Mainstreet - Family

Senate, House Democratic Health Bills Compared

The Associated Press — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:00:52 -0500

By Erica Werner & Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writers 

A comparison of the health care bills before Congress:
___

The Senate Democratic bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act):

WHO'S COVERED: About 94 percent of legal residents under age 65 — compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2014. Illegal immigrants would not receive assistance.

COST: Coverage provisions cost $849 billion over 10 years.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Fees on insurance companies, drugmakers, medical device manufacturers. Medicare payroll tax increased to 1.95 percent on income over $200,000 a year for individuals; $250,000 for couples. New 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Excise tax on insurance companies, keyed to premiums paid on health care plans costing more than $8,500 annually for individuals and $23,000 for families. Fees on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on people who fail to purchase coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Almost everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own or through a government plan. Exemptions for economic hardship. Those who are obligated to buy coverage and refuse to do so would pay a fine starting at $95 in 2014 and rising to $750

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Not required to offer coverage, but medium and large companies would pay a fee if the government ends up subsidizing employees' coverage.

SUBSIDIES: Tax credits for individuals and families likely making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, which computes to $88,200 for a family of four. Tax credits for small employers.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: All plans sold to individuals and small businesses would have to cover basic benefits. The government would set four levels of coverage: The least generous would pay an estimated 60 percent of health care costs per year; the most generous would cover an estimated 90 percent.

INSURANCE INDUSTRY RESTRICTIONS: Starting in 2014: no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age and family size. Starting upon enactment of legislation: children up to age 26 can stay on parents insurance; no lifetime limits on coverage.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new federal insurance plan would be offered to compete against private carriers. The government would negotiate — not dictate — payment rates for medical providers. Unlike the House bill, states could opt out of the plan. It's not clear the proposal commands enough votes to survive, and it could be replaced by a standby system pushed by moderates that would not go into effect until it was clear individual states were experiencing a lack of competition among private companies.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Self-employed people, uninsured individuals and small businesses could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools. Employees would be generally encouraged to keep their work-provided coverage.

DRUGS: Grants 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. Drug companies contribute $80 billion over 10 years with the majority of the money used to limit the prescription coverage gap in Medicare.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Income eligibility levels likely to be standardized to 133 percent of poverty, which is $29,327 a year for a family of four, for all parents, children and pregnant women. Federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion during the first three years. States could negotiate with insurers to arrange coverage for people with incomes slightly higher than the cutoff for Medicaid.

LONG-TERM CARE: New voluntary long-term care insurance program would provide a basic benefit designed to help seniors and disabled people avoid going into nursing homes.

ANTITRUST: Amendment expected to be offered on the Senate floor to strip the health insurance industry of its antitrust exemption.

____

The House bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act):

WHO'S COVERED: About 96 percent of legal residents under age 65 — compared with 83 percent now. Government subsidies to help buy coverage start in 2013. About one-third of the remaining 18 million people under age 65 left uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

COST: The Congressional Budget Office says the bill's cost of expanding insurance coverage over 10 years is $1.055 trillion. The net cost is $894 billion, factoring in penalties on individuals and employers who don't comply with new requirements. That's under President Barack Obama's $900 billion goal. However, those figures leave out a variety of new costs in the bill, including increased prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, so the measure may be around $1.2 trillion.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: $460 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. The original House bill taxed individuals making $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000, but the threshold was increased in response to lawmakers' concerns that the taxes would hit too many people and small businesses.

There are also more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a new $20 billion fee on medical device makers; $13 billion from limiting contributions to flexible spending accounts; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage; and a mix of other corporate taxes and fees.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of income. People can apply for hardship waivers if coverage is unaffordable.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payrolls under $500,000 annually are exempt — a change from the original $250,000 level to accommodate concerns of moderate Democrats — and the penalty is phased in for companies with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000.

Small businesses — those with 10 or fewer workers — get tax credits to help them provide coverage.

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four, would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Beginning in 2013 through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers. It could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: A committee would recommend a so-called essential benefits package including preventive services. Out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange.

INSURANCE INDUSTRY RESTRICTIONS: Starting in 2013, no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. No higher premiums allowed for pre-existing conditions or gender. Limits on higher premiums based on age.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Democrats originally designed the plan to pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors. But the final version — preferred by moderate lawmakers — would let the HHS secretary negotiate rates with providers.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $33,075 per year for a family of four. The federal government would pick up the full cost of the expansion in 2013 and 2014; thereafter the federal government would pay 91 percent and states would pay 9 percent.

DRUGS: Grants 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. Phases out the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage by 2019. Requires the HHS secretary to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

LONG-TERM CARE: New voluntary long-term care insurance program would provide a basic benefit designed to help seniors and disabled people avoid going into nursing homes.

ANTITRUST: Would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price-fixing and bid rigging. The bill also would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to look into the health insurance industry at its own initiative.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

Recall Watch: Gas Grills and Pacifiers

Althea Chang — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:12:30 -0500

Design flaws in gas grills and pacifiers could lead to serious injuries, prompting widespread recalls, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

About 663,000 Perfect Flame SLG Series Gas Grills are being recalled following 40 reports of fires after burners deteriorated and 23 reports of lids catching fire, causing 21 cases of burns to users’ hands, arms or face. In one case, a consumer sustained an eye injury that required surgery.

The grills were sold exclusively at Lowe’s (Stock Quote: LOW) stores nationwide between September 2005 and May 2009 for between $200 and $550. For more information, visit CPSC.gov.

Separately, about 641,000 pacifiers are being recalled because their mouth guards are too small and could cause babies to choke on them, the CPSC reports.

The Bobby Chupete pacifiers came in aqua, red, white or yellow colors and the picture of an infant is on the original packaging. There were sold at various retail stores nationwide between November 2004 and July 2009 for about $1. For more information, visit CPSC.gov.

Husband vs. Wife: Insuring Against Disaster

Marek and Lori Fuchs — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:00:33 -0500

Lori and Marek Fuchs have never fought in their 16 years of marriage — except over money. In this column, Mr. and Mrs. Fuchs, a real-life married couple with three kids (ages 12, 8 and 5), articulate their very different approaches to personal finance.

This week, the Fuchs talk about the recent theft of their car from the driveway and the lesson we can all learn about home and car insurance.

Mr. Fuchs: Quite a surprise the other morning, huh?

Mrs. Fuchs: When the kids slept past 7 a.m.? I was shocked too.

Mr. Fuchs: That’s not it — you’re repressing that your beloved car was stolen from our driveway.

Mrs. Fuchs: Oh, you had to bring it up. I’m still in the denial stage of mourning. I loved that Acura.

