Most life insurance policies pay a death benefit when one dies, regardless of cause (absent fraud, of course). Some plans include an "accidental death" rider, which doubles the amount paid in the event of death due to an accidental injury.
[ed: I've never understood the appeal of such a rider: how likely is it that a surviving spouse needs twice as much money if one's hit by a bus instead of dying slowly of cancer?]
And there are some policies which only pay if one dies an accidental death: called "accident plans," these are usually inexpensive (for good reason) because they don't have to pay out after, say, a long and expensive illness. Again, I fail to see the value in such plans, but folks do buy them.
Which brings us to the topic at hand: what, exactly, defines an "accidental death?"
"Your spouse goes into the hospital for surgery and winds up dead ... Are you entitled to collect?"
According to a judge in New York, "yes." In this case, a woman went in for surgery, the gas-passer screwed up, and she died of complications. The judge determined that this met the definition of "accidental death."
His is not the last word: other jurisdictions have ruled the opposite.
Well, the Trustees' projections regarding the long-term growth of health care costs underpins its own projections, and ignoring it in the budget is a recipe for potential disaster.
They also contract with some 8 in 10 of our country's primary care doc's, as well as more than 9 in 10 of its hospitals. That's a lot of providers. By contrast, Medicare can boast of only about 75% of physicians.
Ms Braly must be a closet IB reader, as she concludes (quite correctly) that "[h]ealth-care reform" soon became "health-insurance reform" exclusively. It was a pivot that was—unfortunate ... because it is not going to solve the longer-term problem."
Indeed.
■ Late last week, we received an "embargoed" news item from CMS (the gummint agency responsible for Medicare and other programs). We honored their request, and held off reporting this rather startling news:
"The projected acceleration in growth for 2009 was due in part to faster spending growth for the Medicaid program ... reflecting increasing growth in enrollment associated with the recession. Also contributing to the acceleration was faster growth in the use of a variety of health care services as many sought treatment for the H1N1 virus and an expected increase in the take-up rate for coverage provided through ... (COBRA) in response to the government's subsidization of COBRA premiums."
So let's get this straight: health care costs rose because more people sought treatment, and health expenditures rose because more people lost their jobs and looked to the (few?) remaining taxpayers to subsidize their health insurance costs?
Yet we have folks who think that having the government actually run the entire health care delivery and financing system would solve the problem?
We'd be remiss if we failed to remind folks that the famed COBRA/ARRA Subsidy has been extended (along with more and more folks' status as unemployed), The good news for those affected is that "[e]ligibility for the subsidy now runs through Feb. 28 ... and the duration of the subsidy can be up to 15 months. For state continuation, the length of the subsidy period depends on a particular state’s current continuation legislation. "
That last refers to states with so-called "mini-COBRA" regs.
There are, of course, a lot of reasons to stay on COBRA when one's (former) employer is footing most of the bill; still, if one is healthy, it's usually best to get off of such a plan as quickly as possible (again, taking the subsidy into account). It's a shame that there's no mechanism to, well, pay folks to get their own plans.
A decade before that, State Farm also led the way in "identifying the increasing trend of tire tread separation" which then plagued Ford and Firestone.
One of the varied uses of permanent life insurance is to pay estate taxes at a discount (since insurance dollars never cost as much as "real" ones). FoIB Joe Kristan takes that a step further, reporting on a proposal that would allow non-dead (not to be confused with "The UnDead," or the Grateful Dead) to prepay their estimated "death taxes."
Interesting proposition, and definitely worth reading.
I realize that this is a lot of quoting without much comment (so far), but please bear with me just a bit longer:
"[Ludwig Minelli, founder of Dignitas] argues that anyone—the chronically ill, the mentally ill or those who are simply tired of living—deserves help to end it all."
"Chronically" ill? "Tired of living?" These are legitimate, justifiable reasons to encourage folks to commit suicide?
Or are they, instead, a sales pitch for a few dollars worth of chemicals?
While this may well have "broad implications for transgender people" (and again, do they really need to use the term "broad?"), it has even, um, broader implications for transgender folks who also have an "alternative benefit" plan (HSA, HRA, FSA). The general rule of thumb is that, if its deductable on your taxes, it's eligible for tax-advantaged reimbursement under these plans [ed: the relevant controlling authority is IRS form 213(d), which appears not to have been updated - yet - to reflect this new reality]. If that's the case, then it seems to me that we now have a whole new demographic that should be clamoring against a gummint-run health care system that would do away with many of these benefits.
Back in the day, agents routinely sold "decreasing term life insurance" plans to help their clients' beneficiaries pay off a mortgage. The plan, written to coincide (generally) with the number of years on a given mortgage, had a fixed premium but a declining face amount. The idea was that, as the mortgage balance declined, so would the policy.
The most obvious problem with this approach was that the policy actually became more and more expensive with each passing year, as the same premium pruchased less and less protection. There were other problems with these plans, as well, but they remained a commonly used tool for a long while.
Today, we often use some kind of permanent plan (such as Universal Life) or "regular" term plan to cover mortgages. In fact, we often don't sell separate policies to cover a mortgage, but simply include it as part of a comprehensive package.
