Free Download Articles, Softwares, E-Books, Tutorials, and News Online

WASHINGTON — The health insurance industry said Wednesday that it would support a health care overhaul requiring insurers to accept all customers, regardless of illness or disability. But in return, the industry said, Congress should require all Americans to have coverage.

The proposals, put forward by the insurers’ two main trade associations, have the potential to reshape and advance the debate over universal health insurance just as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.

In separate actions, the two trade groups, America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, announced their support for guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, in conjunction with an enforceable mandate for individual coverage.

In the absence of such a mandate, insurers said, many people will wait until they become sick before they buy insurance.

Members of Congress said Wednesday that they wanted to pass legislation next year, as proposed by Mr. Obama, to expand coverage and rein in health care costs.

The new position taken by the insurance industry — the industry that helped sink President Bill Clinton’s plan for universal health coverage in 1994 — could ease the way for passage of such legislation.

But the industry’s position differs from that of Mr. Obama in one significant respect. Insurers want the government to require everyone to have and maintain insurance. By contrast, Mr. Obama would, at least initially, apply the requirement only to children.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, that was a major point of contention between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Mrs. Clinton said that everyone should be required to have coverage. Mr. Obama said he wanted to be certain that insurance was affordable and available to all before considering such a broad requirement.

Asked on Wednesday for reaction to the insurance industry’s proposals, Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama transition team, said, “We are declining comment.” Mr. Vietor cited Mr. Obama’s view that “we have only one president at a time.”

In many cases, people with cancer, diabetes, traumatic brain injuries or other serious afflictions have found that they cannot obtain health insurance at any price.

Research suggests that some insurers turn down 10 percent or more of applicants for individual coverage because of their pre-existing medical conditions.

Donald G. Hamm Jr., president of Assurant Health, explained why the industry thought an individual mandate must be coupled with any ban on such underwriting practices.

“In the individual market, people can choose whether or not to apply for coverage,” Mr. Hamm said in an interview. “If they know they can obtain coverage at any time, many will wait until they get sick to apply for it. That increases the price for everyone.”

Insurers say that is just what happened in several states that prohibited insurers from turning down applicants on the basis of their health status.

The new policy statements are silent on two important issues: how to enforce an individual mandate and how to regulate insurance prices, or premiums.

While insurers would be required to sell insurance to any applicant, nothing would guarantee that consumers could afford it. Rate regulation promises to be a highly contentious issue, since it pits the financial interests of insurers against those of consumers.

At present, insurance premiums are generally regulated by the states and often vary according to a person’s age, sex, medical history and place of residence within a state. In the individual market in most states, a person with a history of serious or chronic illness can be charged much more than a healthy person of the same age and sex.

Mr. Hamm, a member of the board of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the group might offer recommendations to define “a fair and appropriate rating structure.”

Alissa Fox, a vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said the individual mandate was an indispensable corollary of any approach forbidding insurers to reject applicants because of health status.

“Insurance works best when everyone is in the pool,” Ms. Fox said. “You need healthy people in the insurance pool to help pay for sicker individuals who are much more motivated to buy coverage.”

Insurers did not say how the government should enforce an individual mandate: whether through fines, tax penalties or other means. Politicians have also been reluctant to specify details of enforcement, which could prove highly unpopular.

Taken from : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20health.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

Labels: Insurance

As life expectancy increases, so has the age at which 'life begins' – with many people supporting the idea that 'life begins at 50'. Unfortunately, travel insurance companies disagree. Or at least that is how it seems, considering how rapidly premiums rocket for those who are 50 or over. And as for those who are over 70, many "are shocked to find travel insurers unwilling to provide cover at prices they can afford", says Kara Gammell in The Daily Telegraph. So how do you find affordable travel insurance that won't leave you high and dry if you fall ill on holiday?
Consumers need to think of travel insurance as something they should tailor to their own needs, rather than an off-the-shelf product, says The Daily Telegraph. So one of the simplest ways of reducing the premium is to look carefully at the levelof cover you are being offered and then decide whether you actually need it all within the policy. For example, if you are travelling to Europe, opt for European cover rather than worldwide cover, as the latter includes America, where litigation and medical costs can push up the cost of cover. Also, consider covering personal possessions under your home insurance – and, as always, shop around for the best deal.

Labels: Insurance

The first difference lies in the akadnya. In the Sharia bank, all transactions must be based on the contract that allowed by the sharia. Thus, all transactions must follow the rules and regulations that apply to the contract-contract muamalah sharia. In a conventional bank, the opening of the account transactions, both giro, savings and time deposits, based on the agreement points, but the principle points are not in accordance with the rules of sharia, for example wadi'ah, because the gyro products, savings and time deposits, promising benefits to the level of fixed interest the money paid.
Second, there are differences in the benefits provided. The Bank uses the concept of conventional costs (the cost concept) to calculate benefits. This means that the interest promised in advance to the depositor is a customer fee or fees must be paid by the bank. Therefore, the bank must "sell" to other customers (borrowers) with the cost of higher interest rates. The differences between them called the indicative spreads whether the company is fortunately or loss. If it spreads positive, in which the burden of interest charged to borrowers from higher interest rates given to depositors, it can be said that the bank's benefit. Conversely also true.
Meanwhile, the bank sharia use the profit-sharing approach, meaning that the funds received will be distributed to bank financing. The benefits of financing is split into two, to the bank and to customers, based on profit sharing agreement in advance.
The third difference is the target credit / financing. The depositors in the bank is not a conventional aware that saved money loaned to various businesses, regardless of halal-illicit business.
Meanwhile, the sharia banks, savings and the distribution of the community are limited by basic principles, namely the principles of sharia means that the loan can not be to such illicit business, gambling, drink underway, pornography and other businesses that are not in accordance with sharia.

Labels: Banking