Democratic and independent U.S. senators laid out a list of conditions to win their votes on health care legislation, underscoring the challenges facing Senate leaders as they work to pass a bill by the year’s end.

Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman said today he is against a proposal to let people as young as 55 participate in the federal Medicare program. Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation” show, he also said lawmakers should drop a proposed long-term care insurance program and a government-run insurance plan, or “public option.”

“We don’t need to keeping adding on to the back of this horse because we’re going to break the horse’s back and get nothing done,” said Lieberman, who usually votes with the Democrats.

Faced with the prospect of no Republican support for the measure, Senate Democrats may need all 58 of their party’s votes, plus those of the chamber’s two independents. The 10- year, $848 billion Senate bill is designed to cover 31 million uninsured Americans and curb medical expenses.

Ten Democratic senators yesterday attacked a compromise plan that includes expanding Medicare, which covers the elderly and disabled.

Other senators pressed their own demands today on the Sunday talk shows. Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, said he “can’t support the bill” without stricter limits on abortion funding. The Senate on Dec. 8 rejected a Nelson- sponsored amendment to tighten those restrictions.

Reducing Costs

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said on “Fox News Sunday” that she won’t support health care legislation unless it reduces both costs and the federal budget deficit.

“I have to be assured that this is going to bring down the deficit, and it’s going to bring down health care costs for most Missouri families,” said McCaskill.

McCaskill said the Congressional Budget Office’s anticipated cost estimate for the compromise plan will prove pivotal. Democratic leaders refused to share details of the plan until the estimate is released.

An analysis issued last week by the chief actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that national health expenditures would grow about $234 billion from 2010-2019 under the legislation now before the Senate.

Summers Question

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” program, White House economic adviser Larry Summers didn’t answer directly when asked whether that analysis would preclude President Barack Obama from signing the bill.

“We’re very confident that this bill will reduce health care costs in whatever form ultimately emerges from the Congress,” Summers said.

Obama has made controlling costs a centerpiece of his drive for a health care overhaul, telling Congress on Sept. 9 that his plan “will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families.”

Republicans said the disagreements among Democrats were evidence that the entire effort should be scrapped. Republicans fault the legislation for cutting more than $400 billion from Medicare and say the measure would crowd out private insurers, raise taxes and cause the deficit to explode.

“I think they’re in serious trouble on this, and the core problem is the American people do not want us to pass it,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said today on “Face the Nation.”

Lieberman said that “there’s a good basic bill here” and that “parts of it can be supported by 60 senators, including some Republicans.”

Democratic Letter

The 10 lawmakers yesterday demanded changes in Medicare reimbursement rates, complaining that Medicare currently underpays states with more efficient medical care and leaves fewer physicians willing to treat patients in the program.

The letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was signed by Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota.

The current system pays providers for the number of services they provide, creating a situation in which Medicare pays more efficient states less for the same result, and “spends over one-third more for each beneficiary in some states compared to ours,” the Democratic senators wrote.

“An expansion of the program would simply see the same issue expanded to Americans between the ages of 55-64,” they said. They urged Reid to make changes in the bill to reward providers for the quality, not quantity, of their care.

The Medicare expansion, or buy-in, was meant to draw moderate support. It is part of a compromise to replace the government-run insurance plan that drew so much opposition it threatened to derail the legislation.

Both Republicans and centrist Democrats said a public plan would provide unfair competition to insurers such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.

The annual survey of nearly 5,000 households between March and June of this year found that about 171,000 people did not have health insurance, a number that is roughly the same as last year’s finding.

State leaders said the results indicate that Massachusetts’ landmark 2006 health insurance overhaul has held strong.

“The Massachusetts model may not be exactly the right fit for every state to achieve 97 percent coverage, but our success here demonstrates the impact that meaningful reform can have on improving access to care,” state Health and Human Services secretary Dr. JudyAnn Bigby said in a statement.

The study, conducted by the Urban Institute on behalf of the state’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, indicated that roughly the same number of people had health coverage through work this year as last year, despite widespread layoffs.

Division Commissioner Sarah Iselin said one reason the numbers haven’t changed much is that many of the people who have been laid off have received subsidies from federal stimulus money to help them pay premiums for health insurance coverage their employers had largely paid for while they were working.

“At some point,” Iselin said, “those benefits will expire.”

Stay in good health by purchasing affordable insurance by comparing health insurance quotes online.