Mr. Fuchs: Well, lucky for us, we had theft insurance. Auto theft insurance is pretty straightforward. Most have it for cars unless they are real junkers. But it got me thinking about replacement insurance for homes, which people are not as vigilant about.

Mrs. Fuchs: You mean you aren’t as vigilant about?

Mr. Fuchs: Believe it or not, I am. Don’t forget: When I am not writing columns, I serve as a firefighter. I know these things happen. If our house burns down, we’d have about $750,000 to replace it. I’ll get that sauna I always wanted. But according to a 2006 study by MSB, a construction data firm based in Wisconsin, more than half of homeowners don’t have sufficient replacement coverage. Some of these homeowners had enough originally, but then they are in the house for 20 years, and forget to increase the amount of coverage. Construction costs have increased over time, in a big way.

Mrs. Fuchs: Does that mean when their house burns down, they assume they are covered but the replacement value assumes construction costs from 20 years ago?

Mr. Fuchs: Exactly. It’s quite a fix. Krissy Posey, a spokeswoman for Allstate (Stock Quote: ALL), said that even today, more people are giving into the temptation to cut coverage, assuming that lower housing prices means lower construction costs, which is doesn’t.

She points to a study by Xactware, that had the cost of rebuilding a damaged home up 3.95% last year, despite the decline in home prices. Posey works for an insurance company, so you’d expect her to say it, but it’s a valid point: “When trying to cut costs on insurance, consumers should be weary of making a penny-wise, pound-foolish decision that could put them at risk financially.”

Mrs. Fuchs: It is expensive to rebuild a house. Especially if they want the Carrera marble in the master bath.

Mr. Fuchs: Not me — I’d slip on that stuff while getting out of my sauna. Anyhow, until just more than a decade ago, replacement was standard in homeowner policies, with at least 50% for contents. But now you should check your policy — probably once a year. Make sure you can rebuild and refill your house (remember: you don’t have to rebuy your land) for what you are allotted. If circumstances change — like an addition or the purchase of that Picasso you always wanted, factor it in.

Mrs. Fuchs: You could even use that as an occasion to shop around for policies. I’ll go out on a limb and say you should probably check all of your insurance policies every year or so to make sure they are still relevant and adequate.

Mr. Fuchs: Good to see that your car getting stolen has not diminished your judgment. One more thing: If readers have an old house like we do, they should really factor in the cost of rebuilding a house that is up to modern building codes. That might run you more than you think.

Mrs. Fuchs: I don’t even want to see what is inside our walls.

Mr. Fuchs: Probably nothing. But I hope we never have to find out.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Recalls: Blowers, Bikes, Batteries & More

Althea Chang — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

These products could burn, shock or otherwise hurt you.

Escaping Family During the Holidays

David Seaman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Sure you love them (maybe) but extended family can get on your nerves after a while—here’s what to do with them this holiday season.

Save Cash With Retro Toys

Michael Schreiber — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

And you thought Capsela would never make a comeback.

Husband vs. Wife: Last-Minute Holiday Saving

Marek and Lori Fuchs — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:00:00 -0500

This round, they try to make good on their failed promise to each other to save for the holidays. He promises to buy her a gift using frequent flier points, she says just wrap me a workable plan.

Can a married couple work together to fix a broken plan in time for a happy holiday? Or will the kids cry?

Mrs. Fuchs: Whoops, we did it again.

Mr. Fuchs: Oh no, a 4th kid?!

Mrs. Fuchs: No. We botched another financial plan.

Mr. Fuchs: Which one? Oh, I remember. Back in August, we vowed to set aside $100 a month for holiday shopping, which last year ran us about $1,500. But Black Friday, which signifies the start of the holiday shopping season, is almost here and guess what? In our busy life with all our expenses, we forgot again. Yet another good plan bites the dust. So what now? Time is tight. How should we save on the holidays if we haven’t stashed money away ahead of time?

Mrs. Fuchs: How do you feel about the night shift at Target (Stock Quote: TGT)?

Mr. Fuchs: Or celebrating the Chinese New Year instead—since it takes place in January we can take advantage of post-holiday sales. Or we can just pick fights with all of our relatives in the lead-up to the holidays and mend fences well afterward.

Mrs. Fuchs: You try explaining that to the kids. You’ll spend more on therapy than on gifts in the first place. But John Cioffi of Hazlet, N.J., had a good idea. What about wrapping our gifts in newspaper comic pages? That is good for the environment and I won’t have to shell out for adorable holiday gift wrapping. “It’s colorful enough,” Cioffi said, “and they usually run holiday themed strips two weeks before the holidays.” Plus, you’ll be saving the newspaper industry. We’ve also had past success in cutting down on adult gift giving by making side deals with siblings to only gift each other's kids.

Mr. Fuchs: Those are two good ones, but we need a plan with larger impact. At this point, we need something systematic — one of those four-point plans from a savvy financial planner.

Mrs. Fuchs: Where are you going to get one of those?

Mr. Fuchs: Surprise! The holidays came early for you — I have one!

Mrs. Fuchs: Oh joy.

Mr. Fuchs: Here comes Scot Stark, who runs Stark Strategic Management in Freeland, Md., and is president-elect of the Financial Planning Association-Maryland, to present you with your gift — a nicely wrapped four-point plan. Wrapped in comics, that is.

First off, Stark suggests paying cash for holiday gifts, which helps you resist the temptation to overspend your way into oblivion. “It just feels different to hand someone a $50 bill than it does to hand them your credit card and be charged $50.” True that, as they say.
Next, says Stark, ask for a discount. Even when they are not advertised, in this economy they might be yours for the asking. A few discounts can cut costs rapidly.
Third, Stark suggest the iPhone (Stock Quote: AAPL) App called Saving Benjis. It costs 99 cents, but more than earns its keep by allowing you to comparison shop while in actual stores.
Fourth, redeem purchaser points on credit cards. Many of these points are never used, but if you find yourself staring straight down the barrel of an expensive holiday season without having saved, look here. Which reminds me ... I haven’t gotten you a gift yet, but I have plenty of points stored up—

Mrs. Fuchs: As if ...

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Secrets Your Landlord Doesn’t Want You to Know

Seth Fiegerman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

The facts, advice and horror stories you need to know before signing a lease.

Smokers’ Vaccine May Change Lives

David Seaman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:00:58 -0500

There are 44 million smokers nationwide and 70% of them want to quit, according to the American Cancer Society. That’s close to 31 million consumers—a huge customer base if the right product comes along.

Of course, there are already prescription drugs such as CHANTIX as well as over-the-counter nicotine patches and gum which aim to help smokers kick the habit.

