Health Care: To Tax or Not To Tax

March 15, 2010 – 1:40 am

Forget the economy, forget Russia, forget even Fannie and Freddie. If you’re looking for your first full-time job, or you’re between employers, or if you work now for a small company that offers no health plan, your main concern might be how to get health insurance.

Would you prefer a $5,000 tax credit toward buying a family health insurance policy and more competition among insurance providers (McCain), or a national public health care plan and additional regulation of insurance markets (Obama)? Do these plans raise or lower your taxes?
To the extent that voters decide on issues as well as party and personality, how Americans react to these two proposals could affect who wins the election.

Senator McCain’s plan would cost less than Senator Obama’s and would raise fewer taxes. Yet it is Mr. McCain’s plan that is being demonized as a tax increase. In speeches last week in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden, Mr. Obama’s choice for vice president, repeatedly said that Mr. McCain’s health care plan would amount to a tax increase — without mentioning the new tax credit.

Here’s what the two plans would do.
Mr. McCain would give Americans refundable tax credits of $2,500 per individual, $5,000 per family, to buy health insurance. He would pay for this by changing the current tax status of employer-provided insurance, and including employer-paid health premiums in workers’ taxable income. The proposed tax credit would wipe out the new tax liability for nearly every worker.

Workers in the 25% tax bracket pay an extra $5,000 in tax on an additional $20,000 of income. So a $5,000 credit would offset the federal tax on employer-paid premiums up to $20,000 — and an average plan only costs $12,000 per year, according to the bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care.

The tax credit would also be available for individuals — employed, self-employed, unemployed — who buy health coverage independently, although not to seniors on Medicare. People with pre-existing conditions who could not get health insurance would be insured through new state Guaranteed Access Plans.

With the tax advantage shifting to individuals from employers, people would not have to worry about losing their insurance when they change jobs — just as they aren’t concerned about losing their auto or home insurance.

The tax credit would be “refundable,” meaning that it would go to people who don’t owe tax. If it exceeded the cost of a plan, the individual would get the difference credited to a Health Savings Account, whose balances could be used to pay for insurance premiums and other health care costs.

The McCain plan would knock down state-line barriers to private health insurance plans and expand Health Savings Accounts. The combination of tax credits, nationwide insurance, and savings accounts would lead to increased competition among insurance companies, potentially driving down premiums.

Some people in upper income tax brackets with generous employer health plans would find that the new tax credit does not offset the tax liability — the extra tax they owe from including employer-paid premiums in their income.

But this would be a relatively small group. Under Senator McCain’s plan, families whose marginal tax rate is 40% or less would see a tax decrease. Since the top federal rate is 35%, families would pay 40% only because of state taxes.

Senator Obama would set up a new health insurance plan, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It would be open to all, with “affordable” premiums and co-payments.
In addition, he proposes a new National Health Insurance Exchange to regulate private insurance underwriters by “creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible.” Those who could not meet the standards would close.

Private insurance plans would have to offer coverage as generous as the public plans, including “preventative, maternity, and mental health care.”

In a third Obama provision, some employers who offer health insurance now would have to pay higher premiums in order to raise benefits to the level of the new public plan. Those employers who don’t offer health insurance would be required to pay into the new plan. These obligatory payments can be described in one word — taxes.

Mr. Obama estimates the cost of his plan at between $50 billion and $60 billion, including prospective cost-saving ideas, which he plans to pay for through higher income taxes on those making more than $250,000.

This estimate is clearly unrealistic. The insurance program for federal employees is of a higher quality and more costly than typical private-sector coverage. Extending it to allow 300 million Americans to participate would likely cost far more than $60 billion and need additional sources of revenue.

Americans know that health insurance needs to change to be easily accessible and portable, like auto and home insurance. Do we get there through higher taxes and regulation, or by tax incentives and individual choice?

Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

In Down Economy, Americans Consider Life Insurance More Important Than Ever

March 14, 2010 – 7:40 pm

In these challenging economic times, Americans have made numerous adjustments to shore up their family finances. Savings rates are on the rise, debt is being consolidated and slowly paid down, and people are spending and investing their money more conservatively. It may be time to add another trend to the list. According to a new survey released by the nonprofit LIFE Foundation, 56 percent of Americans say the economic downturn has made it more important to have life insurance, compared to just nine percent who believe the need has diminished. Moreover, over the past year more people appear to have added to their life insurance coverage than have lost or reduced their coverage.

