Highly Questionable Agent Trick

I'm usually the last one to criticize a colleague's actions, particularly when I don't know all the facts, but this case is so egregious that I'm quite comfortable calling out an Erie Insurance agent. Here's why:

As long-time readers know, I've been highly critical of first-gen Universal Life policies. But, there are almost always exceptions, and our long-time client Marcus is one of those.

His plan, purchased 26 years ago at age 43, is essentially "paid up," with $86,000 of cash value and 5% minimum guaranteed interest rate, with a net death benefit of about $336,000. He hasn't paid premiums for many years, and it doesn't look like he'll need to.

So, for once, a Universal Life policy that actually works.

Which was why I was quite taken aback to receive a letter from our carrier's Home Office that it's being replaced. Now, there were no specifics on which Erie plan is being used, but given the circumstances, it seems certain that it's their version of UL, which (according to a colleague who also represents Erie) tops out at a 3% minimum interest rate, a full 40% lower than his current plan's.

Now why would an agent do this, and why would a client be foolish enough to agree to it?

Well, a couple reasons come to mind:

First, perhaps this new plan incorporates additional features, such as a Long Term Care rider. My colleague informs me that this is, in fact, not currently available, so scratch potential validation #1.

Perhaps there's a cost savings? Well, if my client has his home and auto coverage with Erie (a distinct possibility, since it's not with our agency), then there's an additional discount available on those two lines if he also buys a life policy.

Here's the thing, though: his cash value means that the 2% difference represents about $1700 a year. That multi-policy discount is worth about 5%, which means that my client's home and auto policies would have to be in excess of $34,000 (that's thousand) a year to get close.

Un-hunh.

Now why am I so worked up? After all, I have literally zero skin in this game (we're long past getting any commissions or residuals from this plan, and he has no other policies with us).

It's simple, really: what's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.

And this is egregious.

MVNHS©: Oh how "The Mighty" have fallen

Once upon a time, the Much Vaunted National Health System© was "declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health."

While we would vigorously dispute that, it's really not necessary to do so, as recent events just shore up our claim that the socialized medicine scheme is, in fact, failing.

And what evidence can we provide? Well, thanks to co-blogger Bob V, here are just two examples that "free" ≠ "good."

Case the First:

"NHS Health Check ... The number of patients on hospital wards in England has been at unsafe levels at nine out of 10 NHS trusts this winter"

Wow, a 90% fail rate. Now that's impressive.

But it gets better (for certain values of "better"). Let's put a more personal face on it:

"A family has launched a desperate appeal to send their three-year-old son to America for cancer treatment. They are now attempting to raise enough money to travel to Cincinnati to get Charlie treatment that the NHS doesn't provide."

Thus proving that "free" = "what you pay for it."

#MVNHS©Winning!

Tale of Two DI's: Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed the case of a neurologist who had some quirky ideas about both disability and homeowner's insurance. As one might imagine, I'm still waiting to hear back from him (but not holding my breath, nor particularly bothered that I haven't). I also promised to share the tale of another client who was also looking for this type of coverage at about the same time, and the very different tack that story took.

And so here 'tis:

Ted is a barber, and a long-time client (life and health insurance). He came to me recently because he thought it'd be a good idea to have some disability insurance in case he had to miss work due to an illness or injury. Of course, being self-employed means that this is particularly important. I did my usual pre-screen (just to make sure things were more or less the same health-wise) and confirmed his income. There are several carriers that do well in this market, but the plan design I got from Illinois Mutual was really top-notch. For one thing, they offer a special occupation class "bump" for folks in Ted's position, which meant he could qualify for more coverage at a reduced rate.

He qualified for about $2,000 a month of coverage, at a cost of about $65 per month. That was a good deal, but he was concerned about what would happen if he had a bad month (or three) and couldn't swing the premium. I explained that he didn't have to apply for the full amount; a lower amount would be more affordable, and since I like to include a guaranteed insurability rider on plans I sell, he can always bump that up down the road, regardless of his health at the time. As I often do with clients, I urged him not to let 'the perfect' be the enemy of 'the good.'