Health Services|

If one is living in a foreign country, health coverage may become a necessity. A mother needs health insurance for her children, in case they get sick. We pay our monthly premiums, not because we think its part of our expenses, but because this money is just another way of investing in a future that is unpredictable.

It is not surprising that health insurance is gaining in popularity. Let me venture some reasons why. The first is that health coverage protects me during health care emergencies. At least, if I fall sick, I know that I will be able to afford medical treatment. I also feel more secure knowing that no matter how expensive a health service is I can afford it as my health insurer will cover it. Another thing is that I save a lot of money as my policy covers all the services I usually avail.

One other great thing about having health insurance is that your whole family is covered – unless otherwise specified. Thus, even if your family members need hospitalization, you will be saved from worries about how you will be able to afford it all. Because I have a lot of children, and only paying average premiums, I am getting a good deal. The great thing is that at least I know that my loved ones and I will be taken care of. So the monthly payments do not seem burdensome to me.

about having health insurance ::
No matter what your view, death catches each and every one of us. But by providing protection for your spouse, children and other dependants, life insurance will ease your fears about what happens to them after you expire. Purchasing life insurance need not be a burden, especially if you think about how the benefits will help your family cope with your loss.

For instance, even the debts that you had taken on will not seem like too much trouble if you have life insurance. They will have enough money to pay off the mortgage on your home. There will be no need to pawn away priceless heirlooms in order to pay your medical bills. Your body doesn’t have to be dumped in the ocean because your insurance policy covers the burial costs.

If you have children on their way to college, your death benefits could cover all their education costs. Especially if you are the primary wage earner, a life insurance policy will stand your family in good stead after you are gone.

If you think about it, the benefits of having health and life insurance far outweigh the monthly premiums you have to pay. Thus, anybody who invests in insurance, prepares for the future well in advance.

Visit Quotiva.co.uk for a competitive insurance quote comparison across a wide range of personal and commercial insurances. Compare broker quotes now.

When One Spouse Won’t Take Steps to Protect the Other’s Future

Long before Mom was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, and subsequently with Alzheimer’s disease, her husband, Lee, had been diagnosed with COPD in the form of chronic emphysema. However, in his mind his current and future care wasn’t going to be a financial problem. In fact, he often said that he didn’t expect to live long enough to be concerned about running out of money. What’s sad about that type of thinking is that it still prevails in many families today who avoid thinking about financial planning for their elderly loved ones. And the reality is that people, even chronically ill people, don’t always die when or how they expected—and money is always an issue. Dying is not financial strategy.

Overcoming Roadblocks to Financial Planning

Financial planning that involves your parents—and most elderly people for that matter—can be difficult. One big problem with some older spouses or parents is that they are often very reluctant to share their financial information or the terms of their wills and trusts with family members, even with their spouses. That, too, seems to be a throwback to ideas that the adult children and wives in particular have no business knowing those “secret” financial details prior to the death of a parent or spouse. Today, that thinking is a recipe for disaster.

My second challenge was actually finding out about Mom’s personal financial situation. She had never told me whether she had any money of her own, and I had no idea how dependent she might become on others if her husband didn’t have her future financially secured. To be honest, I didn’t ask for Mom’s permission to dig into her investment information. One day when she was busy doing things around her house I went to her desk, and knowing where she kept her monthly financial statements, I simply pulled the most recent copies and read them. The good news was that I learned that Mom had actually done some financial planning of her own: she had some savings, but potentially not enough, depending on how long she lived. So Lee’s will took on added importance. As Lee had so often said, he was responsible for the financial planning, and that caring for Mom’s financial security was taken care of. Mom wanted to make sure that was true. She felt entitled to be cared for, especially since she had not only shared his life for almost twenty-five years, but was now his primary caregiver. I fully supported her position on that issue. But only Lee knew how much money he had, and he had not been forthcoming with any information as to what his will stipulated for its disbursement or future care for Mom after his death.

Getting Mom “Scared Straight” About Financial Planning

The next problem I faced was the fact that without knowing the terms of Lee’s will, there was no way we could know what kind of financial challenges we might be facing once Mom was on her own. Lee had always told everyone that he would provide enough money to care for all of Mom’s needs, but with neither Mom nor me privy to the contents of his will, we couldn’t be certain if that was true. Mom told me that she could get a copy of Lee’s will, but she was ambivalent about doing so and especially uncertain about having me review it. To her it was a violation of the bond of trust between Lee and her. His pledge of providing for her through his own brand of financial planning was sufficient in her mind, even though she wasn’t privy to the details.