The problem with this approach is that it still only covers one risk: death. Of course, some people (but not nearly enough) own disability insurance, which can help pay the mortgage in the event that one becomes disabled. Another approach, which is currently being touted by Assurity Life, is to couple a Critical Illness benefit with a life insurance plan. In a video the carrier recently sent to its agents, Ken Smith (Director of Health Products) explained why this may be a good idea:
[ed: the video was distributed "for agent use only," so I can't embed or link to it here. I'll do my best to pass along Mr Smith's "pitch"]
Something like 25% of folks in the UK own a critical illness policy; of those, over 60% bought their plan as a means of covering their mortgage. After all, what's more likely to happen before one reaches age 65, death or a critical illness? Folks with life insurance protection only could face a very unpleasant surprise if they're diagnosed with cancer or have a stroke. Either of these would mean some major time off work, and an increased risk of losing the house while still very much alive.
According to Mr Smith, the cost of the additional protection is usually "less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day."
It was unclear to me whether Mr Smith was discussing a critical illness policy with a death benefit, or a life insurance policy with a critical illness benefit. I'm not aware of any life insurance plans already in force to which one could add a critical illness rider. Likewise, most CI plans don't have a death benefit. So, what's one to do?
Well, if one currently has neither, then a combination plan may be the best best. If one already owns the "old fashioned" kind of mortgage insurance (e.g. term life), then supplementing that with a separate CI plan may be the best bet. Either way, your first stop should be with a professional, independent agent who can help you sort out your options. It's one more way that insurance can help manage risk.
Managed Care Matters' Joe Paduda hosts this week's compendium of all that's wonky in the wild, wild world of health policy and polity. It's a little late, but Joe does a great job of explaining why each post merits inclusion.
Turns out that, at least according to English researchers at the Royal Veterinary College [ed: so, are they talking about running dogs or running people?], about 1 in 5 of us get essentially no fitness benefit from excercising regularly. Which is not to say that it's necessarily a waste of time, but it does call into question some assumptions about health insurance programs that incentivize folks to excercise on a regular basis.
While not strictly insurance related, folks whose Toyotas are affected by the recent recall are being urged not to drive them until they've been corrected:
This seems to me a pretty simple risk:benefit calculation (although it remains unclear how one is supposed to avoid driving a car and yet still deliver it to the dealer for service).
Ms Malkin also makes an important point about the inherent conflict of interest between a (largely) successful car company (Toyota) and those which the gummint now owns (GM, Chrysler). In fact, it is to Mr LaHood's advantage that Toyota's current problems may cause a decline in their fortunes; surely GM and Chrysler would benefit from a Toyota sales slump.
Which brings us to the larger point: a private sector company can not compete with the government. This is a lesson that must not be lost on those who continue to believe that a gummint-run health care system can coexist with a private sector one.
Quick, to which country does the above quote refer?
If you guessed the US, you're not wrong, but you're not right, either:
Evan Falchuk, who provided us with the groundbreaking graph on health care costs and coverage around the globe, is referring here to Japan. Seems that this highly homogenous, incredibly ingenious, resolutely resourceful nation has much the same trouble with health care that we do. And even though their system is of the "universal" model, they have had little success is either curbing runaway health care costs or providing appropriate and timely delivery of care.
The whole article is well worth reading, but for me, the takeaway (carryout?) is simply this: "The equitable and affordable distribution of health care services is a problem across the globe."
That is, those who tout "universal" health care systems may think they're promising better, more affordable health care to a greater number of people, but they couldn't be more wrong.
On the other hand, evidence continues to mount that it may soon find itself "under the bus," as even its most outspoken advocates begin to understand just how politically toxic it's become:
Ouch. Them's harsh words, Mister. But is it possible that they're also true?
Time, of course, will tell. And there will be the temptation to continue the shady, backroom shenigans that have become the hallmark of this particular legislative effort. And just as with the zombie menace, it's important to remember that there are only a few ways to be sure that it stays dead.
UPDATE: There's now a direct link for voting. Please click here and cast your vote for the Covert Rationing Blog.
This year's nominees include a number of blogs with which I'm not familiar, and one of which I'm a big fan. The Covert Rationing Blog, penned with delicious snark and good humor by DrRich, is a finalist in the "Best Health Policies/Ethics Weblog." If you vote for no other contender (and I'm not suggesting that you do), please consider casting a vote (or three) for DrRich (and no, that's not a typo).
Previously, we reported on Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach, whose fight with breast cancer led her to California for life-saving surgery.
As we've previously averred, the so-called "Individual mandate" is evil. That is, it flies in the face of well over 200 years of settled Constitutional law, and has no place in any discussion of health care "reform."
And, apparently, the legislatures of (at least) two states agree with us:
What's notable here is that, although the bill is touted as a Republican effort, the Old Dominion's state senate is under the (nominal) control of the Democrats. The point is, this is an almost-textbook example of bipartisanship, something that's been sorely lacking in the national "debate" on the issue.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this obvious conflict between the current administration and the 10th Amendment.
Posts