He liked that. A lot.

So we settled on $1,200 a month benefit, with a $43 per month premium, completed an application, and the policy was approved in under a week (which is fantastic!). It was in my hands a few days later for delivery and review.

So here we have someone who understands both the need for this kind of coverage, and the value of a professional, independent agent who can help guide one through the process (not to mention a great carrier that was happy to work with me on getting appropriate quotes).

Nice.

And another block

Last month, the new administration followed through on the previous admin's threat to put the kibosh on the proposed Humana/Aetna merger:

"A U.S. federal judge blocked the companies merger deal, saying it violated antitrust law."

Fast forward a couple weeks, and we get similar news on the other big merger story:

"[Wednesday], the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision granting the Department of Justice’s request to block Anthem’s acquisition of Cigna."

As expected, Anthem's "disappointed" in this latest setback, and has vowed to press forward through the legal system to obtain a favorable outcome.

I'm ambivalent about the whole thing, but tend to come down on the side of "competition is good;" that is, I'm not terribly upset with this latest development.

Time, of course, will tell.

How to achieve a competitive market?

In the past few weeks we've watched our courts block two giant mergers: Aetna-Humana, and Anthem-CIGNA. The reasons were the same.  The mergers would harm consumers by reducing competition and stifling innovation.

Aetna-Humana
"the government alleged that the merger of Aetna and Humana would be likely to substantially lessen competition in markets for individual Medicare Advantage plans and health insurance sold on the public exchanges," 

Anthem-CIGNA
"the merger is likely to result in higher prices, and [will have] other anticompetitive effects,” the judge wrote. “It will eliminate the two firms’ vigorous competition against each other for national accounts, reduce the number of national carriers available to respond to solicitations in the future, and diminish the prospects for innovation in the market.”

Isn't this wonderful news!  

Because now the American economy is prepared for a national, single-payer medical insurance program that will not lessen competition thereby benefiting consumers and stimulating innovation!

Wait.  What???

Health Wonk Review: Alt-Facts edition

Steve Anderson hosts this week's comprehensive round-up of health care polity and policy. He does a great job of contextualizing the entries - makes for interesting reading and easy navigation.

(And our own Patrick Paule gets the top spot!)

Kudos, Steve!

The Many Lives of "Grandma"

If you like your plan you can keep it. One of the biggest lies of Obamacare might end up having a little more truth than we all believe.

Back in November of 2013 President Obama directed his minions to write a rule extending the life of insurance policies that were in force before Obamacare to extend them an additional year. Less than six months later they issued a second order extending the deadline out to policies that end on January 1st of 2018.

These policies have become known as Grandmothered plans. Here at IB we have written extensively about these plans and the impending death of "Grandma".

Well, it turns out Grandma might be making a miraculous recovery. According to numerous industry insiders, the Trump Administration is making a strong push toward using Obama's own decisions against him. The push is so strong that the big elephant UHC, released a broker communication stating their intent to extend Grandmothered plans into 2018 "contingent on transitional relief being offered beyond December 31, 2017."

The good news for Grandma, at least in my opinion, is that once Tom Price is approved as Secretary of HHS I believe this move will be done immediately.

Obamacare hasn't pushed Grandma off a cliff. Her euthanizing has been postponed a couple of times. But now it appears that Grandma is stable and in fact could be immortal.

Thanks for your patience!

I'm currently out of town (and mostly offline) due to a family health crisis.

Regular blogging should resume shortly.

Obamacare Has Mold

Replace. Repair. These are the words I hear when watching my favorite home remodeling shows. Suspect wiring, bad plumbing, shoddy roofing. These are some items that a home remodeler like Mike Holmes sees in his everyday work. But what happens when a contractor builds a house with a porous foundation and it infests with mold? What if that mold has been growing for seven years and moisture has taken over the entire home? In almost all cases the best alternative is to simply level it and start the building process over.

This analogy is a perfect fit to the ongoing battle with Obamacare.