I spent many hours over the next few weeks convincing Mom that if we didn’t know what Lee’s will said, it was possible that there wouldn’t be enough money for her to stay in her home or cover her expenses if she lived another ten or fifteen years. And once again I played the guilt card that it would be a tremendous burden on us, Mom’s children, if—due to faulty financial planning—we had to step up and help her in her later years. At that time, virtually everything I said to Mom about we kids being burdened if she needed money from us was untrue; it was done to raise her level of anxiety regarding the financial terms of Lee’s will, to make her understand the importance of financial planning, and to help her recognize the potentially significant impact it could have on us. My plan worked and she finally agreed to ask him for a copy of his will. She also agreed that she’d allow me to read it. I felt I’d be much better able to reassure Mom about the contents of Lee’s will, and hopefully reassure her about a future of financial security, after reviewing it myself.

Getting the Financial Facts

I’m not sure what Mom said or did to convince Lee (whose birth sign is the “stubborn mule”) to change his mind. All I know is that she was able to get a copy of his will, and I’m very glad she did. Mom gave Lee’s will to me to review, and it was shocking. Lee’s personal style of financial planning aside, the arrangements he’d made for Mom were minimal. He had put his investments into a trust, which stipulated that Mom would receive a maximum of $5,000 per year until she had depleted all her personal assets before receiving any more money from his estate. His financial planning also made it very difficult to invade the trust except under some drastic circumstances.

Although Mom didn’t fully understand all the terminology of the will and trust, I made it clear to her that the will in its present form was not going to be sufficient to take care of her—especially at a rate of $416 per week for all of her expenses. Mom was furious with Lee, who told her that he had set his trust up that way because Mom “wasn’t good with money” and he “didn’t want her to spend it foolishly.” Now I was furious, too, about his chauvinistic attitude and dismissal of my own increasing role in my Mom’s life. It was clear that I would need to play an active role in advocating for her personal financial planning needs.

After reviewing Lee’s will, I walked Mom through the changes that I felt Lee would have to make to his will in order to be acceptable, which I defined as making funds readily available to Mom with no restrictions. Because of her limited understanding of financial planning, business and legal terminology, and her increasing memory loss, I wrote out my suggestions for Mom and told her that she would have to discuss each of those suggested points with Lee. Apparently that approach worked: Lee very reluctantly agreed to rewrite the terms of his will and trust.

In the ensuing weeks, Mom made sure that Lee kept his promise, and I was permitted to review the new documents to be sure that they were rewritten in a way that was not punitive or restrictive regarding her access to funds as they were needed. And while it made Mom and me feel better, the reality of the entire event was that Lee, who had stubbornly insisted that his financial planning was sound, and denied any possibility that he’d spend down virtually all of his money, actually outlived almost all his money. When he finally died, after spending two years as a homebound hospice patient, he left an amount of money that was less than what was necessary to cover Mom’s basic expenses during the subsequent two years. So much for Lee’s guaranteeing Mom’s future financial security.

Communicate Early for Solid Financial Plans

When it comes to being certain that a surviving spouse is going to be financially secure, clear communications between spouses and family members is crucial. So too is listening, especially to the spouse who tends to be the financial decision-maker—usually the husband in today’s elderly couples. Lee had always assured Mom that, thanks to his financial planning, she’d be well taken care of after his death. But neither Mom nor I had seen the proof of those words. So, as Ronald Reagan said when it came to the disarmament of the nuclear missiles of the former Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.”

It is extremely important to keep these words in mind when making certain that a surviving spouse has sufficient funds and access to those funds, and ensuring that the terms are spelled out in legal documents such as wills, trusts and estate plans. These financial planning tools are as essential as having open communication between family members. This can be even more critical in second marriages, and adult children may have to step in to protect their parent, as I did for my mom. Since no one knows for certain which spouse or parent will be the first to die, be sure everyone’s ducks are lined up in a solid financial row. Because when it comes to financial planning and protecting your parent’s financial security, it’s best to assume nothing and verify everything.

That demand should increase our value, and I still think that it eventually will, but in the meantime it’s imperative that primary care doctors band together to negotiate with hospitals and insurance companies.

A heartening story about how generalist physicians in his area successfully worked together during negotiations with a health insurer.

