logo

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

SCOTUS on Obamacare - Day 3

Don't count your chickens before they hatch but there seem to be several things in play here that don't look good for Obamacrap.

Once again the Los Angeles Times offers this early insight.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

It should be noted that not all of the jousting came from the "conservative" jurists. So far Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg have seemingly indicated disdain for at least some portions of the law. Most notably with regard to the individual mandate and the schizophrenic tax or penalty argument.

GayCare©?

Actually, this is almost exactly what we've been preaching here at IB for over 7 years:

"[GOProud] argues that the problem with our tax code isn't just that it discriminates against gays. It's that it discriminates against every American who doesn't have his or her health insurance through an employer."

Hear, hear!

What the GOPRoud folks propose is something quite radical: equality. That is, a system where health insurance should not only not be tied to employment, but that everyone who buys a policy should get the same tax break as employers do now.

And they're also against "one-size-fits-all" insurance plans:

"We want a system where individuals and couples can make their own health-care decisions. Health-care needs are too important to be left to the discriminatory whims of a third party."

Now, they're also in favor of cross-state insurance sales, about which we're ambivalent: Bob, for example, has argued persuasively that opening up sales across state lines is no great shakes, while Mike favors lifting those restrictions.

YMMV.

Kudos to GOProud.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Homeowners insurance: What’s covered, what’s not, and what to look for


Individuals planning on purchasing a home spend weeks if not months picking the perfect neighborhood, floor plan, and then home before they even consider purchase. In a similar way, buyers will shop around and compare the interest rates offered them on mortgages. Yet, when it comes to homeowners insurance, the norm is to still simply to defer the decision-making to the agent. But just as you wouldn’t consider purchasing your home without first researching and planning, so also should homeowners insurance buyers consider the major options available when it comes to buying a homeowners policy.

In its simplest form, homeowners insurance is an agreement between you, the homeowner, and an insurance company, that in exchange for you making monthly payments, they will compensate you for any significant damage that affects your home. This at least was the form of original homeowner’s policies. Today’s policies are more complex, both covering, and excluding a wide range of situations.

Broadly, a homeowner’s policy covers four major areas of liability. These include:

1. Coverage for the structure of the home

2. Coverage for the contents of the home


3. Liability protection

4. Temporary displacement costs in the event of disaster

Coverage for the structure

This structural protection is what most people commonly conceive of when they think about homeowners insurance. Purchasing a home is a major investment in the lives of most individuals, and as a consequence, the threat of loss of that property, would be so devastating financially that it motivates individuals to seek out insurance as a means of protecting their financial interest. But despite common perceptions to the contrary, homeowners insurance does not cover any and all damages to the home. While each policy varies slightly, most commonly floods and earthquakes are excluded from coverage. That means that if you have a standard policy and your home floods, you will not be recompensed by your insurance company for your loss. On the other hand, other disasters such as hurricane, fire, and hail are typically covered under the standard policy. In addition, most standard policies cover other structures that are fixed or attached to the home, most commonly garages or porches. While these general guidelines hold true for most policies, the variance between insurance providers is significant enough that you should investigate the particulars of what is covered, and more importantly what is excluded regarding coverage for the structure of the home.

Coverage for Personal Belongings

Homeowner’s insurance policies cover not only the structure of a home, but much of its contents as well. Because the coverage to items within the home is not complete, however, it is important to know the limitations of your policy. The industry standard is between 50 and 70% of the value of the policy. That is, if you have the structure of your home insured for $100,000 that policy typically covers the value of your possessions up to $50,000 or $70,000 if they are stolen or damaged in non-excluded circumstances. But, just as with the structure of the home, this coverage is not all-inclusive. For example, there is typically a limit on the amount your insurer will pay out on high dollar items such as jewelry or expensive clothing. This limit can vary but typically maxes out at $2,000. An oft forgotten possession related to the home, is the landscaping. Under most standard policies insurance that will recompense the insured for up to $500 in landscaping damage is also covered. But once, again payment can only be attained if the causal factor (i.e. fire) was covered in the first place.

Liability Protection

Moving farther away from most common conceptions of a homeowner’s policy, it is important to note that policies also cover personal liability for you, your family members and pets. This means that by virtue of owning the homeowners policy you are covered in case, for example your dog tears up your neighbor’s lawn, or far worse, if your neighbor hurts himself while visiting your home. Even more in this aspect of the policy than in any others, the exceptions are vitally important to understand. The amount of liability coverage that comes with a basic policy is a rather standard $100,000. But depending on the exclusions, that similar number belies a world of difference when it comes to actual personal protection.