Built by a shoddy contractor in 2010 and riddled with poorly framed walls by untrained carpenters, Obamacare has survived by hiring fly by night journeymen who have come in to do patch repair jobs when necessary, and pushing off the high cost repair jobs to future dates.

The house itself looks spectacular. Shining bright above the beautiful oak table is the glittering new light fixture hanging in the dining room. The brick wainscot is an image of craftsmanship at it's finest. From the outside this is what we see. This is what we want to see. We don't want to believe that the beautiful home would ever have any defects.

However, buried between the walls where very few people ever look is a problem. Growing rapidly due to a foundation that isn't solid, is the mold of Obamacare. Seven years of moisture has completely engulfed the beautiful house and it is rotting from the inside out. The mold has spread from room to room and threatens the joists holding up the flooring and the frames of the windows. In a few spots it has shown itself through the painted walls only to be covered up by a quick touch up of paint that leaves a slight discoloration on the wall.

We don't want people to know about this issue. The mold has been in there for so long and has spread so much that a contractor simply can't come in and repair it. The foundation is so unstable and weak that it can't be patched and repaired either. 

We can look at replacing the foundation but that would come at a very high cost. And, only replacing the foundation won't eliminate the moisture that has penetrated the wood frame and created the deadly mold. To make this home right is going to require more than repairs and replacement.

It's going to require a complete tear down and new fresh start. It's going to take a full repeal. 

For all those decrying tearing down the house please have patience and hope. Because when the tear down begins rest assured, the beautiful brick you saw and the glittering new light fixture have both been removed.

The new house will be built. It will use the same brick wainscot and light fixture. Only this time the foundation will be stronger and waterproof. The wood used to build will be mold resistant. So will the insulation and drywall. This will come at a price. A price that has to be higher than what was originally spent on the first house. We can't cut corners on this. Doing so will create the same outcome we had on the first try.

There will be some changes to the house that we don't all find attractive. The view from the outside will be slightly different. Some of the finishes will have less glimmer and others will look immaculate. Normal wear and tear will occur and some repairs will be made. We might even add an addition down the road. Personally, I would prefer an outdoor space with a pool. But that may not fit the yard or be best for future resale.

It's time we all realize that building the perfect house will never happen. Some of us like a modern look while others prefer a more traditional style. We are going to have to compromise on fixtures and paint colors, countertops and flooring. Cosmetics can change. But, the one thing that must be agreed upon is making sure that the foundation is strong and dry. This is what allows us to live safely in the house.

"If you like your plan..."

Too bad, so sad:

"Pamela Weldin’s experiences with Obamacare can be boiled down to just a few numbers.

Since the health care law’s implementation three years ago, Weldin, 60, has lost her insurance four different times."

If that name sounds familiar, well:

"Pamela Weldon played by the rules, and for her efforts, she's outta luck:"[CoOpportunity]'s liquidation marked the third time she would lose her health insurance under Obamacare"

She's now on Plan #5, after having the metaphorical insurance rug pulled out from beneath her four times now. And she's actually an ObamaCare poster child, having been previously declined for coverage under the "old system."

But hey, let's "repeal and repair" (Whatever the heck that even means)

[Hat Tip: The Political Hat]

The Truth Will Out [Corrected]

Just a quick reminder that, prior to The ObamaTax, the actual decline rate in the individual health insurance market was nominal:

"Out of 1,763,000 applicants who were medically underwritten in 2008, AHIP reports that 223,000 were denied coverage"

That works out to less than 0.01%.

[ed: Ooops! As has been (correctly) pointed out in the comments, my math here was, um, off. In fact the article itself says there was about a 13% decline rate. My bad, no excuse. And Thank You to commenters for the correction!]

But hey, #Winning!

[Hat Tip: Dean Clancy]

Almost missed it: Happy Blogiversary!

Yesterday marked our 12th blogiversary, and what a ride it's been:

8,000+ posts, over 3½ million page views, countless comments (literally, since we've switched comment hosting services several times).