Cigarettes are addictive because of nicotine, which gives users a mood boost. Specifically, a puff of your favorite tobacco or nicotine gum treat floods the brain with dopamine (the same powerful chemical released during sex, illicit drug use, etc.). Giving up that kind of rush is obviously very difficult for many of us.

As CNN reported, Nabi BioPharmaceuticals recently landed a $10 million grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse “to take its anti-nicotine vaccine, NicVAX, to Phase III clinical trials.”

Phase III trials involve real humans, and it is the last phase before a drug is taken before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for regulatory approval.

NicVAX supposedly blocks nicotine from ever actually entering the brain. No entry into the brain means no flood of dopamine. And no flood of dopamine means no lift in mood. After a while, a smoker is bound to get bored with smoking a roll of carcinogenic dried herbs that offers no kick in return.

The vaccine is reportedly designed to “stimulate the immune system to generate antibodies that latch on to nicotine in a smoker's body and actually prevent nicotine from ever entering the brain.”

Sounds promising. The bad news? Final results from the Phase III trials aren’t expected until the third quarter of 2011. But if you want to get your hands on a dose of NicVAX before then, try signing up to be a clinical trial participant—the study will need around 1,000 subjects.

4 Ways Health Care Reform Could Be Derailed

Gavin Magor — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:45:00 -0500

Despite the jubilation on Nancy Pelosi’s face as she announced the result of the House vote on the health care bill late Saturday night, there are rumors that all is not well with the reform effort.

Diligence or Delay Tactics? According to NPR sources, the Senate leader Harry Reid is preparing the ground for a long offensive. He is suggesting that the Senate will not easily pass a bill and that it could be next year before the work has been completed and a vote taken.

This is not what the millions of uninsured want to hear. President Obama was elected substantially on his mantra of change. Delay is not change, this is politics as normal. The President and his supporters must be disappointed. I wouldn’t want to be a Senator up for re-election if I were found to have caused an unnecessary delay in passing a health care bill.

Death Panels – No, I kid you not. Last weekend our friendly former governor from Alaska was back on Facebook propagating her belief that death panels will sit in judgment upon us. Unfortunately, even if the good woman has a point to make it is lost in the media scrum to go over the whole sordid events of last summer again. Trouble is that she is extremely influential.

Even as she lambasts the House for passing a bill, she has many supporters that will make the life of their Senator a living hell. Maybe they will want to get an early start for the panels! No matter what, those that can influence this Senate debate will be targeted and will target others to ensure that the debate runs its full course. Full debate, yes. Partisan politics, no.

Abortion Rights – A very sensitive issue at the center of much of the debate over this plan. The compromise reached in the House was to put into law the rolling amendment that disallows federal funding for abortions. It went further and bans the federally funded insurance program proposed within the bill to offer abortions.

This might have made the Catholic Church happy – generally supportive of the principal of extending health care provisions this was a sop to gain support for the legislation. Equally furious, as the bishops are happy, abortion rights supporters will undoubtedly mobilize to try to get this amendment excluded from the Senate bill.

Undocumented Workers – Illegal immigrants will not qualify for federal support to gain health care through a "public option." Now the House has passed an amendment that prohibits them from enrolling in the public option. There is no evidence that this will provide anything other than a victory for immigration leery politicians.

The truth of the matter is that health care is health care and for an illegal immigrant to have to go to the ER for care is hardly making progress. It will cost more to provide the care, take up time that could be given to patients that need emergency care and ultimately (and ironically) the care will have been subsidized with federal funds provided exactly for the purpose. The Senate will have to make a choice about which way it wants to go. Perhaps, less sensitive than the House, the Senate may not include the amendment in bill.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Recall: Strollers Cause Amputations

Althea Chang — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:15:00 -0500

About a million Maclaren strollers are being recalled after hinge mechanisms caused 12 child fingertip amputations and lacerations. All single-and double-umbrella strollers are affected, including the Volo, Triumph, Quest Sport, Quest Mod, Techno XT, TechnoXLR, Twin Triumph, Twin Techno and Easy Traveller models, according to the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

The recalled strollers were sold for between $100 and $360 at Babies ”R” Us and Target Stores (Stock Quote: TGT) as well as other stores selling children’s products nationwide from 1999 through November 2009. Consumers are urged to stop using the strollers immediately and contact Maclaren USA online or by calling (877) 688-2326 to receive a free repair kit.

For more information, visit the CPSC Web site.

Health Care Bill: DOA in Senate?

The Associated Press — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:33:11 -0500

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."

The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.

Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.

In Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers. Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan in order to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.

Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.

That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim."

Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. "I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today," he said.

For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.

The Senate is not likely to jump ahead this week on health care. Reid will keep meeting with senators to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.

Toward the end of the week, the Congressional Budget Office may report back with a costs and coverage estimate on Reid's bill, which he assembled from legislation passed by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Finance Committee version does not include a government plan.

Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide.

Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether.

All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own.

To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers.

Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people.

The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage.

The are several major differences between the bills.

The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.
The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans.
The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion.

By defusing the abortion issue — at least for now — the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation.

Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Stories from the Uninsured: Anne Johnson

ProPublica — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:00:00 -0500

By Olga Pierce, ProPublica

Using results from a questionnaire we did with American Public Media’s Public Insight Network, we’re looking at how the proposed health care reforms will actually affect people facing common health care coverage situations. This is the first in a series.

Anne Johnson, 41

Location: Corona, Calif.

Work Status: Unemployed

Income: $0

Her story:

Anne Johnson lost coverage for herself and her 18-year-old son in February when she lost her job as a secretary at a solar energy company, where she was earning about $25,000 per year.

Shortly before she was laid off, a cardiologist told her she needs her aortic valve replaced, but without insurance she can’t afford the surgery. She is supposed to get checkups every six months, but that is also too expensive – so she has put them off. Her last visit to the cardiologist was in January, so she is already three months overdue.

“Right now I have no idea what type of condition I’m in,” Johnson said.

What health care reform would mean for her:

Johnson’s son may already qualify for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers low-income children if they do not have private insurance, because her son is under age 21. (We let Johnson know that her son may be eligible.)

But if she gets a job that pays roughly the same as she earned before but does not provide health insurance, he would most likely lose his Medi-Cal coverage. The House reform plan, and the Senate Finance Committee plan would standardize Medicaid eligibility across states to 133 percent of the federal poverty line, which amounts to $19,378 for a family of two. The plan from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (known as the HELP committee) would expand it to 150 percent of the poverty line, still only $21,855.

Johnson would be able to purchase private health insurance from a gateway or exchange, a state-based pool offering a menu of private insurance plans. The House and the Senate HELP bills would also offer her a public plan.

Her low income would qualify her for a subsidy to help buy insurance through the exchange, according to all three reform proposals.