Temporary Displacement Compensation

If an accident befalls your home and you are unable to inhabit your home temporarily, your homeowners insurance provider will cover the costs of your housing and some additional costs during the interim. Included under this coverage, for most standard policies are things like food, and other basic living expenses. But some policies go farther by compensating you for slightly more extravagant costs like clothing purchases. The coverage for displacement costs varies here more than anywhere else. Some companies use a percentage calculation to determine how much in temporary displacement compensation you can receive to cover hotel bills, food, and the like. This number is most typically set at 20% of the value of the insurance on the structure of the home. Other companies take a different approach, however. They offer unlimited, or at least higher valued, temporary displacement compensation, however, these benefits are time-dependent. This means that once your coverage time expires, you receive no more benefits, no matter the costs you may still be incurring.

In all of these categories, insurers offer a wide variety of options dependant upon your willingness to pay. For example, you can up your protection for high-dollar possessions if you have a lot of jewelry. In the same way, if you are particularly concerned about liability you can pay extra for higher coverage and the same is also true of temporary displacement coverage. While what I have outlined here, provides you with a basic framework for understanding the various components of homeowners insurance and the general standards of the industry, the differences between individual policies can vary widely. Consequently, it is important for those considering the purchase of homeowners insurance that looking into the particulars of what has been covered here be made a priority. Only by understanding the precise offerings of competitors policies and understanding their functions, can you the customer come to find the policy that best suits your needs and those of your family.


SCOTUS on Obamacare - Day 2

How the Court will rule on the mandate to purchase health insurance is anyone's guess at this time and it will most likely be June or July before their decision is rendered. But it seems some are attempting to call this game before the last strike.

This from the Los Angeles Times.

Even before the administration's top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, some justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.

"Are there any limits," asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of three conservative justices whose votes are seen as crucial to the fate of the unprecedented insurance mandate.

Excessive authority.

Indeed.

Perhaps sanity and reason will prevail after all.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. And Justice Antonin Scalia asked if the government might require Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles.

"If the government can do this, what else can it ... do?” Scalia asked.

Tough crowd.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. tried to argue that the insurance mandate would not open the door to other requirements to buy products because healthcare is unique.

"Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” said Verrilli, who was prodded on by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberal justices. That means that if someone elects not to get health insurance but then gets sick, as everyone will, that person will pass along costs to everyone else, Verrilli explained.

True, and virtually everyone eats food. Some purchase it while others grow and slaughter their own. In doing so, they deprive grocers, wholesalers and others of their ability to earn a living.

Will the government decide to mandate that everyone purchase food through a food exchange and further restrict what they can and cannot buy? If they fail to buy the government mandated food items will they be penalized (or taxed)?

I find it humorous, in a morbid way of course, that the government is making their plea for "fairness" by stating those who do not purchase insurance cause health care cost shifting which results in higher premiums.

While this is true, the number of folks without insurance who fail to pay their bills is relatively small. Many states, including Georgia, allow someone to retroactively sign up for Medicaid AFTER THEY BECOME ILL OR INJURED, thus shifting their burden to the taxpayers.

With 46 million on Medicare and 58 million on Medicaid, roughly a third of the population is covered by a taxpayer funded plan with low reimbursements. The level of compensation by Medicare and Medicaid is, in many cases, below cost for most medical providers. The result is a cost shift to those with private insurance and/or the ability to pay out of pocket. That group pays a higher premium than would otherwise be required if not for the low reimbursement levels of those on government health insurance plans.

The government contributes more to high health insurance costs and premiums more than the deadbeats who are uninsured and do not pay their bills.

Bring out the torches and pitchforks.

ObamneyCare© and the MVNHS©: Twin sons...

Back in the late 70's, two really talented guys got together and created some timeless tunes. Their first collaboration was an incentive for a host of others who followed in their footsteps.

And so it is with the Much Vaunted National Health System© and ObamneyCare©. While the legal future of the latter is playing out as we speak, the former is well-established, and provides us a first-hand look at our own future under the bill we had to pass to learn what's in it:

"Thousands of elderly people are dying unnecessarily early because “despicable” age discrimination in the NHS is denying them treatment for cancer ... A lack of treatment or insufficient treatment is contributing to 14,000 deaths a year in people over the age of 75"

In England, they call that the NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). Here it's known as the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board). They are, however, twin sons of different mothers.

Not exactly music to these ears.

[Hat Tip: PowerLine]

SCOTUS Secrets


Did you know SCOTUS has a blog? Neither did I.

If you have an interest in whazzup in the high court, here you go.

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More