And the best co-bloggers in the 'sphere:

Thank you Bob, Mike, Patrick, Kelley, Bill and Nate!!

And here's to the next dozen: L'chaim!

Another Oustanding Customer Service experience

Now and then, we go off-topic to congratulate and thank companies which go above and beyond in servicing their customers. Sometimes, it's as simple as actually fulfilling a promise, but with alacrity and a pleasant voice. This time, it's that, plus just a really great attitude. My only regret is that I didn't write down the name of the delightful young lady who provided this amazing service.

As far back as I can remember, we've always used, and enjoyed, Pyrex brand glass measuring cups for cooking, baking, you name it. We have a decent set: 1, 2, 4 and 8 cup versions, all in regular service, all go into the dishwasher after use.

A few months ago, we noticed that the lines on the 8 cup unit had faded (which was weird), but these aren't big-ticket items, so we popped over to the local purveyor and picked up a replacement. Fast forward a few months, and this weekend we took it out to use it, only to find that the entire bottom half was missing its lines.

This was unacceptable.

So this morning, I called up the Pyrex folks to lodge a complaint.

The young lady who answered (dang it! I am so disappointed that I forgot to write down her name) could not have been more delightful, professional or helpful. She agreed that this wasn't supposed to happen "they're dishwasher safe!" and immediately offered to send a replacement. Again, this is really how things are supposed to go, but I had no receipt or proof of purchase (or damage). I've always been pleased with the product, now I'm delighted with the service.

Thanks and kudos, Pyrex!

Tale of Two DI's: Part 1

Disability Insurance cases, that is.

Case the First is a neurologist who recently (a little over a year ago) started his own practice, after having been employed by a local hospital system for years. He came to me asking about protecting his income if he became disabled, and I agreed to get some numbers for him.

His new income is significantly lower than when he worked for the hospital, but (at least) two carriers are actually willing to issue policies with benefits based on that prior income. Given that he was making north of $120,000 a year, and is now making about 60% of that, the difference is profound: $6,500 per month benefit  versus about $4,000. Of course, there's quite a premium differential, but the upside is pretty significant:

"Average Neurologist Income:  A Neurologist usually gets a wage ranging from 144000 - 216000 depending on seniority levels."

And so it came to pass that we met to review the quotes I'd gotten. He asked some interesting questions, and then wondered aloud why he should even consider buying this coverage because, after all, he'd never been disabled. Now, I could have pointed out that it was his idea to look into it, but I decided to try another tack. I asked if he'd ever had a claim on his homeowners policy. He replied that he hadn't, and so I asked him why, then, did he have homeowner's insurance? He replied - and I'm still taken aback by this - "because it's the law."

Um, what?

When I explained that no, it is not the law, but a requirement by the mortgage holder, he began arguing with me, telling me that he'd been told this was the law his whole life, and now he has to question everything I've told him.

Okey-dokey.

At that point, we agreed to close things down, and I haven't heard from him since. Which is just as well, because I really don't know whether or not I want someone like that as a client.

Oh, for grins and giggles, I asked my favorite P&C Guru which government agency he notified when he sold a homeowner's policy, and he was also bemused when I explained why I was asking.

Stay tuned for Case 2, with a very different set of circumstances, and results.

Tick, Tock (Redux)

Just a friendly reminder that folks have until midnight tomorrow (January 31) to enroll in a 2017 ObamaPlan, or else risk paying the ObamaTax. If you do miss out, remember that the bureauweenies in DC have made SEP (Special Election Period) qualification more onerous.

The more you know...

Exploring the "How"

Much ink (and many pixels) has been spilled over various ways that the ObamaTax can be replaced (and I have my own idea on that...), but I liked this suggestion from Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner:

"[W]hatever else is in their upcoming Obamacare bill, that it include one measure: a provision to freeze new enrollment in Obamacare. That is, they could continue allowing those who have benefits to receive them, but then prevent anybody from enrolling in the law's expanded Medicaid program who was not already on the books as of the date the bill is signed into law. Additionally, nobody would be eligible for subsidies for Obamacare's exchanges who did not already sign up for coverage by Jan. 31 — the last date of open enrollment for this year."