The House plan and the Senate Finance Committee plan would allow Johnson to choose from four levels of coverage ranging from basic to premium, while the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee does not specify levels of coverage.

But if Johnson remains uninsured, she will have to pay a hefty tax penalty: All three plans impose a highly controversial tax penalty on uninsured individuals. The HELP bill would impose a penalty of $750 per year per person, so Johnson would have to pay $1,500. The Senate Finance plan phases in a penalty of $750 per year per uninsured adult, so Johnson would pay the same amount since her son is 18. The House bill would fine families the cost of a basic health insurance plan from the health exchange, up to 2.5 percent of their taxable income.

Critics of the requirement that all individuals have health insurance say it would in effect increase taxes for poor and middle-class people for not being able to afford health insurance.

Anne Johnson shared her story in response to our “How (if at all) has the health care system failed you?” survey. The survey was created in collaboration with American Public Media’s Public Insight Journalism.

If you’d like to share your stories and experiences with ProPublica, join our Reporting Network.

ProPublica is a nonprofit news organization that produces investigative journalism.

Get Your Ex Off Your Credit Card

Brian O'Connell — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:15:20 -0500

Divorce is hard enough without one spouse abusing a joint credit card. But take heart, there are a few tried-and-true ways to get a reluctant spouse off your credit card — and out of that part of your financial life.

Let’s take a look. First, know that the end of a marriage can leave partners in emotional tatters. In the maelstrom of a breakup, particularly early on in the process, loose ends go unrepaired, and that can cost a spouse plenty if they aren’t addressed.

Credit cards are a good example of that. Even though a marriage is dissolving, creditors still want to get paid. And if both names are on the card, then both spouses are responsible for paying the tab.

The solution? Turn off the financial spigot before you divorce. Here are a few tips:

Start by contacting your credit card carrier and letting them know that you want to remove yourself as an authorized user. There may be some payments to negotiate between you and your ex, and if it becomes rancorous, you might have to close the card out and ask for a new one. By and large, though, joint credit card accounts can be closed at the request of one party.

If you still have a balance on your card, your credit card company likely won’t allow you to close the account. So you’ll either have to pay it off or, if that’s not possible, you’ll have to ask your card carrier to “freeze” your account until the balance is satisfied.

Make sure to tell your card carrier to contact the major credit bureaus that the account was shut down at your request. Also, tell your card company that you won’t be responsible for any more charges on the card. Record the dates, time and name of the customer service representative — you might need them later on to prove that you requested your card be closed.

Follow up with a letter confirm that you’ve requested that your name be removed from the card or that the card be closed. Send the letter via registered mail, so you are absolutely certain that the card company received it. Ask your card company to confirm that the card is closed out with a written letter of their own.

Wait a few months, then check your credit report to make sure that your credit card is listed as “closed” on your reports, or at least that your name isn’t on the card anymore. If it’s still listed as open, contact your card company immediately. To get a free credit report, visit the BankingMyWay Credit Center.

While closing a card out may ding your credit score, the financial damage that can be inflicted by a vengeful spouse is far more threatening, so don’t have any qualms about closing the card out, and moving on with your financial life.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Husband vs. Wife: Bypassing College for Business

Marek and Lori Fuchs — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:30:40 -0500

This round, she says he's crazy for agreeing with a columnist who says college is a waste of money. He tries to explain, but hardly gets a word in edgewise.

It’s mom vs. dad, college vs. business and a doctor vs. a guy who partied his way through college and was lucky to emerge with a degree. Who do you think will win?

Mr. Fuchs: See that article I left on your nightstand for bedtime reading?

Mrs. Fuchs: Yeah. That’s not exactly my idea of good bedtime reading. While it definitely had intrigue and tension, there wasn’t a lot of romance!

Mr. Fuchs: Romance? It was a fine opinion piece written by TheStreet’s own James Altucher for The New York Post, all about how he doesn't want his two daughters to go to college. He did back-of-the-envelope calculations and it doesn’t pay. Considering the exorbitant tuitions, the kids are much better off starting businesses.

Mrs. Fuchs: Good Lord. Are we starting this again? Look, you are just going to have to pay for college you cheapskate, regardless of any back-of-the-envelope calculations Altucher might have done. And I’d like to hear what Mrs. Altucher has to say about her husband's “theories.” They shouldn’t let dads do cost/benefit analysis of college. Let me ask you, what is the purpose of college?

Mr. Fuchs: Mostly to party. And for that much money, it’s not worth it. You can learn to party more cheaply. All I needed was a bottle of Scotch and-

Mrs. Fuchs: Are these tears of laughter or sadness dripping down my cheeks? That was your purpose in college — I remember it all too well — but what do you envision college doing for our three kids?

Mr. Fuchs: You mean you want them to aim higher? No home college schooling, partying with dad in the basement?

Mrs. Fuchs: Yes, college provides kids a chance to test out their independence in a safe environment. Not many kids have the life skills to be totally on their own at 18 and college lets them figure it out in a place where the odds of disastrous outcomes are slim. For God’s sake, there is usually a shoulder-high brick wall surrounding it.

And what about higher learning? Think of all the ideas and schools of thought that the kids are exposed to in four (or six) years. Exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking is invaluable. Do you really want our kids to have our small town as their whole frame of reference? I want our kids to be well-rounded and exposed to art, philosophy, history, literature and the sciences, not to mention new people with all sorts of life experiences.

Mr. Fuchs: Plus, the parties rock. Better than in our basement.

Mrs. Fuchs: Look, taking down Altucher’s article is like picking low lying fruit. Even Sidney Franks, principal at Highbridge Finanical Group in Tarrytown, N.Y., who jokes that in light of college costs, "everyone should be a plumber," does manage to point out that “even though it’s not all numbers, you are likely to end up with more money with a college education.”

Think about it, he says. Your social life is linked to both college and your profession, which means your kids are likely to find their spouses that way. If they run in college graduate circles, it’s more likely they will marry a college graduate, which means that in a dual income family, your child is getting the benefit of a college education you did not pay for. See? In that light, it’s a bargain. A two for one deal.

Mr. Fuchs: Come to think of it, I got the benefit of your doctorate, which my parents didn’t pay for.

Mrs. Fuchs: Exactly. Also, Altucher preaches entrepreneurialism as a fitting alternative and some, like Apple’s (Stock Quote: AAPL) Steve Jobs and Microsoft’s (Stock Quote: MSFT) Bill Gates, did drop out of college to start companies that ended up doing OK. But as Franks point out, how many teenagers are equipped to do the same? Or would even want to? Entrepreneurs are born, not made. “Besides,” he said, “the majority of businesses fail and what if you lose the money you would have spent on college? Your education is a union card in our society, but it’s also an insurance policy.”