Effective negotiating is another business skill that doctors need to thrive in today’s practice environment:

Banding together, primary care physicians can wield much more power than they think. People won’t join plans without good primary care. Insurance companies make more money off of colonoscopies than they do office visits, but they make no money at all if people don’t sign up for the plan. The key to success is to work as a group. Be ready to walk away from a bad offer – even if it means that you will lose patients. Being willing to refuse bad payment will greatly enhance your ability to force better pay. It’s obvious that PCP pay is not going to break their bank. The reason we have been under their thumb has been our inability to act together.

With universal coverage on the horizon, primary care has the potential to become a more significant player. We are the foundation to any major health reform – without our cooperation, any plan will be doomed to failure. By working together, we can ensure that our future will remain viable.

INDIANAPOLIS, IN —  Seven Corners, one of the industry’s most experienced health care benefit providers, announces the availability of their Inbound® Immigrant medical insurance program designed especially for Asian Indians immigrating to the United States. The program was developed in response to an increased demand for medical insurance by the expanding Asian Indian population.

“We’re seeing a growing need to better serve the Asian Indian community,” said Jim Krampen, cofounder, principal and executive officer of Seven Corners. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the Asian Indian community has grown 38 percent from 2000 to 2005, making it among the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States.

“Individuals who immigrate to the States often find the American health care system to be complicated as well as expensive,” Krampen said. “We’re simplifying access to medical care as well as offering protection from routine and catastrophic health care expenses.”

The Inbound® Immigrant program is available to all non-U.S. citizens traveling to the United States for business, pleasure, education or to immigrate. The program must be initiated within 24 months of arrival to the United States and provides up to five years of medical coverage. This policy is ideal for immigrants who are not covered by employer-sponsored or government-funded insurance programs, and those who are self-employed, in between jobs or retired.

Features of the Inbound® Immigrant program include:

•Highly trained customer service representatives specializing in the Asian Indian culture

•High-quality, industry-leading medical coverage for immigrants, as well as visiting students and family members

•Multi-lingual customer service representatives available 24/7

•Cost-effective yet comprehensive medical insurance protection

•No-obligation quotes available online 24/7

•Coverage issued in just a few minutes

For more information about Seven Corners or for a free quote, please visit www.sevencorners.com or call +1.800.335.0611

About Seven Corners

Seven Corners is one of the industry’s most experienced travel health insurance providers. The company serves leisure, student, business, government and missionary/volunteer travelers. It offers an extensive selection of international medical and travel insurance policies to U.S. citizens traveling overseas or foreign nationals visiting the United States. Seven Corners has thousands of policy holders and a worldwide network of 30,000 agents. The company created and maintains the industry’s most comprehensive network of international health care providers that includes thousands of doctors, pharmacies and hospitals around the globe.

Seven Corners is a member of the United States Travel Insurance Association, is GSA certified and is currently pursuing a SAS 70 Type II compliant designation. In addition to travel medical insurance, Seven Corners also offers health care administration to the government sector. The company is privately held and headquartered just north of Indianapolis in Carmel, Ind. For more information about Seven Corners, please call 800-335-0611 or visit www.sevencorners.com.

by Krager

In Vancouver, a BCTV reporter, commenting on the current flu epidemic that is overloading BC hospital emergency wards, claimed that of 32 people who were vaccinated, 30 caught the flu. Immediately, the news anchor intoned “It is not too late to get your flu shot. The vaccine is 70 percent effective.” [BCTV News Hour, January 11/00]

How does a 93.75 percent failure rate for the vaccine translate into a 70 percent effectiveness? Here is a vaccine with a success rate of 6.25 percent. This is an amazing under-achievement, since the average placebo response to distilled water injections is 30 percent–even to cure chronic low back pain.

How can any drug company manufacture a drug which has nearly five times less of a positive response than virtually nothing at all? How does such a questionable treatment get past federal health regulators?

According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, the world’s leading immunogeneticist and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals), if an individual has had five flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) her chances of getting Alzheimer’s Disease is 10 times higher than if she had one, two or no shots.

When asked why this was so, Fudenberg said it was due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and most childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. Is this why the number of those suffering from Alzheimer’s is expected to quadruple?

Creating herd immunity through mass vaccinations seems to be justified in the name of sacrificing a few for the greater good of the majority. It means people are expendable. Some would call this premeditated murder. This was what the Nuremburg Trials were about after World War II.