In Down Economy, Americans Consider Life Insurance More Important Than Ever
Source: PR Newswire

Actuary Reviews Illustration Proposal

March 14, 2010 – 1:40 pm

Insurers that try to illustrate annuity performance graphically should provide at least 2 standard illustrations, a veteran actuary says.

Steven Ostlund of the Alabama Department of Insurance has given that recommendation in a comment letter submitted to the Annuity Disclosures Working Group at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo…

National Underwriter: Actuary Reviews Illustration Proposal

$200 Million Wage-and-Hour Suit Filed Against Northwestern Mutual

March 14, 2010 – 7:40 am

Three financial representatives who worked for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. have filed a $200 million lawsuit against the company for failing to pay them overtime wages under California and federal law.

The suit was filed on Thursday in federal court in San Diego on behalf of all sales and financial representatives at Northwestern Mutual who allegedly were denied overtime compensation. Lint v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., No. 09-cv-1373 (S.D. Calif.).

“They’ve got a system of white-collar peonage here. The class members are tightly controlled. They work huge hours and they earn very little money, ridiculously low sums,” said Jeremy Heisler, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based Sanford Wittels & Heisler…

Law.com: $200 Million Wage-and-Hour Suit Filed Against Northwestern Mutual

Seven Myths About Flood Insurance

March 14, 2010 – 1:40 am

Floods happen with great regularity in the United States. In recent years, we have witnessed entire cities underwater in the spring floods along the Mississippi River. However, floods can happen in unexpected areas and for unexpected reasons. Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide insurance protection for the hazard of flood.

The standard homeowner policy (HO-3) defines flood as follows:

“…A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas due to:
1. The overflow of inland or tidal waters;
2. The unusual or rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; or
3. Mudslides.

Remember Hurricane Katrina? The hurricane winds blew flood waters into areas that had never had floods before. The insurance industry denied thousands of claims, attributing the damages to flood. Thousands of property owners who were nowhere near a flood plain had their claims denied because they did not have flood insurance.

So, here are seven common myths about Flood Insurance.

Myth #1: Homeowners, renters, and business property insurance policies cover flood damage.

No, homeowners, renters, and business property insurance policies do not cover floods. The NFIP policy is a separate policy that does cover flood damage to a home or business. Contents coverage can also be added to the flood policy. Policies are available to property owners as well as property renters, whether home or business.

Myth #2: Only homeowners and business owners can buy flood insurance.

Fact is that most homeowners, renters, condo owners, and businesses in NFIP participating communities can buy flood insurance. Policy limits are:

• Home and Condo Owners - $250,000 in structural coverage, $100,000 in contents coverage
• Renters - $100,000 in contents coverage
• Business owners and renters - $500,000 in structural coverage, $500,000 in contents coverage

Myth #3: You can’t buy flood insurance if you are in a high-risk zone.

Fact is that you can buy NFIP coverage no matter where you live, as long as your community participates in the NFIP.

Myth #4: You can’t buy flood insurance if you’ve been flooded before.

Fact is that as long as your community participates in NFIP, you can buy flood insurance.

Myth #5: You can’t buy flood insurance immediately before or during a flood.

Fact is that you can buy NFIP flood insurance any time. There is usually a 30-day waiting period before the effective date of the policy. Also, the policy does not cover a loss in progress, which is defined in the policy as a loss occurring at midnight on the date your policy goes into effect. So, the new policy won’t cover past or current losses, only losses after the policy goes into effect.

Myth #6: If you live in an area that is not a flood zone, you don’t need flood insurance.

Fact is that floods occur regularly in places that are not mapped flood zones. 25% of NFIP’s claims come from low-to-medium risk zones. On the other hand, if you live in a flood zone, you likely cannot finance a home loan without buying flood insurance.

Myth #7: FEMA disaster assistance will pay for flood damage.

Fact is that unless your area is declared a disaster area, there is no FEMA assistance. Fewer than 50% of floods are declared a disaster area. And, if you don’t have flood insurance when the flood occurs, you will have to buy and keep flood coverage to be eligible for future benefits.

Don’t allow your property to be damaged by flood without having the proper insurance coverage. Get the coverage you need, and don’t wait any longer.