Moreover, Franks added, “do you really want to start up a plumbing business at 18 or would you rather spend a junior year in France?”

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Wealthy Will Pick Up Health Care Tab

The Associated Press — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:56:26 -0500

By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The typical family would be spared higher taxes from the House Democratic plan to overhaul health care, and their low-income neighbors could come out ahead.

Their wealthy counterparts, however, face big tax increases that could eventually hit future generations of taxpayers who are less wealthy.

The bill is funded largely from a 5.4% tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million, starting in 2011. The tax increase would hit only 0.3% of tax filers, raising $460.5 billion over the next 10 years, according to congressional estimates.

But unlike other income tax rates, the new tax would not be indexed for inflation. As incomes rise over time because of inflation, more families — and more small business owners — would be hit by the tax.

"Twenty years from now, we're going to see more and more small businesses ensnared into paying higher taxes," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

The tax would hit only 1.2% of taxpayers who claim business income on their returns, according to the estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But that percentage would grow as business owners' nominal incomes rise with inflation.

In 2011, a family of four with an income of $800,000 a year would get a $24,000 tax increase, when the new tax is combined with an increase in the top two tax brackets proposed by President Barack Obama and other scheduled tax changes, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax. That's a 12.5% increase in federal income taxes.

A family of four making $5 million a year would see a $434,500 tax increase, about a 32% increase, according to the analysis.
"These are very big numbers and very high effective tax rates," said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert at Deloitte Tax.

The new health care tax would come on top of other tax increases for the wealthy proposed by Obama. The top marginal income tax rate now is 35%, on income above $372,950. Obama wants to boost the top rate to 39.6% in 2011 by allowing some of the tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush to expire.

House Democrats said they are proud that they found a way to finance the health care package largely from a tax on the wealthy. There is, however, little appetite for a millionaire's tax in the Senate, and some tax experts think it is a mistake to tap only rich people to pay for services used by all.

"If health care is a benefit that is worth having, then it's worth paying for," said William Gale, who was an adviser to President George H. W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and is now co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "This gives the impression that it's only worth having if someone else pays for it."

Obama promised during the presidential campaign that he would not increase taxes on couples making less than $250,000. However, the health care bill would impose new taxes on people who don't buy qualified health insurance, including those making less than $250,000 a year.

Under the bill, individuals are required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay penalties, which are described as taxes in the legislation. The penalty would be equal to the cost of an average insurance plan or a 2.5% tax on incomes above the standard threshold for filing a tax return, whichever is less. There would be waivers for financial hardships.

To help afford insurance, families with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level would qualify for subsidies. The poverty level for a family of four is $22,050 this year.

Republicans argue that the penalties violate Obama's tax pledge, and they liken the millionaire's tax to the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Congress enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans cannot use loopholes to avoid paying any income taxes.

The AMT was never indexed for inflation, so Congress must enact a fix each year to spare about 25 million middle-income families from being hit with big tax increases.

"They're going down the same road by not indexing this tax," said the Republican lawmaker Camp.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Health Insurance Secrets You Need to Know

Seth Fiegerman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

What hospitals and health care providers won’t tell you.

Swine Flu & No Sick Days: Worker Worries

The Associated Press — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:32:25 -0500

By Ashley M. Heher, AP Retail Writer

CHICAGO (AP) — For millions of Americans the rule is simple: If you don't come to work, you don't get paid.

That idea drives an untold numbers of carpenters, day care workers, servers, shopkeepers and small-business owners to their jobs each day. Sniffles or not.

As the swine flu spreads across the nation — and public health officials plead with the ill to, please, stay home in bed for several days until the fever goes away — a large segment of the American work force will face a tough choice about whether to call in sick or simply muddle through. That's because when skipping work means skipping food on the table or missing a rent payment, staying in bed isn't as simple as it sounds.

Kara Knoche, 28, is worried about getting swine flu and the money she would lose by missing a week of work. The Atlanta waitress is downing Vitamin C supplements, going out of her way to eat immune system-boosting foods and avoiding friends with the sniffles or hacking coughs.

"If you don't save up, you're basically behind and you're broke. Every dollar you make after that is probably going to go to bills," she said. "That makes for a very hard month. A person has to eat."

Across the country employers of all sizes are making contingency plans for a hard-hitting flu season.

Some business owners are cross-training employees to fill in for absent colleagues. Others are relaxing sick leave policies that require a doctor's note. (Many doctors' offices are advising swine flu patients to stay away unless their symptoms are severe to prevent overwhelming the health care system. )

Some corporations are heeding advice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among their tips: moving desks farther apart, creating more shifts to have fewer people on duty at a time and reducing employee travel.

But that advice doesn't do much for many companies — particularly small businesses or those in the service industry where sick leave is almost unheard of or too costly for owners to afford.

"We don't have a real good contingency plan in place right now," said Gordon Weitzel, owner of Dayton's Chicken & Seafood in Salisbury, Md. His staff of 36 does not have sick leave.

"I've got some servers who cook, and I've got a lot of different people I can flip-flop. But it most certainly would be a hardship if 20 or 25 percent of my staff had swine flu" and stayed home, he said.

About a third of the nation's workers don't have paid sick leave, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. But even some workers who do don't take it because they fear retribution from their bosses if they don't show up.

The problem can be worse for parents who worry not just about their own health, but their children's. After all, a sick kid who got the flu from Mom or Dad can mean even more time off the job.

Kevin Huigens, 52, knows calling in sick means bringing home a smaller paycheck, or possibly none at all. As a technology contractor in suburban Chicago, his job doesn't come with sick leave or vacation time.

So what will he do if he gets sick this winter?

"If I'm well enough to sit up in bed with a laptop, I can still work," he said. "I can work from home somehow, some way. It may not even be a full eight hours, but I can get a few hours a day."

Even that might not be doable for some particularly ill patients.

Last year, Chicago real estate agent Jen Sanders was felled for five days by the seasonal flu after forgoing a flu shot for the first time in a decade. Stuck at home, she had to call other real estate agents to attend everything from home inspections to showing listings to potential buyers so she wouldn't risk losing her commission.

"It's horrible when you feel so crappy and you realize that you are losing money at the same time," she said.

This year, she made sure to get a flu shot. She'll also continue her strategy of keeping her gloves on during the height of the winter flu season when she's shaking hands.

"Every time I do a showing, I greet people," the 35-year-old said. "I try to do what I can without making other people feel awkward."

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

The Real Cost of Your Vice

Althea Chang — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

Those unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking can shrink your wallet and your lifespan.

Most Popular Kids' Costumes This Year

Michael Schreiber — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:22:50 -0400

Haven't bought a Halloween costume for your kid yet? You might have missed out on these options - they're the most popular cosutmes this Halloween.