People cannot and must not be medicated or subjected to experimentation against their will. It also flies totally in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Vaccines consist of mainly three categories of ingredients. The first are cultured bacteria and viruses. The second ingredient is the medium in which they are cultivated. This may be chick embryo, chicken or duck egg protein, pig or horse blood, dog kidney tissue, monkey kidney tissue, calf serum, rabbit brain tissue, aborted human fetal cells or cowpox pus. These foreign proteins are injected directly into the bloodstream. They are not subject to the stomach’s hydrochloric acid. The enzymes of digestion are absorbed into the blood and carried directly to the liver.

Like insect stings or snake bites, these foreign proteins and other toxic byproducts have the potential for a mild to severe or fatal reaction.

Vaccines also contain stabilizers, neutralizers, carrying agents and preservatives such as formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum. As noted previously, mercury and aluminum are neurological poisons-they accumulate in the brain. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and is used to embalm the dead. There is no safe level of formaldehyde injected into a living organism.

Life After Vaccines

Sweden banned the pertussis vaccine in 1979, considering it both dangerous and ineffective –infant mortality dropped afterward. Sweden now maintains one of the lowest incidence of infant mortality in the world. In 1975, Japan raised the age of the pertussis vaccine to two years of age considering it a danger in infancy. Since that time, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) has largely disappeared.

Nations with voluntary vaccine programs such as Canada and the United Kingdom have lower infant mortality rates than the US. Before the 1960s and the move to mandatory mass childhood vaccinations, the US had the second best infant mortality rate in the world. Forty years of mass immunizations later, with a childhood series of more than 34 vaccine mixtures prior to entering 1st grade, the US has dropped to number 24. Why does the wealthiest nation in the world, with all its vaunted health technology and medical know-how, have such a dismal record for infant mortality?

Every year in the US, 12,000 to 14,000 reports of adverse reactions associated with vaccinations–including hospitalizations, permanent brain damage and death–are reported to the Food and Drug Administration. Any drug on the market with a fraction of this record would be recalled in short order. Recent Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine campaigns in the US have coincided with a 200 per cent rise in the incidence of autism. Hepatitis B vaccine alone has been responsible for 25,000 reports of adverse reactions including optic neuritis, brain damage, paralytic polio and sudden death.

There is not an insurance underwriter who will offer liability coverage for drug companies in the event any of their vaccines cause death or disability to the recipient. One would think this should give cause to reflect on the value of official assurances of vaccine safety. Indeed, the US government assumed liability for vaccine damage because the manufacturers could not get insurance. Since 1987, over a billion US dollars have been paid out to compensate only 10 percent of the claimants.

The current effort to make vaccines compulsory world wide will be a license to print money for the vaccine producers and an iatrogenic health disaster of the first magnitude.

Health professionals and others in work situations requiring compulsory vaccines are faced with hard choices. If there is a family history of allergy or anaphylactic reaction, they may be able to apply for exemption on medical grounds. Otherwise, you take your chances with vaccine roulette.

by author Croft Woodruff

Universal health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care and/or health insurance. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, and the Nordic countries, the government has a high degree of involvement in the commissioning or delivery of health care services and access is based on residence rights not on the purchase of insurance. Others have a much more pluralistic delivery system based on obligatory health with contributory insurance rates related to salaries or income, and usually funded by employers and beneficiaries jointly. Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums and government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to have a higher proportion of private medical providers obtaining reimbursement, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers. Americans use the term single-payer health care to describe the pooling of health care funds into a single not-for-profit fund for a region or nation.

“Discount health coverage is becoming increasingly popular because it provides uninsured individuals with a way to receive health care services at a substantial discount,” says David Major, a spokesman for Medprime, an online provider. “This type of plan is definitely fulfilling a big need.”

Medprime’s site, at http://www.medprime.com, is actually one of the first online providers of discount health services to preschedule appointments for its subscribers.

“In effect, we are providing the convenience of qualifying the medical providers for the subscriber and securing the actual appointment at the same time,” says Major. The Medprime plan also offers discount services for dental, vision and provides discount coverage for a wide variety of traditional health care needs.

Discount health plans can actually work out better in the long run for many Americans, the spokesman noted, because spiraling health insurance costs are hard to justify when an individual enjoys good health. Discount health service plans like Medprime offer a viable alternative with reasonable rates and the security of knowing that high medical costs can be controlled.