This is eminently sensible and as fair as possible to those already caught up in the train-wreck. This would help mitigate the possibility that lots of folks would be signing up for plans that are going to be going away shortly, leaving them even further behind. It also means that, by creating a "date certain," it will be much more difficult for Congress to keep punting (although not for lack of trying, bless their hearts).

There are a few other benefits, as well, but I really don't want to steal Philip's thunder.

Recommended (both the article and the proposal).

From the P&C Files: Is there an "Idiot Clause?"

Because there really should be an Idiot Clause:

Post-Inauguration Health Wonk Review is up

Health Wonk Review co-founder Joe Paduda hosts this week's terrific compendium of health care bloggetry.

Do check it out.

CanuckCare: Free, and Deadly

^^^Warning: this is a truly disturbing story.^^^

We've written before that euthanasia seems to be the newest form of health care rationing, specifically in those countries with national health care schemes. It appears, though, that our Neighbors to the North© have decided to up the ante:

"Euthanasia became legal in Canada in June and by December Quebec bioethicists had already published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling for organ donation after euthanasia."

This is a truly chilling development. There's an inherent, and insurmountable, conflict of interest when the state both controls access to health care and sets the law about who lives and who dies.

To be fair, both Belgium and Britain have become (in)famous for euthanasia availability; just a few months ago we noted "[t]he first child to be killed by “assisted suicide” since Belgium legalized the practice for minors has had his life snuffed out." But even in that horrific case, harvesting the victim's child's organs wasn't mentioned (or even implied).

Oh brave new world...

Gender Bender Surrender

So, now comes word that a United States District Court has "[banned] the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing requirements in its Affordable Care Act (ACA) Nondiscrimination Section 1557 regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. This injunction applies nationwide."

I'm sure we'll be reading more about this in the coming days.

[Hat Tip: United Healthcare]

Tick, tock

Next Tuesday marks the end of this year's dreadful, pitiful ObamaCare Open Enrollment. Folks who sign before time runs out will have a March 1 effective date.

Which of course means that they're uninsured for a month or so, so perhaps a Short Term Medical plan is in order.

It will be interesting to assess the final numbers for the current debacle. Those counting on a last-minute surge are likely to be disappointed.

[Hat Tip: Cornerstone]

"X" for the Block!

Last we looked, the previous administration was looking to hold up the proposed merger of Humana and Aetna:

"The Department of Justice announced Thursday that it would file lawsuits against the proposed merger[s] ... there are [currently] five major health insurers in the United States — and if these mergers went through, that would drop to three."

But that was then, and this is now:

"[A] U.S. federal judge blocked the companies merger deal, saying it violated antitrust law."

Interesting times.



[Hat Tip: Dan Diamond]

Universal Life's Rocky Road: The Latest

As we've been saying for a long time, the first few Universal Life iterations contained the seeds of their own destruction. Flashing forward a bit, we more recently noted that carriers themselves seem to have a penchant for, shall we say, tweaking that downward decline:

"[P]erhaps inspired by the TA litigation, policyholders of other carriers are also suing their insurers, citing much the same legal reasoning."

The newest to enter the fray are those ostensibly On Your Side©:

"In his six-page ruling on Jan. 9 denying Nationwide's bid to dismiss, Senior U.S. District Judge Warren W. Eginton wrote the family's claims that Nationwide increased its fees to boost profits while disregarding factors included in the policy are plausible."

What's this mean in English?

Basically, that Nationwide (apparently) got greedy, and then got caught with their hands in the till by lying about various charges and fees. Interestingly, the principle invoked here is called "the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Which, while quaint, seems to me to be the most important underpinning of any contract, perhaps especially life insurance. After all, what else is it but a promise to deliver full value at some unspecified future date, when the original buyer is obviously in no position to contest any abuse by the insurer.

It's not unheard of for older policies (especially underfunded ones) to begin to go "underwater" as regards the cash value. But the real problem here is that the policy owner (in this case, a trust) was unable to obtain accurate, timely information from nationwide that might have helped save the policies.