The Health Care Bill Has Arrived

The Associated Press — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:50:59 -0400

By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — After months of struggle, House Democrats rolled out sweeping legislation Thursday to extend health care coverage to millions who lack it and create a new option of government-run insurance. A vote is likely next week on the plan largely tailored to President Barack Obama's liking.

Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was at a "historic moment" with lawmakers "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American."

Officials said the measure, once fully phased-in over several years, would extend coverage to 96% of Americans. Its principal mechanism for universal coverage is creation of a new government-regulated insurance "exchange" where private companies would sell policies in competition with the government. Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help them afford the policies, and to small businesses as an incentive to offer coverage to their workers.

Large firms would be required to cover workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance.

The ceremony marked a pivotal moment in the Democrats' yearlong attempt to answer Obama's call for legislation to remake the nation's health care system by extending insurance, ending industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions, and slowing the growth of medical spending nationwide.

Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats, too, are hoping to pass legislation by year's end. Legislation outlined by Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier this week would include an option for a government-run plan, although states could drop out if they wished, a provision not in the House measure.

Obama issued a statement saying House Democrats had reached a "critical milestone" on the road toward a health care overhaul, and singled out the proposed government insurance option. He also said the bill "clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term."

Republican reaction was swift and critical.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., head of the Republican Study Committee, issued a statement saying Democrats had produced a "government takeover that will limit choice, competition and innovation in health care while increasing costs and decreasing quality." He said the measure would kill jobs, raise taxes and inflict cuts on a program of private Medicare that provides benefits to millions of seniors.

GOP leaders long ago decided to oppose the approach requested by Obama and taken by Democrats, and health care is expected to figure in next year's congressional election campaigns.

Democrats issued a statement saying their 1,990-page measure "lowers costs for every patient" and would not add to federal deficits. They put the cost of coverage at under $900 billion over 10 years, a total that excludes several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more.

With Republicans expected to oppose the measure unanimously, Pelosi and her lieutenants worked for weeks to resolve differences within the Democratic rank and file.

The toughest of them covered the terms under which the government insurance option would function. Liberals generally wanted the government to dictate the rates to be paid to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, with the fee levels linked to Medicare.

Moderates, fearing the impact on their local hospitals, held out for negotiated rates between the government and private insurers — and won.

Not all liberals were ready to sign on. "My inclination is not to support it," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but that represented a softening of his opposition.

Grijalva acknowledged there was an argument for progressives to vote "yes." ''The logic is to keep the ball rolling," Grijalva said Thursday.

Democrats control 256 seats in the House, are overwhelmingly favored to win one special election next week and are competitive for another. As a result, they can afford more than 30 defections on the legislation and still prevail.

The legislation would be financed by a combination of cuts in planned Medicare spending and an income tax surcharge of 5.4% on individuals making at least $500,000 annually and couples making at least $1 million.

The bill would require nearly everyone by 2013 to sign up for health coverage either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange.

In the meantime, a temporary government program would help people turned down by private insurers because of medical problems, lawmakers said. After that, insurers no longer could refuse to provide coverage to the sick, nor could they charge more because of poor health of the insured.

The plan also calls for a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people. And it would impose a requirement on employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and the leadership have yet to work out disputes over abortion services and health care for immigrants, issues that must be settled before the bill can come to a vote.

Pelosi has also said the bill would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. Democratic officials said the bill also would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to look into the health insurance industry at its own initiative. The officials spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to pre-empt a formal announcement.

While precise figures were not immediately available, it appeared the legislation would target the drug industry for more than the $80 billion that pharmaceutical firms agreed to contribute toward health care in a deal earlier this year with the White House and key senators. But the industry managed to come away with a provision worth billions: 12 years of market protection for high-tech drugs to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases.

Medical device makers also took a hit, with a 2.5% excise tax on sales of their products that is reported to cost the industry $20 billion over the next decade. A $40 billion fee on those businesses was included in a Senate Finance Committee-approved version of the legislation, but Reid is considering cutting it by as much as half.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed to this story.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Same-Sex Couples' Not-So-Golden Years

Joe Mont — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:45:16 -0400

BOSTON (TheStreet) — As same-sex couples are increasingly being granted rights similar to those of traditional marriages, many will be at a comparative disadvantage as they enter retirement.

The study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law says gays and lesbians will have less retirement income and fewer ways to pass savings on to their families after their death. Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America (Stock Quoe: BAC), helped fund the report.

A large share of same-sex couples will be entering retirement in the next two decades, just as states open marriage and civil-union laws. There are about 1.2 million gay people living with a same-sex partner in America, according to the most recent U.S. Census.

Inequality in retirement savings needs to be addressed, says Naomi Goldberg, author of the survey, titled "The Impact of Inequality for Same Sex Partners in Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans."

The study, citing census statistics, shows that traditional couples earn an average of 4% more in combined household retirement income each year compared to same-sex couples. It claims, however, that the statistic only tells part of the story.

Same-sex surviving spouses can't directly receive the balance of their deceased spouse's 401(k) plans. Because they must begin making withdrawals immediately, they face a higher tax rate and the loss of accruing interest. Surviving same-sex spouses also pay higher estate taxes.

"The bulk of these inequalities are a direct result of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forces the federal government to treat same-sex couples differently than married couples when it comes to retirement savings or estate taxes after death," Goldberg says. DOMA was passed under President Bill Clinton.

There have been changes that have benefited gays and lesbians. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 gives surviving partners of same-sex relationships access to retirement assets.

Corporate America has shown an increased willingness to recognize same-sex couples. Companies such as Boeing, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nike and Microsoft offer the same benefits to straight and gay couples.

The federal government has proven less open-minded with its employees. Same-sex couples are unable to receive the same health care, retirement and family-leave benefits. Congress is debating a bill sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would change that. The move could affect as many as 35,000 government workers at a cost of $56 million in 2010.

The federal government's lack of recognition for same-sex marriages — even when legally sanctioned by such states as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa — has a broader impact. Surviving same-sex spouses and partners are unable to tap Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, losing out on an estimated $5,700 a year.

Goldberg says female couples are at a particular disadvantage.

"A female same-sex couple is more likely to be on public assistance, more likely to continue working older in life and they receive less in overall income," she says. "Women are more likely to move from job-to-job, whether it is because of taking time out for kids or otherwise. When you have two women who are creating a household together, that disadvantage is compounded."

The study found that female same-sex couples over age 65 have an average of $3,615 less income than straight married couples.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Husband vs. Wife: Teaching Kids About Hard Times

Marek and Lori Fuchs — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:30:00 -0400

This round: He asks, “What do we want our children to have learned from this economic downturn?” She says, “Why do you use so many metaphors? It’s really annoying.”

