trying to filter through all the information out there to understand how potential change could impact their Medicare Part C plans, and whether or not supplemental insurance will be an important factor.

According to The Examiner, the major change that seniors could see would be higher premiums for Medicare Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage. This is based on the claim that insurers are able to lower premiums for Medicare Advantage because they are being subsidized by taxpayers when they overcharge for Medicare A and B.

But, if Medicare Advantage will cost more, will supplemental insurance be affected? Will it be more useful?

Medicare supplemental insurance - also known as Medigap - is health coverage offered by private companies that works in conjunction with Medicare to supplement its coverage. Supplemental insurance doesn't always offer drug coverage, but it has almost no co-pays.

Since supplemental insurance is offered by insurance companies, it will be impacted by health coverage legislation. But, since it isn't an alternative to Medicare, it isn't going to face the same legislation as Part C.

If Part C premiums will go up based on insurance companies no longer being able to overcharge for Medicare A and B, supplemental insurance could become more popular as a means of getting better coverage to compensate for Medicare gaps.

This means that unless insurance companies are regulated to prevent overcharging, supplemental insurance prices could go up based on demand.

However, if supplemental insurance is offered by the non-profit cooperatives that are part of current health coverage legislation, it could mean that Medigap plans won't see a price change.

Either way, there is talk in congress of NOT raising costs for those who already have Medicare plans of any kind, so those who rely on Part C or on supplemental insurance for now may be in the clear.

Senators Ask Key Questions About Small Business Health Insurance

2009-11-03T19:32:00.000-08:00

Following disturbing news that small business health insurance costs would be going up as much as 15% next year, the chairman of the Senate health committee sent letters to major insurers asking for key information.

The main points in the letters basically point out that small business health insurance is, according to the article at Reuters, "dysfunctional" and simultaneously "lacking in transparency."

And then there's the little issue of how many insurance CEOs are making more than $5 million a year.

U.S. lawmakers have been putting pressure on insurance companies in the last year, threatening to reinstate anti-trust laws that had been waived for them, and of course, working to offer Americans a public insurance option in order to create competition among insurance agencies.

Small business health insurance is often more expensive than that offered to large corporations, since larger numbers of enrollees lower the cost ratio for insurance agencies. In any large group, most people will stay healthy, and their premiums pay for the unhealthy.

But is it fair that small businesses, which struggle to provide insurance based on tighter budgets and suffer more sensitivity to economic downturns, should also be saddled with higher insurance costs?

Most say no. Insurance companies are swearing that it's the rising cost of health care that leads to inflated premiums, not them. However, as one senator put it very succintly: "they're just lying."

Lack of Family Health Insurance Takes Toll on Kids

2009-11-02T19:12:00.000-08:00

Most people are aware that the inability to find affordable health insurance has a negative impact on adults - if you get sick and you don't have coverage, you're more likely to die. Period.

However, few realized how the lack of family health insurance was affecting kids. At least, we weren't all that aware until just recently, when a study published by John's Hopkins made it all too clear.

Released at WebMD's children's page, the study finds that "nearly 17,000 deaths of hospitalized children might have been prevented" if they had access to a good family health insurance plan throughout their youth.

While the specifics of how and why these kids are more likely to die aren't laid out in the article, the doctors behind the study make it clear that this finding mirrors that related to adults. In other words, it's a very sad finding, but not one that is very surprising.

With fewer and fewer employers able to offer individual coverage, let alone family health insurance, parents are finding it more difficult today to get coverage for their kids.

And kids without medical coverage don't get important checkups, or necessary vaccinations.

So while the debate rages on regarding how to make affordable health insurance a reality for sick adults, it's probably even more important to remember the littlest victims of a health care system that has become too expensive and too unwieldy to protect 7 million uninsured children throughout the U.S.

House Democrats Unveil Plan for Affordable Health Insurance

2009-10-29T20:25:00.000-07:00

One key aspect of the current debate over health care legislation and affordable health insurance for all Americans appears to have finally been resolved this week.