That's just not right.

So, the case will go forward, and we'll keep readers posted on its progress.

Failure to Resuscitate

A couple weeks back we shared the news that Obamacare enrollment was flatlining. However, there were still four weeks left in open enrollment which gave hope to resuscitation.

Yesterday HHS released another data set with two additional weeks of open enrollment. The prognosis is now dire and indications are showing a failure to resuscitate. The enrollment figures released show only 63,190 new plan selections since January 1st. This is compared to the 2016 open enrollment when 153,631 plan selections were made during roughly the same time period. Overall enrollment is slightly lower by 10,557.

Comparing the press releases from 2016 and 2017 is quite somber. Note the tone (and figures) used by HHS.

2016

Since Open Enrollment began on November 1, about 8.8 million consumers signed-up for health coverage through the HealthCare.gov platform or had their coverage automatically renewed. This week’s snapshot includes weekly and cumulative data for enrollment through HealthCare.gov, a breakdown of cumulative data for 38 states using the HealthCare.gov platform, and cumulative data for local markets.

“As expected, consumer interest is beginning to increase again as we near the deadline for 2016 coverage,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said. “We know we have more work to do and as we count down to the January 31 final deadline, we’re focused on making sure consumers understand that they must act soon to find affordable health coverage and avoid the fee for choosing to not have health insurance in 2016. Consumers should know that we’re here to help 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

2017

More than 8.8 million Americans were signed up for 2017 coverage through HealthCare.gov as of January 14, 2017. This compares to about 8.7 million sign-ups as of January 14 last year, as Americans continue to demonstrate strong demand for 2017 Marketplace coverage.

“With almost 9 million people signed up for 2017 coverage just in HealthCare.gov states, it’s clear that Marketplace coverage is a product Americans want and need,” said Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell. “Strong demand is especially striking in light of the unique headwinds created by discouraging rhetoric from ACA opponents. More than 40,000 people have contacted our call center expressing concerns about whether they should sign up for coverage, with a sharp uptick in these questions last weekend. My answer is a resounding yes: in fact, I’ll be signing up for Marketplace coverage myself by the end of the month. If you still need coverage for 2017, visit HealthCare.gov or your state Marketplace before January 31, and join me and millions of other Americans in purchasing affordable, quality coverage.”

Today’s report covers the period from January 1 through January 14, 2017. Enrollment weeks are measured Sunday through Saturday. Since this year Open Enrollment began on a Tuesday, the totals reported in this snapshot reflect two fewer days than in last year’s published Week 11 snapshot. Measured over the equivalent time period, plan selections this year are almost 100,000 higher than last year.

Not surprisingly, the government still isn't giving up hope. But based on the enrollment my guess is that many of the insurance companies playing in the market are even closer to issuing DNR orders.

Your Record Drives Underwriting

It makes sense that your driving record would impact your auto insurance. If you've got a spotless record, you're going to pay less than your twin with the multiple DUI's (assuming similar vehicles, of course). But did you know that it also affects how much you'll pay for life and homeowner's insurance, as well?

I did know that it plays a role in life insurance underwriting: after all, applications ask for your driver's license number, and I've seen cases where really bad records result in less favorable underwriting results (which means higher premiums).

But I didn't know that it also comes into play when underwriting homeowner's (and, one presumes, tenant's) insurance, too:

"Allstate, meanwhile, is using driving records to help price home insurance. The company began doing so in 2011 in Oklahoma ... Home insurance prices are based mostly on a home’s reconstruction cost and location. Allstate started looking at driving records to learn about homeowners’ behavior."

To be sure, this makes sense: if you're prone to risky driving behavior, you're probably not going to be the most careful homeowner:

"Poor home maintenance or careless security can lead to damage and home insurance claims."

Which also makes sense.

But as it turns out, that doesn't really matter:

"Insurers don’t have to explain why certain behavior leads to claims. They only have to show a correlation between the variables and claims." [ed: emphasis in original]

Heh.