Mr. Fuchs: During some of the worst of the financial mess, we argued over how much you should clue kids in to what is going on with the tapped out family budget. But assuming that things might be improving, what do you (as a mom of three, child psychologist and woman who often disagrees with me incessantly) think kids should take away from this whole economic mess? What should they have learned?

Mrs. Fuchs: That’s easy — resilience and the ability to stay a bit austere even after the economic smoke has cleared.

Mr. Fuchs: I know you don’t need affirmation from me, but that’s just what financial planners like William Driscoll of Driscoll Financial in Plymouth, Mass., say. Let’s take resilience first. The economy is cyclical. Obviously, this economic downturn was a burn, but hopefully kids can see that you can get through even a burn. This too shall pass, as they say, and it’ll pass without mom and dad completely losing their heads or sending little Johnnie and Jane to work in the coal mines. To stay with our biblical lingo for a moment: good times beget bad and bad good. If you have a lifetime ahead of you in this global economy, which is so prone to turbulence, it’s once of the most important lessons you can learn.

Mrs. Fuchs: OK, I’m going to overlook your many metaphors and assume that what you’re trying to say is that we can use this economic downturn to teach our kids concepts like hope and stick-to-itiveness. If they continue to work hard and look at situations in a flexible way, they will come through it and learn something in the process.

Mr. Fuchs: Yeah, well — that too. I guess I want them to learn the larger concept of hope, but also specifically about the economy: It goes in waves and while the undertow stinks, it doesn’t last forever. No need to jump out of windows.

Mrs. Fuchs: Windows, waves — how did I marry such a drama queen? So, what does Driscoll say about my other idea — maintaining that degree of austerity?

Mr. Fuchs: In this sense, Driscoll essentially thinks the downturn did the world a favor. “Parents weren’t as free to give money to their children as they were a couple of years ago,” he said, so they had to start thinking strategically and drawing distinctions. His own 17-year-old son, for example, works at Marshall’s and saves money for the many concerts he likes. But he also learned to take advantage of late-arrival tickets and student discounts. It sounds almost trite to say it, but Americans lost site of what was a want and what was a need (and what wants and needs they could afford, for that matter). If kids — and the entire family — made any progress toward a more strategic and austere life through the downturn, they should maintain it.

Mrs. Fuchs: This sounds like another lecture to the kids. Sorry to say that I’ll be busy when they come home from school ... ummm ... entering items into my financial software.

Mr. Fuchs: That’s perfect! Just do it in the dark.

Mrs. Fuchs: Why am I doing it in the dark?

Mr. Fuchs: I’m getting to that. See, lectures, let alone about home finance, bore kids to tears and are counterproductive. As we emerge from this economic muck, Driscoll said kids should instead see in our actions that we’ve learned lasting lessons, which we are carrying on into better times. Said Driscoll: “You have to show them physical examples of continued austerity: running around turning off lights, getting rid of one of the premium cable stations, talking to them about how you have to wait three months until you have enough money for a new flatscreen TV.” Even when times are good, he said, “they should see calm, dedicated persistence when it comes to staying on budget.”

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

What Does a Swine Flu National Emergency Mean?

Consumer Reports — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:30:00 -0400

Note: Consumer Reports has no relationship with the advertisers on this site.

It’s déjà vu all over again. The Obama administration declared the H1N1 (swine) flu outbreak a “national emergency” over the weekend—just as it declared a “public health emergency” back in April, shortly after the outbreak began. So what’s the difference?

When the government first declared the public health emergency in April, it paved the way for a streamlined response for the swine flu threat. For example, the government was able to distribute stockpiles of antiviral drugs, and other supplies, and expand the recommended usage of those drugs under emergency authorizations.

The latest declaration was done to allow the federal government to waive certain regulatory requirements so that hospital emergency rooms and other health-care providers can respond more quickly. Such waivers have been provided to hospitals in past emergencies, such as floods and hurricanes.

The “national emergency” declaration doesn’t mean that the nature of the outbreak has changed dramatically. But the flu is indeed spreading rapidly. According to the CDC this flu is widespread in 46 states, and flu activity is higher than the peak of many seasonal flu seasons. Health officials are concerned about a busier than usual flu season, and want to make sure hospitals have the tools to deal with greater volume.

What can be waived?

Hospitals can request a waiver of certain regulatory requirements that generally protect patients during day to day activities, but may slow down an emergency response due to high volume. Here are some examples:

Hospitals can request to set up an alternative screening location away from the main hospital.
Hospitals can request to transfer patients between emergency rooms at different hospitals and inpatient wards (which is usually not allowed due to access and privacy concerns).
Critical access hospitals (facilities that are certified under a specific set of Medicare conditions) and skilled nursing facilities can request waivers to allow them to increase the number of beds available and the average time of patient stays, which typically have set maximums.

Note: Consumer Reports has no relationship with the advertisers on this site.

The emergency waivers can also allow hospitals to bypass certain patient privacy provisions like:

Talking to family members and friends involved in a patient’s care without first obtaining the patient’s agreement
Not having to honor a patient’s request to opt out of the facility directory
Bypassing the requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices
Not having to honor a patient's request for privacy restrictions or confidential communications

These provisions may or may not affect your community, but don’t be surprised if your hospital has tents in the parking lot to deal with admissions, or opens a clinic in a school gymnasium. And while hospitals need to make advance plans to deal with higher volume this flu season, that doesn’t men you should to rush to the emergency room with any cough or fever — the ER may just be the best place to catch the flu this year.

However, if you suspect that you or a child you care for has the flu and is having difficulty breathing or any of these other signs or symptoms, seek care immediately and don't hesitate to use an emergency room. Those with underlying conditions or other risk factors, should contact their health care providers at the first sign of flu. Others should try to treat themselves if the flu does not seem severe.

Keep up to date with our Swine (H1N1) flu coverage and recommendations.

—Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org or check out Consumer Reports’ Money advice.

DIY Costumes: Last-Minute Halloween Options

Michael Schreiber — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:18:11 -0400

There are plenty of super-easy, and reasonably respectable do-it-yourself Halloween costumes that can be thrown together at the last minute.

Good vs. Evil Halloween Candy

Althea Chang — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:15:44 -0400

Here are a number of Halloween staples, contrasted with treats that are a bit better on the bod.

Swine Flu Shots: Where to Get Them

Althea Chang — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:28:01 -0400

Swine flu shots are out there. Here's where you can go to get yours, now or very soon.

Husband vs. Wife: Halloween Budget Nightmares

Marek and Lori Fuchs — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:39:59 -0400

Lori and Marek Fuchs have never fought in their 16 years of marriage—except over money. In this column, Mr. and Mrs. Fuchs, a real-life married couple with three kids (ages 12, 8 and 5), articulate their very different approaches to personal finance.