According to the LA Times, House Democrats have finally agreed upon a health care bill that would provide affordable health insurance for millions of uninsured Americans right now.

Their bill, which will be passed to the Senate and then melded with theirs, offers a few key details that have been in and out of the news for weeks.

It includes a law that would require all Americans purchase health coverage. This would force those who don't think they need health insurance - namely the young and healthy - to pay for coverage. Their premiums would then offset those of the less healthy, effectively lowering all national health care costs, much as group health insurance plans do on a smaller scale.

It also offers a public option, which has been hotly contested by Republicans, as well as insurance companies who feel that the competition would drive them out of business.

There would also exist non-profit health cooperatives designed to help people find coverage they need, at a price they can afford. And insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

While this bill would provide affordable health insurance to most of the millions of uninsured in America, some still argue about the costs.

It isn't clear whether or not it would exceed the $900 billion dollar benchmark set by President Obama, with some saying it would and others saying it won't.

But, as this bill heads towards the Senate, it isn't expected to be subject to a vote until the end of the year. How it looks and what it retains at that point remains to be seen.

Will Nationwide Group Health Insurance Laws Benefit Insurance Companies?

2009-10-26T19:23:00.000-07:00

A group health insurance plan on a nationwide level has been touted in the news and in recent legislation as the answer to rising health care costs. The notion is, that if everyone is legally required to purchase medical coverage, costs will go down much as they do for coverage purchased by big companies.

It's the law of averages - the good health of most people balances out the bad health of others. If everyone had to purchase coverage as they do in a group health insurance setting, the the premiums paid by the healthy would offset the costs of the unhealthy.

But is this really a move that will help consumers? According to the Los Angeles Times, the legislation going through the House and Senate right now might force everyone to purchase coverage, but it doesn't place limits on how much insurance companies can charge. This means that while we would all need to find some type of medical coverage, it still might cost more than we can pay.

The article states that this move has been carefully planned by health insurance agencies since 2006, who were aware that one day Americans wouldn't stand for the same plans we've been overpaying for. The group health insurance plan could lower health care costs, but if the LA Times is correct, we might not benefit from it.

So will health insurance companies get the last laugh? Maybe not. They strongly oppose the public option, since it would provide competition and force insurance companies to lower their costs. And, recent attacks on their exemption from antitrust laws have many insurance companies on the defensive.

It's not clear yet how legislation will play out, and we have no idea what type of coverage we'll end up with. It's likely that America will function like one great group health insurance plan, but whether or not the public actually benefits from that remains to be seen.

Lack of Affordable Health Insurance Impacting Prostate Cancer Treatment

2009-10-21T19:40:00.000-07:00

A recent medical study finds that black men are twice as likely die of prostate cancer than white men. Why the disparity? The answer is really socioeconomic in nature, and essentially comes down to a lack of affordable health insurance for those men who are lower on the economic ladder.

At myrtlebeachonline.com, the study from the Journal of Cancer reveals that raising awareness of the disease just hasn't been enough to combat this problem. More than 8% of black men report having no health insurance, compared to only 3% of white men.

When prostate cancer strikes, as it will do for thousands of men every year, this leaves black men without options for treatment that will save the lives of white men who are insured. The article states that, "it is well established that uninsured patients, regardless of race, delay getting needed care. And once they do seek medical attention, uninsured patients often receive less aggressive treatment than patients with health insurance."

So, men who cannot afford health insurance not only take longer to get care for prostate cancer, they're also not likely to get the best kind of treatment anyway.

As premiums go up, more and more men will suffer the same consequences. In this tough economic climate, it isn't just those lower on the economic scale that can't find affordable health insurance, many middle class men and women can't keep up with the rising costs of health care either.

With cancer deaths predicted to double in the upcoming decades, we will have to do something soon to make health insurance, and life-saving care, available to all Americans who suffer from prostate cancer, or any disease at all.