Now, this practice isn't widespread - yet - but don't be surprised if your homeowner's insurer runs a motor vehicle report at renewal time.

And drive safely.

[Hat Tip: ‏@LexisInsurance]

Anthem and AllClear ID

I just received notice from Anthem about the expiration of the AllClear ID protection that was provided after they were hacked:

Identity Protection Services due to expire soon

January 13, 2017 As you know, individuals impacted by the 2015 cyber attack against Anthem were offered two years of AllClear ID Credit and Identity Theft Monitoring Services (called PRO). That two-year time frame is coming to a close.

We’re writing to let you know that beginning in the next day or so, individuals who chose to enroll in these services will receive a courtesy AllClear ID email 30 days prior to the expiration of those services. ONLY those individuals who chose to enroll in these services will receive a courtesy AllClear ID email. The email will inform them that their AllClear ID services are set to expire and provide renewal options for the individual. Note that enrollment and expiration dates vary, but the earliest expiration date will be in February, and the latest expirations will be in August 2017.


It's nice to know that the Chinese have erased all the stolen data and that ID protection is no longer required.  If that's not the case, might I suggest that Anthem pays for the renewal?  It is, after all, necessitated by their IT department's unbelievable incompetence.

Times are tough all over

In places like England and Hong Kong (to name but two), private insurance is available (indeed, mandatory) for any number of folks, including ex-pats and the like. And just like here, the cost of care continues to increase, even (especially?) in places with "Universal" (ie government-run) health care schemes.

But it's the cost of these medical insurance plans that caught my attention in this article at LifeHealthPro:

"The cost of international private medical insurance is climbing globally, with an inflation rate of 9.2 percent reported for 2016."

In fact, the author's company ("a global insurance advisor") recently concluded a study of almost 100 different countries to see if they could ascertain the primary factors driving these increases. And they seem to have found them:

"[A]n increase in the demand for international quality private care, increases in the cost of health care, new regulations, and fraud."

Regular IB readers will remain nonplussed at this revelation, but it's still interesting. And note, too, that this is different than medical tourism, which involves leaving one's home country specifically for a particular health issue.

The more you know...

Everything old is new again

Pretty much everyone's heard of universal, whole and term life. These are usually bought to replace income that would be lost at one's death, or to pay off the mortgage, those kinds of things. And they generally cover one person at a time (although one can buy spouse and children's riders, these usually come with an expiration date).

When the estate tax was a big deal, one often saw Second-to-Die plans that covered a couple; the plan paid off at the death of the remaining spouse, when the (bulk of) the estate tax was due.

What I haven't seen in a while are First-to-Die plans. As the name basically states, these plans insure two (perhaps more) lives and pays off at the first death. They can be handy for buy-sell agreements, or if a couple has a specific need for one. They're also budget-friendly, in that your insuring two folks for a little bit more than one. They can also be helpful savings vehicles for college funds and the like.

Nothing really ground-breaking, of course, just interesting to see a resurgence.

[Hat Tip: Donna S]

ObamaCare in a nutshell

 

Actually, it's a license you're required to buy for the privilege of then paying for your own health care.

#Winning!

[Hat Tip: FoIB Rich W]

#ACA_Fail: Laurie Ann's story

For all of the sob stories about what may happen under Repeal/Replace, there's the reality of the very real, very human cost of the ObamaTax's implementation:
 

[click to embiggen]

Click here for the full (tragic) story.

[Hat Tip: @DaveinTexas]

Words Matter: Health Wonk Review is up!

HWR co-founder and all-around good egg Julie Ferguson hosts this week's eclectic round-up, focusing (natch) on the upcoming Repeal/Replace/Repeat(?) efforts now underway in DC. But there's plenty of other posts, as well, including one from David Harlow on Big Data, and a terrific video from (our favorite economist) Jason Shafrin on health care spending.

Enjoy!

Uninsured as Medicaid Failure

Every time I see something like this:



It reminds me of this

Ten years later.  No solution.  Same problem worse.