This round, she ticks off plans for Halloween while he says, you make me want to scream and run from the room.

Mrs. Fuchs: Only a few weeks until Halloween and do you know what that means around here (besides you and the children on sugar highs)?

Mr. Fuchs: Surprise me.

Mrs. Fuchs: You on the roof hanging up ghosts. I’ve decided to go all out this year and decorate the house like I a Martha Stewart magazine spread. (Stock Quote: MSO) Do you have any black paint lying around?

Mr. Fuchs: Hold your headless horses. Turns out, Halloween is the holiday where Americans spend the second-largest sum of money.

According to the National Retail Federation’s 2009 Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey, conducted by BIGresearch, consumers are expected to spend nearly $5 billion this year. That’s any awful lot of candy corn. Here’s the problem, though. With Christmas, we all know it’s coming. Look how we’ve been planning since we were still sweltering in the heat of July. But Halloween sneaks up on you. And financial planners far and wide say that any surprise when it comes to family budgeting is no good. Our budget is enough of a horror show without a Jack-In-The-Box in the equation.

Mrs. Fuchs: Halloween is certainly being pushed, that’s for sure. The kids were poring over a Halloween catalog the other day, circling the costumes like I used to circle toys in the Christmas catalog. If we got each kid a store-bought costume...

Mr. Fuchs: Go no farther! I’m already horrified. What can we do to keep Halloween spending under control this year?

Mrs. Fuchs: Certainly not dole out that year-old candy you got at the dollar store last year – I’m still scrubbing eggs off the windows.

Mr. Fuchs: Hey, going hundreds over budget is no laughing matter. Can you stay on message here?

Mrs. Fuchs: Well, at risk of sounding like an old person lamenting the good old days here, why can’t our kids do it like we did it back when? Did you know anyone whose parents spent $30 or more on a costume to be worn once? We came up with a costume and put it together ourselves – some of dad’s old shirts, mom’s costume jewelry, some poster board and glitter – voila! – you had a perfectly decent costume. These are some easy, homemade costumes that worked last year and might spark ideas for this year: these costumes or try these.

Mr. Fuchs: Perfectly decent sounds great. It’s that reach toward perfectionism that always costs money. A lot are in the same boat. Also, according to this week’s survey, people are planning to spend an average of $56.31 on Halloween, down from $66.54 last year, with about a third saying its the scary economy impacting their plans.

Almost half say they’ll buy less candy, with around a third planning to reuse decorations. About 16.8% say they’ll make their costume and 15.8% say they’ll get last year’s out of the closet, mothballs and all.

Speaking of the candy, though, what about less of it? We live on a block where literally hundreds of goblins and goons amble by with outstretched palms. Can we tell them to get lost?

Mrs. Fuchs: Listen, it’ll cost more to get egg removed from windows. You’re just going to have to buy them candy. Start looking for sales and we can compare that cost with Costco (Stock Quote: COST), Target (Stock Quote: TGT) and Wal-Mart (Stock Quote: WMT).

Mr. Fuchs: Sounds good. Between the homemade costumes and discount candy, we’ll be fulfilling the mandate of financial planners, who are spooked by the concept of getting surprised. Halloween is a big holiday, expense-wise. But we’ve planned beforehand, which means less regrets afterward.

Mrs. Fuchs: I’ll even scale back my house decorations – I won’t dust until Halloween and we’ll have genuine spiderwebs and dust covered furniture in no time.

Mrs. Fuchs: If it saves money, I’m all for it. Let me dust, allergies be damned.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.

Nature’s Drug Store: Cheap Remedies

Althea Chang — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:15:23 -0400

Here are some natural remedies that you can use in teas, supplements, drops and more.

Medigap Changes That Could Affect You

Gavin Magor — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:58:54 -0400

WASHINGTON D.C. (TheStreet) – In July 2008 the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) was approved by Congress. Part of the act covered Medigap and introduced some changes effective June 1, 2010. The changes will only affect existing policyholders at the point of their annual renewal.

Medigap is "health insurance sold by private insurance companies to fill the 'gaps' in Original Medicare Plan coverage," according to the Medicare Web site.

One change affecting everyone is an additional benefit included with the basic coverage offered under all Medigap plans. If you take out a Medigap policy on or after June 1, 2010, coverage will include the amount of cost sharing for all Part A Medicare eligible hospice care and respite care expenses.

Prior to the implementation of the new coverage, only those with the high deductable plans K and L received any benefit for this expense, with 50% and 75% coverage of the cost sharing amount respectively. The benefit for plans K and L will remain at the levels before June 1, 2010. You will not gain this benefit if you choose to retain your current plan with the existing benefits.

Other changes were included that could affect your decisions about your choice of Medigap plan. As of June 1, 2010, four plans will be discontinued, two plans will have changes made to the coverage in addition to the hospice and respite care coverage already discussed, and two new plans will be added.

Plans E, H, I and J will be discontinued. This means that, beginning June 1, 2010, these plans will no longer be available for you to purchase. Existing holders of a policy with these plans will be able to renew the same policy when it falls due, but only if the provider continues to offer the plan. If your provider decides not to continue to offer your plan you will not be able to obtain one of the discontinued plans even if you hold a policy for one of the other discontinued plans.

Plans D and G will no longer offer at-home recovery, as a benefit after June 1, 2010. This benefit was previously also available under plans I and J, and as they are discontinued the benefit will only continue to be available to holders of policies with plans D, G, I and J in effect prior to June 1, 2010.

Previously, Plan G offered coverage of 80% of the Part B excess. Beginning June 1, 2010, the coverage is increased to 100% of the Part B excess. If you currently hold a Plan G policy you will not be able to obtain the benefit of this change on renewal unless you give up the at-home recovery portion of your existing plan. Essentially you can either retain the benefits of the existing plan or you can accept the changes and have the benefits of the new Plan G.

Two new plans, M and N are to be introduced on June 1, 2010.

Plan M is similar to Plan D except that only 50% of the Medicare Part A deductible is covered. In addition to 100% coverage of the Part B co-insurance, skilled nursing facility care and medically necessary emergency care in a foreign country are covered.

Plan N is also similar to Plan D, except that it requires co-payments of up to $20 for each covered health care provider office visit (including visits to medical specialists); and up to $50 for each covered emergency room visit. The ER co-payment is waived if you are admitted to the hospital.

If you are thinking about changing your plan you should consider doing it very carefully. Once you change your plan you cannot go back to your previous plan if it is not available to new policyholders.

—For the best rates on loans, bank accounts and credit cards, enter your ZIP code at BankingMyWay.com.