For all the details about Flood Insurance, go to: www.floodsmart.gov

Tax Question Stalls AIG, MetLife Deal

March 13, 2010 – 7:40 pm

The pending $15 billion sale of a large foreign life-insurance unit of American International Group Inc. to MetLife Inc. is being held up by a tax dispute that may require a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service, according to people familiar with the matter.

The tax issue could put the Department of the Treasury, as overseer of the Internal Revenue Service, in an awkward situation. The Treasury is supervising AIG while trying to recoup taxpayers’ $120 billion-odd investment in AIG and related entities…

WSJ: Tax Question Stalls AIG, MetLife Deal

Breakfast Briefing International Edition: China steps up Internet feud, Avatar nears world box-office record…

March 13, 2010 – 1:40 pm

.subtle { color: #888888; }
China steps up Internet feud, accusing U.S. of using Web to stir unrest in Iran - online.wsj
BNP Paribas Real Estate Gets 3-Yr IBM Property Pact - Source - online.wsj
Crovitz: Google, China and the Shores of Tripoli - online.wsj
Suicides Inside France Telecom Prompting Sarkozy Stress Testing - businessweek
Ferrero rules out bid for Cadbury - marketwatch

‘Avatar’ closer to world box-office record - marketwatch
Cheung Kong Wins Bid For Property Project In Kowloon - foxbusiness
China Economy to Grow 9.5% in 2010: State Economist - cnbc
In Canada, Unequal Access to Cancer Drugs Creates A ‘Postal-Code Lottery’ to Get Treatment - mjperry
Asian Stocks Fall for Sixth Day on Bank Capital, Profit Concern - businessweek

European shares down for fourth day in a row - marketwatch
China State-Run Paper Says Clinton Internet Speech Hypocritical - foxbusiness
Gold Gains in London on Speculation Dollar Will Stoke Demand - bloomberg
Iraq seals oil deal with Exxon Mobil, Shell group - finance.yahoo
Chinese Entrepreneurs Will Set Examples At The Shanghai World Expo - forbes

The Financial War Against Iceland

March 13, 2010 – 7:40 am

Being defeated by debt is as deadly as outright military warfare.

Iceland is under attack – not militarily­ but financially. It owes more than it can pay. This threatens debtors with forfeiture of what remains of their homes and other assets. The government is being told to sell off the nation’s public domain, its natural resources and public enterprises to pay the financial gambling debts run up irresponsibly by a new banking class. This class is seeking to increase its wealth and power despite the fact that its debt-leveraging strategy already has plunged the economy into bankruptcy. On top of this, creditors are seeking to enact permanent taxes and sell off public assets to pay for bailouts to themselves.

Being defeated by debt is as deadly as outright military warfare. Faced with loss of their property and means of self-support, many citizens will get sick, lead lives of increasing desperation and die early if they do not repudiate most of the fraudulently offered loans of the past five years. And defending its civil society will not be as easy as it is in a war where the citizenry stands together in coping with a visible aggressor. Iceland is confronted by more powerful nations, headed by the United States and Britain. They are unleashing their propagandists and mobilizing the IMF and World Bank to demand that Iceland not defend itself by wiping out its bad debts. Yet these creditor nations so far have taken no responsibility for the current credit mess. And indeed, the United States and Britain are net debtors on balance. But when it comes to their stance vis-à-vis Iceland, they are demanding that it impoverish its citizens by paying debts in ways that these nations themselves would never follow. They know that it lacks the money to pay, but they are quite willing to take payment in the form of foreclosure on the nation’s natural resources, land and housing, and a mortgage on the next few centuries of its future…

Global Research of Canada: The Financial War Against Iceland

Insurance agents to Dodd: Don’t force us to take on RIA role

March 13, 2010 – 1:40 am

Life insurance agents’ advocacy groups teamed up on Friday to ask Connecticut Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, R-Conn., to reconsider a legislative provision that would require life agents to become registered investment advisers… Investment News: Insurance agents to Dodd: Don’t force us to take on RIA role

USAA Life Insurance gains new leadership

March 12, 2010 – 7:40 pm

USAA Life Insurance Co. has named J. Eric Smith as the company’s new president… In his new role, Smith will oversee product development, strategic marketing and member services. Smith was most recently president of Allstate Financial Services LLC, the unit of Northbrook, Ill.-based Allstate Corp. (NYSE: ALL) that sells health insurance, annuities, mutual and securities…

BizJournals: USAA Life Insurance gains new leadership